If it is impossible to confirm the actual transfer value, it is possible to calculate the transfer value.

Where there is no book, sales contract, receipt, or other documentary evidence to confirm the actual transaction price at the time of transfer, or where it is impossible to confirm the actual transaction price at the time of transfer due to the lack of important parts, the transfer value may be calculated by

Article 176-2 Estimation and Revision of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

2013Guhap363 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax, etc.

1.A 2. GaB

1. Ulsan director of the tax office;

September 18, 2014

October 16, 2014

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

The disposition taken by the head of Ulsan District Tax Office on July 5, 2012 against the Plaintiff Egypted in the capital gains tax for the year 2004, the deductible tax amount for the Egypted in the capital gains tax, the additional tax for the Egypted in May 7, 2013 is revoked. The disposition taken against the Plaintiff Egypted in the capital gains tax for the year 2004, notified to the Plaintiff Egypted in the Seoul District Tax Office on July 5, 2012, including the additional tax for the Egypted in the aggregate of the capital gains tax for the Egypted in the capital gains tax, the deductible tax amount for the Egypted in the capital gains tax for the Egypted in the Republic of Korea, and the additional tax

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on December 16, 2002 by 1/2 shares of each of the plaintiffs on December 13, 2002 with respect to the OO 682-6 3,002 m2 m2 (hereinafter "the land in this case"), which is the owner of the KimCC, as OO OO, the OO 682-6 m2 (hereinafter "the land in this case"). B. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on the same day on July 19, 2004 as OO, the acquisition value of the land in this case, the transfer value, the transfer value, and the OOO m2 respectively. The transfer income amount was submitted to the defendants on July 29, 2004 by each of the plaintiffs.

C. The land of this case was sold through voluntary auction on June 29, 2010. The acquisition price of the land of this case was stated as OOO, transfer income - OOO won, and the purchase contract was submitted to the Defendants on November 23, 2010." (D. The Defendants conducted a tax investigation on the grounds that the transfer price of the land of this case declared by the Plaintiffs and the transfer price of the land of this case under the return of the tax base of transfer income and the revised tax base of transfer income under the revised tax return and the revised tax base of transfer income under the revised tax return and the revised tax base of transfer income, which were reported by DoD, are inconsistent with the acquisition price of the land of this case. The transfer price of this case was determined as KRW 20,000,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000.

F. Since then, on May 22, 2013, the Defendants revoked the penalty tax imposed on the Plaintiffs on July 5, 2012 on the grounds that the type of penalty tax and the grounds for calculation thereof have not been specified, and impose the penalty tax imposed on the Plaintiffs again until May 31, 2013 of the same day (hereinafter referred to as “the imposition imposition imposed on the capital gains tax imposed on July 5, 2012 after deducting the deductible KRW OOOOO(s) from the deductible tax amount imposed on the capital gains tax imposed on July 5, 2012, and imposed the penalty tax imposed on May 22, 2013, hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant dispositions”).”, “The grounds for recognition”, “No dispute exists, evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Nos. 1 through 5, and Nos. 10 through 13 (including the number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of each of the arguments, as a whole, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

For the following reasons, each of the dispositions of this case must be revoked as it is unlawful.

1) Around May 7, 2003, the Plaintiffs concluded a sales contract with EE to sell the instant land to EOO, and issued a seal imprint certificate and a certificate of seal impression at the request of EE, and the transfer income tax was known to have been paid by E.E. However, E made a provisional registration for the instant land by using the Plaintiff’s seal imprint certificate, etc., and sold the instant land to EE to EOO. However, each of the instant dispositions was in violation of the substance over form principle, on the premise that the Plaintiffs sold the instant land to EO.D.

2) The land in the instant case cannot be deemed as having been identical or similar to the land in this case. The land in the instant case and the land in this case were traded based on the usual price at the time of the sale and purchase, and there was an error by calculating the transaction example by converting it into a lot of land, even though it was traded based on the usual price at the time of the sale and purchase. The surrounding area of the instant land was in heavy condition at the time of land price

3) The Plaintiffs were imposed after the lapse of the above period, on the grounds that they did not confirm the details of the sale and purchase of the instant land by EE, and they did not commit fraud or other unlawful acts under Article 26-2(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, since each of the instant dispositions was imposed within the exclusion period of five years.

