Cho-2017-China-2845 (Law No. 24, 2017)

The actual transaction price for the acquisition of the land in this case is confirmed.

Since the actual transaction price for the acquisition of the land in this case is confirmed, conversion acquisition value cannot be applied.

Article 97 of the Income Tax Act

2017Gudan3025 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

OO

O Head of tax office

February 23, 2018

March 2, 2018

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of the capital gains tax for 200O.O.O. for the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW O. principal tax + KRW OO. for additional tax + KRW O. for additional tax on negligent tax returns) each revocation of the part exceeding KRW O0 (principal tax) of the disposition of imposition of the capital gains tax for 20O.O.O. for the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

(1) The AAA Corporation sold to the 19O.O.O. CCC the land of this housing site with respect to the 2nd phase construction project of BB new city:

The plaintiff submitted to the AA Corporation a written recognition of change in the name of the housing site stating the following matters, and requested the approval of the succession to the status of the buyer under the above sales contract, and around that time, AA Corporation approved it.

Article 28(1) of the Civil Act provides that the Plaintiff shall construct a new building (697.28m2, hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) on a 245m2 (a fixed parcel number BB, OO, hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) of the said migrant site, and transfers the instant land and buildings to a third party, and then make a preliminary return and payment of the transfer income tax for the 200O year by applying the conversion acquisition value as below.

Applicant 20O.O.O.O. For the plaintiff, the defendant confirmed the actual acquisition value of the land in this case + OO's purchase price + O's purchase price + O's purchase price stated in the plaintiff's request for pre-assessment review, "the disposition in this case is corrected for the increase of transfer income tax for 20O years as follows, and notified the difference of O's transfer income additionally.

(v) The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed 20O.O.O.O.

(based on recognition) facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 1, 2 and 4;

The purport of all pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(1) In the calculation of gains on transfer of land and buildings, the acquisition value, one of the necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value, shall be based on the actual transaction value incurred in the acquisition of the assets in question, and where it is impossible to confirm the actual transaction value, it shall be based on the transaction example, appraisal value, or conversion value as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

B. The plaintiff argues that since the plaintiff's actual acquisition value of the land in this case cannot be verified and there is no contract or document to prove it, the acquisition value should be calculated based on the conversion value because the actual acquisition value of the land in this case cannot be verified, and even if it is not so, the acquisition value should be determined based on the conversion value, since the cost of the premium that the plaintiff paid to CCC should be recognized as real acquisition value by adding it to the sale price, since it is not the OO members, but the sale price and the OOO members of the OOOO, the plaintiff recognized only the sum of the sale price and the OOO members of the OO, and therefore, the part corresponding to the tax amount of the disposition in this case should be revoked as illegal.

Article 20 of the Civil Code provides that the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion pointing out its illegality is without merit.

CCC acquired ownership of the land of this case by paying the remainder of the purchase price to the Plaintiff, while purchasing a housing site from AAA Corporation and paying part of the purchase price, and the Plaintiff succeeded to the status of the buyer, and the Plaintiff paid the purchase price to the Plaintiff and acquired ownership of the land of this case. CCC can be inferred that the Plaintiff received a certain amount of premium from the Plaintiff in addition to the purchase price paid by it to the Plaintiff. At the pre-assessment review stage, the Plaintiff submitted each confirmation document of DD and EEE that he participated in the resale of the sale price of this case while referring the purchase price of this case to the OO cost. In the pre-assessment review stage, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant also accepted such assertion by the Plaintiff and recognized the real acquisition price of the land of this case as the total amount of OOO and OO of the sale price of this case. In light of the above circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the actual transaction price of the land of this case constitutes the case.

The Plaintiff’s assertion that the FF Bank BB points, O-O-O, and evidence No. 8-1 of the Plaintiff’s name was deposited on June 27, 1996, that the amount of KRW 16.4 million was each deposited on August 1, 1996, that the Plaintiff’s deposit account (FF Bank B points, O-O-O-O-O-O-O, and evidence No. 8-2) was deposited on July 2, 1997, that the amount of KRW 9.70,000,000,000,000 won was collected on July 16, 1997, KRW 97,000,000,000 won was collected on July 28, 197, KRW 97,000,000,000 won was collected on July 28, 197, KRW 97,000,000,000 won.

It is necessary for the plaintiff to assert and prove that the amount of the premium actually paid by the plaintiff exceeds the amount of the OO recognized by the defendant. Thus, even though it can be clearly presented by the plaintiff, it is not possible for the plaintiff to properly assert and prove that the amount of the premium exceeds the amount of the OO, it cannot be recognized that the amount of the OO is exceeding the amount of the OO.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.