early 2012 Middle 0693 (Law No. 18, 2012)

No appraisal value shall be deemed unfair to be the market price.

In relation to the lease of a commercial building, it is not sufficient to regard the debt as a debt for business confirmed by the simple book keeping and keeping in the workplace, and it is not unreasonable to regard the appraisal value as the market price.

2012Guhap3402 Revocation of Disposition of Levying Inheritance Tax

LAAA and 2 others

Deputy Director of the Tax Office

April 19, 2013

May 10, 2013

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 000 on October 11, 201 against the Plaintiffs is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. around May 28, 2004, the decedent YBB moved to New Zealand, and around December 17, 2009, the decedent was the heir of YBB.

B. On April 15, 2010, the Plaintiffs reported the tax base and tax amount with the inherited property value of KRW 000,000. On October 11, 2011, the Defendant reported the tax base and tax amount. On October 11, 2011, the value of the inherited property in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu OOdong 00-89, 000-90, and 00-91 (hereinafter referred to as the “three parcels of real property in this case”) was underreported by KRW 000,000, and upon denying the deduction of KRW 000,000, the amount of the inherited property was determined to be KRW 000,000, and the tax base was determined to be determined to be KRW 000,000, and the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the payment of KRW 100,000,000 calculated the amount of the tax initially reported under the above determined tax amount, and the penalty tax was paid to be KRW 000,000.

C. The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 5, 2012, but was dismissed on April 18, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, evidence A 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole argument in evidence A to 2

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

(a) the obligation of 000 won to YellowBB, and KimG, shall be deducted from inherited property, due to the obligation borne by YellowBBBB, by appointing DH as a domestic manager and operating a business leasing O-dong 000, Seocheon-gu O-dong, Seocheon-si;

B. Among the real estate reported by the plaintiffs as inherited property, the three lots of real estate in this case and the No. 000, 000, 000, 0000 (hereinafter referred to as "five parcels of real estate in this case") were owned by the former father of the plaintiffs, and on December 31, 1974, the most II was deceased on December 1, 1974, and the registration of ownership transfer was again made to YBB. Since the registration of ownership transfer in the name of J was made by the application of the largest II after the death of the second II, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of YB is also null and void. Accordingly, since the five parcels of real estate in this case are the largest II, it is unlawful that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of YB in this case is based on the premise that it is inherited property, and that it is inherited from YB.

C. The appraisal value applied to the three lots of real estate in this case is not confirmed within 6 months before or after the base date of appraisal, and thus an amount calculated on the basis thereof is in violation of Article 60 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

D. Article 47 3-0-1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the provisions on penalty taxes for underreporting shall not apply in cases where the taxation standards are determined by the values appraised pursuant to Article 60(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and it is unlawful to impose penalty taxes for underreporting by making the value of the instant real estate 3 implementation underreporting than the tax base.

3. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

4. Determination

A. Whether it is a business obligation

According to Article 14(2)3 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9924, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act"), in order to deduct the debt of YBBB, a non-resident, from the value of inherited property, the obligation must be verified as a business obligation by means of books kept and kept in the domestic place of business of YBBB. The YellowBBB is a simple person subject to simple bookkeeping in principle pursuant to Article 70(4)3 and Article 160(2) of the Income Tax Act. According to Article 160(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9924, Jan. 1, 201; hereinafter referred to as the "former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act"), YellowBB did not make a final return on global income for 208, and it was not sufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiffs’ debt of YBB is not a simple account book for 4 years 20000, but less than the Plaintiffs’ debt of 2000.

B. Whether the five parcels of the instant real estate are inherited property

If the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of a third party after the death of the former owner, the above registration is highly likely to have been made upon the application of the former owner’s heir. Thus, the mere fact that the registration of ownership transfer was made after the death of the former owner cannot be deemed null and void by the application of the former owner. The mere fact that the Plaintiffs asserted that the five parcels of the real estate in this case were not inherited property whose predecessor was YBB as the deceased, and this part of the assertion is rejected.

C. The value of three parcels of the instant real estate

Article 60 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the market value of the property on which the inheritance tax or gift tax is imposed shall be the market value as of the date of commencing the inheritance or the date of donation; and Article 60 (2) of the same Act provides that the market value shall be generally established if the property is traded freely among many and unspecified persons; and Article 49 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22042, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") provides that the above appraisal value shall not be deemed the market value at an objective and reasonable market value of the above 6th appraisal value; and that the appraisal value of the property shall not be deemed the market value at an objective and reasonable market value of the above 9th appraisal value, including the appraisal value at the time of the above 6th appraisal value, and that the appraisal value shall not be deemed the average market value of the property at issue value.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiffs' assertion.

(d) Additional tax for underreporting;

According to the purport of Eul evidence No. 6 and the entire arguments, and the additional tax for underreporting is not imposed on the underreporting of the tax base on the three lots of real estate of this case, but imposed on the underreporting of the tax base of 000 won for the above business. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' assertion on this part is not accepted.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety as there is no reason.