Seoul Administrative Court-2016-Gu Partnership-50464 ( September 30, 2016)

The disposition imposing gift tax by deeming it as a low-price transfer between persons with a special relationship is legitimate.

Article 26 (8) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which stipulates the date of calculating the value of donated property as the date of settlement of the price, does not deviate from the limit of delegated legislation, and it is difficult to view that the scope of special relationship should be determined by one of the parties to the transaction, "high-priced transferor or low-price transferee"

Article 35 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act)

2016Nu6927 Demanding revocation of disposition imposing gift tax, etc.

*

O Head of tax office

October 18, 2017

February 7, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

the Gu Office's place and place of action

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. In the first instance court, the Defendant’s imposition of gift tax ----------(including additional taxes) on May 1, 2015 and the imposition of securities transaction tax ---------(including additional taxes) on May 7, 2015 that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on May 1, 2015 shall be revoked. In the first instance, the Defendant’s imposition of gift tax ---------------(including additional taxes) on May 1, 2015 that the Plaintiff made on May 7, 2015 and the imposition of securities transaction tax -------(including additional taxes) on June 2, 2015 and the disposition of refusal to rectify the Plaintiff.

1. Quotation, etc. of judgment in the first instance;

이 법원의 판결 이유는 제1심 판결 12면 4행의 "OO는 XXXX 지분의"를 "최대주주인 OO와 그 특수관계인은 XXXX 주식의"로 수정하고, 다음 2항과 같이 판단을 보충하거나 추가하는 것 외에는 제1심 판결의 이유 기재와 같으므로 행정소송법 제8조 제2항, 민사소송법 제420조 본문에 따라 이를 그대로 인용한다.

2. Supplement and addition of judgments;

A. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that Article 26(8) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which prescribes the date of calculating the value of donated property as the date of calculating the value of donated property, is null and void by deviating from the limit of delegated legislation, and that Article 26(8) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act violates the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act by setting the taxation requirements without delegation under Article 35 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and thus, the disposition of imposing the gift tax of this case based on

In light of the contents of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act as seen earlier, Article 26(8) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act does not deviate from the limit of the delegated legislation and does not go against the principle of no taxation without law, and the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is not acceptable.

○ Gift tax is established when the donee acquires the property by gift. The subject matter of gift tax is not the gift contract itself, but the acquisition of the property subject to gift. Therefore, in applying Article 35 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, it is reasonable to calculate the value of the property based on the date of acquisition (the date of settlement) which is the date of donation, when the low-price transfer income accrued to the transferee, i.e., when the low-price transfer income belongs to the transferee (the date of settlement for payment).

○ In a case where the time of conclusion of a sales contract and the time of transfer are different from that of wrongful calculation due to the transfer of low-price, the determination of whether the transfer of land, etc. constitutes wrongful calculation shall be made at the time of transaction determining the price. On the other hand, when calculating gains on transfer of the land, it is calculated based on the time of transfer, which differs from the reason and criteria for such choice, and thus, it is unreasonable for both parties to regard the base time differently (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Du1731, Jun. 15, 2001; 2007Du14978, May 13, 201). As Article 35 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act imposes tax on the profits transferred at low-price by transfer, it is reasonable to view that the basis date of “price for calculating the value of property” and “market price” as the date of settlement rather than the date of sales contract

Article 35(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the amount equivalent to the difference between the price and the market price at the time the relevant property is acquired or transferred shall be deemed the value of donated property." Accordingly, Article 26 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the amount equivalent to the difference between the price and the market price at the time of acquisition or transfer of the relevant property shall be deemed the value of donated property." According to the legislative intent and the contents of the above provision, "the amount equivalent to the difference between the price and the market price at the time of acquisition or transfer of the relevant property" shall be prescribed as the value of donated property, and the detailed method of calculation shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree. In order to calculate the value of donated property, "the price and the market price" shall be determined specifically, and Article 35(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall be deemed to be an essential factor

Article 26(8) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act asserts that, in light of the fact that Article 35(4) (the determination on the date of transfer or the date of transfer and other necessary matters shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree, when applying paragraphs (1) and (2)), which is the delegation provision on the date on which the value of donated property is calculated pursuant to the amendment of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act on December 15, 2015, the Plaintiff is null and void by deviating from the limit of delegated legislation. However, the amendment of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is merely expressly stipulated under the former Article 35 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and it is difficult to

B. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the “special relationship” under Article 35(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is the purport of the text of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and the precedent, and that it is apparent that theO is not an employee of the Plaintiff alleged as the low-price transferee, and that it does not constitute the Plaintiff’s specially related person.

