Cho High Court Decision 2010west068 ( November 04, 2010)

If the reported value is different from the facts, the transfer value is legitimate.

Even if the standard market price at the time of filing a transfer income tax return was able to report the transfer income tax with the transfer value, it is legitimate to impose the transfer income tax by using the actual transfer value confirmed as different from the reported value as the transfer value.

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act

Article 114 of the Income Tax Act

2011Gudan2869 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Section AA

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

June 29, 2011

July 20, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 15,843,930 on the Plaintiff on September 1, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff owned 00-00 OB andCC apartment BB, 000 000 dong (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”), and transferred on December 20, 202, the apartment of this case.

B. As to the transfer of the apartment of this case, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 241,475 as transfer income tax with the transfer value of KRW 97,00,000, acquisition value of KRW 87,000,000 as actual transaction value.

C. The Defendant reported the transfer income tax of KRW 138,00,000 on the transfer of the instant apartment from the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff confirmed that the actual transfer value of the instant apartment was KRW 138,00,000, and calculated the transfer margin based on the actual transfer value, and notified the Plaintiff on September 1, 2009 of the transfer income tax for KRW 15,843,930 for the year 2002.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1, 3 and 4, and the purport of the body before oral argument

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

At the time of reporting the transfer income tax on the transfer of apartment of this case, the Plaintiff was able to report the transfer income tax according to the standard market price at the time of reporting the transfer income tax, and if so, it was 950,000 won that would have been more paid, and it was unlawful to repeatedly calculate the transfer income tax by the amount of actual transaction confirmed not as the standard market price on the ground that the transfer value was low.

(b) relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 96 (1) 6 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7837 of Dec. 31, 2005) provides that the transfer value shall be calculated based on the actual transaction value if the transferor files a return on the actual transaction value at the time of transfer. The proviso of Article 114 (4) of the same Act provides that the transfer income tax shall be corrected based on the verified transfer value or acquisition value when the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the director of the regional tax office confirms the actual transaction value because the reported value is different from the actual transaction value. Thus, the Defendant’s excessive transfer income tax shall be deemed lawful disposition under the above provision on the ground that the transfer value, which is confirmed not as the standard market value after the Plaintiff confirms that the reported value is different from the actual transaction value, was the actual transaction value, and thus the Plaintiff could have filed a return on the transfer income tax by using the standard market price at the time of the Plaintiff’s initial return as the transfer value as claimed by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the disposition of this case is

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.