Where the actual acquisition value is not known, it is legitimate to recognize the acquisition value based on the conversion value.

It constitutes a case where the actual acquisition value of land is unknown, and the case value and appraisal value under the Income Tax Act are not known, and the disposition of this case by the Defendant based on the conversion value is lawful.

2016Gudan62781 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AA

○ Head of tax office

May 16, 2017

June 13, 2017

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 45,230,410 won and special rural development tax of 1,977,410 won on the Plaintiff on January 4, 2016 by the former Cheong-gu Defendant on January 4, 2016 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 5, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired a dispute from △△△△△△, ○○○○ Dong (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Dong”) with 1,509 square meters prior to 495,000 square meters (including 235 square meters prior to 495-18, Sept. 11, 2002, divided land; hereinafter referred to as “instant land”). The instant land was expropriated on June 26, 201 with ○○ Housing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”). On June 25, 2014, the Plaintiff reported the acquisition value of the instant land to the Defendant as 376,390,000 won, and the Defendant deemed that the acquisition value of the instant land could not be confirmed, and the Plaintiff was entitled to an objection to the instant disposition with the purport of 102,634,390,000 won or less as the acquisition value for each of the instant land, and 2014.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As the Plaintiff purchased the instant land in KRW 820,00 per square day, the actual acquisition price of the instant land is KRW 374,248,00.

B. Determination

1) The burden of proof of the tax base, which is the basis of taxation, is the tax authority for the revocation of the income tax disposition, and the tax base is deducted from necessary expenses. Therefore, the tax authority shall, in principle, bear the burden of proof of revenue and necessary expenses. However, since most of the facts causing necessary expenses are in the territory under the control of the taxpayer, and it is difficult for the tax authority to prove it. Thus, if it is reasonable to allow the taxpayer to prove it, taking into account the difficulty of proof, equity between the parties, etc., it accords with the concept of fairness (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du16137, Oct. 26, 2007). 2) The evidence of the acquisition value of the land in this case is evidence of each statement and witness evidence (including the identification number) of Article 5, 7 through 12, and witness evidence of △△△△. However, the above evidence alone is insufficient to find it differently from the actual acquisition value of the land in this case.

① A real estate sales contract (Evidence 5) is not prepared at the time of acquiring the instant land, but later prepared, and thus, the sales price under the said real estate sales contract cannot be deemed the actual acquisition price.

② Around the time when the Plaintiff acquired the instant land, it is recognized that the amount of money was withdrawn from the Plaintiff’s account (No. 7) in the name of the Plaintiff, but it is not objectively revealed that the Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the said money under any pretext was made to anyone.

(3) An appraisal report (No. 10) is not prepared at the time of the acquisition of the instant land, but later prepared. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the accurate purchase price at the time of acquisition of the instant land is reflected.

④ After the transfer of the instant land, the △△△△△△ has reported the transfer value as KRW 96 million at the time of the declaration, and according to the testimony in this court, the transfer value at the time is not accurately memory.

3) Ultimately, the instant case constitutes a case in which the actual acquisition value of the instant land is unknown, and furthermore, the instant disposition rendered by the Defendant based on the conversion value is lawful, as the transaction example and appraisal value under the Income Tax Act cannot be known.

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