4) Each of the instant dispositions was imposed five years after the expiration date of the period for filing the final return of capital gains tax base, and the extinctive prescription of national tax collection right is completed.

B. Relevant statutes

The facts of recognition are as stated in the Attached Related Acts and subordinate statutes.

"1) After acquiring the instant land from KimCC for the purpose of resale marginal profit, the Plaintiffs, without permission, prepared a sales contract on June 30, 2003, stating the purchase price OOO, remainder payment date, 1, the seller ParkbB, 1, the buyer EE and 1, and the date of preparation on May 7, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the sales contract of this case") with EE as the seller’s request for the purchase of the instant land, and thereafter, the Plaintiffs issued to EE a certificate of seal impression and a certificate of seal impression on every request. The Plaintiffs, without receiving any balance on the payment date of the remainder, had the Plaintiff OOB, the debtor, the debtor, and the debtor of the instant land registered as a collateral for the establishment of a mortgage on July 16, 203 with respect to the instant land under the name of EE.

3) The EE receives investment funds from the KFF, and five other persons who create marginal profits from the resale of the instant land. The EE completed the registration of the Plaintiffs’ right to claim the transfer of their entire shares, which was based on their purchase and sale promise made on July 15, 2003, including the KFF and five other persons, from the KNF, on July 19, 2003, using the KNF and the certificate of personal seal impression.

4) On July 16, 2004, EE borrowed OOO as the borrowed amount under the name of the transfer income tax on the land of this case and subsequently made up a certificate of borrowing that it will lose its validity at the same time as the transfer income tax was paid.

5) From the plaintiffs on July 19, 2004 regarding the land of this case, the registration for the transfer of all co-owners' shares was completed on the same day, and provisional registration was revoked on the same day on the same day, and the provisional registration was revoked in the future of five persons, other than KF, and four persons, including 2004, 7, 22, HaH, and HaH, on the ground of a pre-sale agreement as of July 19, 2004, the provisional registration for the transfer of ownership was completed.

“6) As seen earlier, when the Plaintiffs filed a return on the tax base of capital gains on July 29, 2004 with the Defendants respectively, the sales contract of the instant land was signed and sealed by the 1B seller, the 2OB seller, KimCC, the Plaintiffs, and the 1st day of November 16, 204 (hereinafter “the instant report purchase contract”) and the OB buyer, the 2OB buyer, the 3OB buyer’s seal purchase and sale contract (hereinafter “the 2OB sales contract”) signed and sealed on June 19, 204, and the 3OB buyer’s seal purchase and sale contract (hereinafter “the 2OB sales contract”) signed and sealed by the 3OB buyer, the 20OO buyer’s seal purchase and sale contract of the instant land was signed and sealed by the 1st day of June 29, 2010.

D. Determination

1) Whether the substance over form principle is violated

A) The substance over form principle under the Framework Act on National Taxes, in cases where there is another person to whom the income, profit, property, transaction, etc. belongs, unlike the person to whom the income, profit, etc., belongs, is to be the person to whom the income, etc., actually belongs, rather than the person to whom the income, belongs, on the ground of form and appearance. Thus, the nominal owner of the property has no ability to manage it, and there is another person to substantially control it through the control, etc. over the nominal owner, and in cases where the disparity between the nominal owner and the substance arises from the purpose of tax evasion, the income on the property shall be deemed to be attributed to the person to whom the actual control over the property is responsible for tax payment (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du000 OOOO, Jul. 11, 2013). The burden of proof exists that the income belongs only under the substance over form and the person to whom the income actually accrues exists (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu505, Dec. 11, 1984

B) In this case, although the sales contract of this case was prepared between the plaintiffs and E. 1, the plaintiffs were aware of the above facts, i.e., the plaintiffs purchased the land of this case, i.e., the original marginal profit from the sale, i., the specific elements of the other party to the sales contract for the sale of the land of this case; ii E is not simply intended to purchase the land of this case as the person responsible for the GGG E&A operating real estate development business and real estate brokerage business, but it is located in the location of the purchaser for the land of this case. The plaintiffs could not be seen as having been able to use the above provisional registration of this case's 1, 2013 for the remaining payment date under the sales contract of this case's 1, 201. The plaintiffs could be seen as having been 1, EE's ownership and 2, which are expected to have been used for the sale of this case's land of this case to E. 1, 2013.

