The early 2012Gu 3163

The validity of the disposition imposing the transfer value of the gas station of this case on the consideration of KRW 580,000,000.

In light of the fact that the sales contract of this case excludes KRW 20,000,000 from the tank glass value of KRW 600,000,000 under the sales contract of this case, and that the sales price of the gas station of this case is stipulated as KRW 600,00,000 in the written judgment on the related lawsuit, it is reasonable to view the transfer price of the gas station of this case as KRW 58,00

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act

2013Guhap10511 and revocation of transfer detailed and disposition

ConversionA

BB Director of the Tax Office

May 14, 2014

June 20, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On June 2, 2012, the Defendant revoked the imposition of capital gains tax by ○○○○○○○○ on the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 31, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a contract under which 00 ○○○○○○○, a gas station site of 16-1,200 square meters in its own possession, and 49.5 square meters in a single story, a cement brick slock slock, and a cement brick slock slock slock, and 68.75 square meters in a single story (hereinafter “instant contract”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of JungCC on January 25, 2008.

B. On November 25, 2009, the Plaintiff acquired the acquisition value of the instant gas station to the Defendant ○○○○○○○.

The transfer value was reported by using the transfer value as ○○○○○○, and ○○○ Commissioner of the National Tax Service.

On April 4, 2012 to April 23, 2012, a tax investigation was conducted against the plaintiff.

C. According to the result of the above tax investigation, the defendant ○○○○○○ (=the transfer value of the gas station of this case)

After recognizing the purchase price under the instant contract as ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○) and on June 8, 2012, the Plaintiff corrected and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer income tax attributed to the year 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On July 6, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed and requested for adjudication on July 6, 2012, but the Tax Tribunal decided to dismiss the request on January 30, 2013.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap Nos. 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 12, and 13 (each virtual lot number);

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff concluded the instant contract with JeongCC and received 000 won as down payment from JungCC. However, the Plaintiff did not pay the remainder of the sales payment.

The Defendant’s disposition of this case premised on the Plaintiff’s occurrence of capital gains by the contract of this case is unlawful, as it reversed and transferred the gas station of this case to DoD on April 8, 2008.

2) Even if it is not so, since the purchase price of the instant contract is included in the amount including ○○○○○○ and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, the actual purchase price of the instant gas station is merely ○○○○○○○.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On May 13, 2003, the Plaintiff registered the transfer of ownership in his name with respect to the gas station of this case.

On December 31, 2007, after concluding the contract of this case with Jeong-CC, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Jung-CC on January 25, 2008. On April 8, 2008, as to gas stations of this case, the registration of ownership transfer was completed due to the sale on the 7th day of the same month in the name of Jung-D.

2) As to the gas station of this case, the following content is that the Plaintiff and JeongCC as the obligor:

The registration of the establishment of a new mortgage was completed respectively.

3) FullCC loans from An Agricultural Cooperative to ○○○○○○○○○, as set forth in No. 1.

On February 1, 2008, the secured debt ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was repaid and cancelled, and on February 1, 2008, the agricultural bank account (Account Number: ○○○○○○○○○○) transferred from regularCC’s account to the Plaintiff’s account. Moreover, on February 1, 2008, the JungCC established the mortgage No. 8-mortgage, and then on February 1, 2008.

Coordinating number: ○○○○○○ was deposited.

4) On April 23, 2012, the Plaintiff stated as follows at the time of tax investigation (Evidence B No. 7).

5) EE worked as the chief of accounting department at the instant gas station from January 24, 2003 to January 24, 2008;

On April 23, 2012, when the tax investigation was conducted on April 23, 2012, the following statements were made (Evidence B No. 8).

6) Standard on December 31, 2007 submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of filing a global income tax return on the instant gas station

On the standard balance sheet, sales claims are shown as ○○○○○.

7) Around April 2012, FF, who arranged the sale of the instant gas station, made a statement as follows at the time of a tax investigation (Evidence No. 10) and FF, filed a lawsuit claiming commission for the sale of the instant gas station against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “related lawsuit”). On December 9, 2009, the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the claim for commission on the grounds that the sales price of the instant gas station was KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000 won

8) On October 14, 2009, HoD purchased gas stations of this case from JungCC re-sale the gas stations of this case to the headG. In light of the details of the purchase price, the sum of the instant land and buildings ○○○○○○, underground tanks, main organic pipelines, and loans ○○○○○○○○○.

The facts without any dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 2, 3, 8, Eul's evidence Nos. 4, 6 through 12, 16, 17, 21, and 22 (including various numbers), the fact-finding inquiry and reply about ○○ loans Co., Ltd. in this court, as a result of this court's inquiry and reply to this court's order to submit each financial transaction information to ○○ Agricultural Co., Ltd. and ○○ Agricultural Co., Ltd. 2, 3, 8

D. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

The Plaintiff asserts that JeongCC did not pay the remainder of the down payment, and that it reversed the instant contract and transferred the instant gas station to MaD on April 8, 2008, and that it did not pay the down payment. Thus, the Plaintiff stated the following to the effect that, ① is Maddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

2) Judgment on the second argument

Article 94 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act shall apply to land or building for capital gains generated in the relevant taxable period.

The current transaction value of the relevant assets, which serves as the basis for calculating capital gains tax, means the value of assets acquired or transferred at the time of transaction and received in return for such acquisition or transfer, which is objectively recognizable by sales contract or other documentary evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du27592, Feb. 9, 2012).

According to the above facts of recognition and the evidence mentioned above, the following circumstances, i.e., the instant case

(8) Of the purchase price of 600 million won on the contract, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, the facilities and structures attached to the instant gas station should be included in the tax base for capital gains. The value of the structure ○○○○○○○○. ③ The instant contract lacks any indication as to whether the sales claim of the instant gas station is included in the sale subject matter. ④ From 2003 to January 24, 2008, this FF, who had worked as the head of accounting division, did not include the sales claim amount of the instant contract at the time of the tax investigation, and stated that the sales claim amount of the instant gas station was lower than the sales price amount of the instant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s sales claim was not included in the sales claim amount of the instant gas station’s sales tank at the time of the instant contract.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.