In light of the contents of Article 35(1) and (2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, amendment history, legislative purport, latter part of Article 12-2(1) and Article 26(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, latter part of Article 2 subparag. 20 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Article 3(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, it is difficult to view that the scope of special relationship should be determined only on the basis of “one of the parties to the transaction, who is a high-priced transferor or a low-priced transferee.” The Plaintiff’

다. 원고는 다시, 원고 측과 OO 간에 1년이 넘는 긴 시간 동안 매매가격 협상을 거쳐 이 사건 주식의 매매가격에 합의한 점이나 OO가 다수의 비특수관계자들(ㅁㅁㅁ 등)에게도 같은 시기에 이 사건 주식의 매매가격과 동일한 가격으로 XXXX 주식을 매도한 점, 원고와 ㅁㅁㅁ가 2011. 10. 28. OO로부터 XXXX 주식 -----주를 인수하면서 이미 경영권 프리미엄으로 약 20억 원을 지급한 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, 이 사건 주식의 매매가격은 법인세법상 시가에 해당한다고 주장한다.

살피건대, 이 법원이 인용하는 제1심 판결에서 인정한 사실관계와 을 제8호증의 1, 2의 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ① 이 사건 주식의 매매가격은 특수관계인 사이인 OO와 원고 및 ㅁㅁㅁ 사이에 결정한 것이므로 1년 이상 매매가격 협상을 거쳤다는 것만으로 이를 OO가 특수관계인 외의 불특정다수인과 계속적으로 거래한 가격이라고 보기 어려운 점, ② ㅁㅁㅁ는 원고의 처남인 ㅁㅁㅁ의 어머니이자 원고의 장모로서 ㅁㅁㅁ와 OO 사이의 주식 거래는 원고 및 ㅁㅁㅁ와 OO 사이의 주식 거래와 같은 날 같은 가격에 이루어진 것일 뿐만 아니라 ㅁㅁㅁ는 ㅁㅁㅁ가 지정하는 양수인으로 이 사건 주식 거래에 참여하게 된 것이므로 ㅁㅁㅁ와 OO 사이의 주식 거래를 일반적인 비특수관계인 사이의 거래와 동일하게 보기 어려운 점(이 사건 매매계약서(갑 제7호증)에 의하면, 이 사건 매매계약은 원고 및 ㅁㅁㅁ와 OO 사이에서 체결된 것이고 ㅁㅁㅁ가 지정하는 양수인들에게 OO가 보유한 XXXX의 주식을 양도하는 조건으로 매매계약이 체결되었으며, 양수인 목록(갑 제8호증)에 기재된 사람들은 ㅁㅁㅁ의 가족, 친구, XXXX의 직원 등으로 XXXX의 주식 거래는 사실상 ㅁㅁㅁ에 의하여 이루어진 것이어서 양수인들 중에 일부 비특수관계인이 있다고 하더라도 이를 일반적인 비특수관계인이라고 보기는 어렵다.), ③ 설령 원고와 ㅁㅁㅁ가 2011. 10. 28. OO로부터 XXXX 주식 -----주를 인수하면서 경영권 프리미엄으로 약 20억 원을 지급하였다고 하더라도 이 사건 매매계약은 그로부터 약 2년 5개월이 지난 후에 체결된 것으로서 위 2011. 10. 28.자 매매계약의 후속 계약이라고 단정하기 어려울 뿐만 아니라 이 사건 주식의 매매가격을 결정하면서 위 20억 원의 경영권 프리미엄을 반영하였다는 점을 인정할 증거도 부족한 점 등을 종합적으로 고려하면, 이 사건 주식의 매매가격을 시가로 보기 어렵다. 원고의 주장은 이유 없다.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed due to the lack of reason. The judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.