A) According to the proviso of Article 114 (4) and (5) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7837 of Dec. 31, 2005), where a resident makes a preliminary or final return of tax base of transfer income, and where the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the director of the regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment confirms the actual transaction price different from the fact, he/she shall revise the transfer value or the tax base of transfer income by using such confirmed value as the transfer value or the acquisition value. In such cases, where the transfer value or acquisition value is determined based on the books or other evidential documents as prescribed by Presidential Decree and it is impossible to recognize or confirm the actual transaction price as at the time of transfer or acquisition, appraisal value, conversion price (referring to the acquisition value converted by the method prescribed by Presidential Decree) or standard market price of the assets before and after the date of acquisition, and where the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18705, Feb. 19, 2005) provides that the value of receipts or other evidential documents within 20

B) According to the above facts in this case, according to the above facts, four sales contracts of this case were submitted to the defendants with regard to the transfer of the plaintiffs' land in this case by the purchaser and the date of preparation, respectively. The above sales contracts of this case were to be submitted to the defendants. Since there are no books, sales contracts, receipts, and other documentary evidence necessary to confirm the actual transaction price at the time of transfer, or there are no important parts, the transfer price can be calculated by transaction example because the actual transaction price at the time of transfer of the land in this case cannot be confirmed. Meanwhile, in full view of the purport of the arguments in the above evidence Nos. 6, 8, and 9, the land in this case and the land in this case are adjacent immediately adjacent to the land in this case and the officially assessed land price in 204 is equal to OOO won at the time of sale in this case. Thus, even if the land in this case was sold to the plaintiff on July 21, 2004, the sale price of the land in this case, the sale price of this case, and the time and the land in this case seems to be unreasonable.

3) Whether the exclusion period is expired

A) Article 26-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013) provides for the exclusion period for the imposition of national taxes. Article 26-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides for the exclusion period for ten years from the date on which the national tax is assessable if a taxpayer evades, obtains a refund or deduction by fraudulent or other unlawful means (Article 10(1)); and seven years from the date on which the national tax is assessable if a taxpayer fails to file a tax base return within the statutory due date of return; and five years from the date on which the national tax is assessable if a taxpayer falls under subparagraphs 1 and 2 (Article 12-3(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (Article 12-3(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes). Article 10(1) of the former Income Tax Act provides that the transfer income tax base shall be reported to the head of the competent tax office for the following year from May 13 of the year.

B) Meanwhile, “Fraud and other unlawful acts” under Article 9(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act refers to fraudulent means or other active acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes, and the filing of a false contract together with the corporate account books that contain less sale price to credibility and conceal the actual transaction price is deemed to constitute “Fraud and other unlawful acts that make it considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes by actively deceptive act” (see Supreme Court Decision 2004DoOOOO. 11, June 11, 2004). In this case, according to the above facts, the following facts are as follows: (a) the return of tax base of capital gains tax and the dispatch order submitted by each of the plaintiffs; (b) the return contract of this case and the sales contract of this case were submitted to the defendants; (c) although the plaintiffs prepared a direct purchase contract of this case and the sales contract of this case with the defendants, and the plaintiffs did not submit the transfer income tax of this case to the Defendants, it is reasonable to impose the transfer income tax of this case and the transfer income tax of this case.

4) Whether the statute of limitations has expired

Article 27(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11604, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that the State’s right to collect national taxes shall be extinguished unless it is exercised for five years from the time it is possible to exercise such right. Paragraph (3) of the same Article provides that the State’s right to collect national taxes under paragraph (1) may be exercised for the period prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 12-4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that “the time when the State’s right to collect national taxes may be exercised” means the date falling under any of the following subparagraphs. In the case of national taxes for which tax base and tax amount are determined by declaration of tax base and tax amount, the tax base and tax amount of which are prescribed by subparagraph 1 are prescribed by subparagraph 2; subparagraph 2 are also the date following the due date for payment fixed by the Government, whichever is later than the due date for payment fixed by 200O; and

3. Conclusion

All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.