beta
Title
The value of shares on issues under the supplementary evaluation method stipulated in the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall be appropriate;
Summary
It is difficult to see that there is an error of law in calculating the price per share of the shares at the time of the transaction of this case by evaluating the shares in accordance with the supplementary evaluation method under Articles 60 and 63 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Thus, the disposition of this case
Related statutes
Articles 60 and 63 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act; Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act
Cases
2017Guhap50485
Plaintiff
& & & & & &
Defendant
AA Head of the Tax Office
Conclusion of Pleadings
August 31, 2017
Imposition of Judgment
oly 12, 2017
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Cheong-gu Office
The Defendant’s imposition of gift tax of KRW 211,969,230 (including additional tax) against the Plaintiff on January 26, 2016 shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
가. 원고는 2013. 8. 2. 이@@으로부터 비상장법인인 주식회사 **저축은행(이하'이 사건 법인'이라 한다)의 주식 22,000주(이하 '이 사건 주식'이라 한다)를 1주당8,000원씩 합계 176,000,000원에 취득하였다(이하 '이 사건 거래'라 한다).
나. 원고는 이 사건 법인의 지배주주인 오##의 딸이자 이 사건 거래 당시 이 사건 법인 주식 12,000주(지분율 1.5%)를 보유하고 있던 주주이고, 이@@은 2006. 3.31.부터 2012. 3. 1.까지 이 사건 법인의 대표이사로, 2012. 3. 2.부터 2014. 7. 29.까지 감사로 각 재직한 사람이자 이 사건 거래 당시 이 사건 법인 주식 110,894주(지분율13.86%)를 보유하고 있던 주주이다.
"다. 피고는, 원고와 이@@이 이 사건 거래 당시 구 상속세 및 증여세법 시행령(2014. 2. 21. 대통령령 제25195호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하상속세및증여세법 시행령'이라 한다) 제12조의2에 따른 특수관계인에 해당하고, 구 상속세 및 증여세법(2015. 12. 15.법률 제13557호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 '상속세및증여세법'이라 한다) 제60조 제3항 및 상속세및증여세법 시행령 제54조 등에서 규정한 보충적 평가방법에 의해 산정한 이 사건 주식의 1주당 가액이 53,166원으로, 원고가 특수관계인으로부터 이 사건 주식을 시가보다 낮은 가액으로 양수했다고 보아 이 사건 주식의 평가금액 1,169,652,000원(= 53,166원 ×22,000주)과 거래대금 176,000,000원(= 8,000원 × 22,000주)의 차액 993,652,000원에서 3억 원을 차감한 693,652,000원을 상속세및증여세법 제35조 제1항에 따른 증여이익으로 보아 2016. 1. 26. 원고에게 증여세 211,969,230원(가산세 포함)을 결정・고지하였다(이하'이 사건 처분'이라 한다).",라. 원고는 2016. 6. 23. 이 사건 처분에 불복하여 조세심판원에 심판청구를 제기하였으나, 2016. 10. 28. 기각되었다.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, 7, 8, Eul evidence 1
Each entry, including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleading
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion
이 사건 거래 당시 여러 저축은행의 영업정지 및 파산선고로 저축은행의 주식거래가위축된 상황이었으나, 원고는 이 사건 거래 4개월 전에 이@@이 특수관계 없는 박%%에게 이 사건 법인 주식 13,051주를 1주당 8,000원에 양도한 바 있어 이에 따라 이 사건 거래를 하였고, 그 외에도 이 사건 거래 전후에 걸친 다수의 거래 사례에서 이 사건 법인 주식이 1주당 8,000원에 거래되었으므로, 이 사건 거래 당시 이 사건 주식의 시가는 1주당 8,000원이라고 할 것이다. 나아가 이 사건 거래 이후 경매절차에서 이 사건 법인 주식 53,843주가 1주당 14,115원에 특수관계 없는 제3자에게 매각되었는 바, 이에 비추어 보더라도 이 사건 거래 당시 이 사건 주식의 시가는 1주당 8,000원으로 봄이 상당하거나 적어도 위 매각가격을 초과하지는 않는다고 할 것이다.
Nevertheless, the Defendant imposed gift tax on the Plaintiff by calculating the price per share of the stocks as KRW 53,166 according to the supplementary assessment method, considering the case where it is difficult to calculate the market price of the stocks. The Defendant’s disposition of this case is unlawful
B. Relevant statutes
It is as shown in the attached Form.
(c) Fact of recognition;
1) The instant legal entity is a savings bank that has been established on February 10, 1997 and runs financial business, etc. as its principal office*** an Eup** 32 as a savings bank that runs financial business, etc. 80,000 shares issued, the paid-in capital is 4 billion won.
2) 이@@은 이 사건 법인의 임원으로 재직하면서 고객 명의로 통장을 개설하여 대출받은 것 등과 관련하여 사기 및 상호저축은행법위반 등의 혐의로 기소되어 현재 청주지방법원 영동지원 2014고단***호, 2015고단***호(병합)로 공판 진행 중이고, 위와 같은 사유로 2014. 7. 29. 이 사건 법인의 감사 지위에서 해임되었다.
3) The trading status of the instant corporate stocks from February 28, 2011 to August 19, 2015 is as listed below:
(unit: State, 000 won)
No.
Transfer Date
transferor
Transfer
Number of Stocks
A per share
Value (cost)
Transfer Amount
A transferee
Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act
Special Relations*2
Name
Related*1
1
201.028
C*
(Stockholder)
5,000
8,000
40,000
*
Staff members
Ministry of Justice
5,000
8,000
40,000
Kim*
Staff members
Ministry of Justice
2
201.03.28
10,000
8,000
80,000
fixed**
Relatives
Ministry of Justice
3
2011.05.06
17,664
9,000
158,976
L**
Ministry of Gender Equality
Ministry of Justice
12,000
9,000
108,000
O*
A.
Ministry of Justice
4
2011.16
O** (Stockholder)
6,250
8,000
50,000
fixed**
Relatives
Ministry of Justice
6,855
8,000
54,840
O*
Executive Officers' Office
Ministry of Justice
15,000
8,000
120,000
*
Staff members
Ministry of Justice
3,750
8,000
30,000
Kim*
Staff members
Ministry of Justice
3,750
8,000
30,000
Gangwon*
Staff members
Ministry of Justice
2,500
8,000
20,000
Kim*
Staff members
Ministry of Justice
2,500
8,000
20,000
Jeon*
Staff members
Ministry of Justice
2,675
8,000
21,400
Gangwon*
Staff members
Ministry of Justice
2,500
8,000
20,000
Go**
Staff members
Ministry of Justice
2,500
8,000
20,000
*
Staff members
Ministry of Justice
2,500
8,000
20,000
South*
Staff members
Ministry of Justice
2,500
8,000
20,000
Park*
Staff members
Ministry of Justice
2,500
8,000
20,000
00*
Staff members
Ministry of Justice
2,500
8,000
20,000
An*
Staff members
Ministry of Justice
2,500
8,000
20,000
An*
Staff members
Ministry of Justice
2,500
8,000
20,000
UN*
Staff members
Ministry of Justice
2,500
8,000
20,000
*
Relatives
Ministry of Justice
3,750
8,000
20,000
O*
A.
Ministry of Justice
2,500
8,000
20,000
CHAPTER*
Staff members
Ministry of Justice
2,500
8,000
20,000
fixed**
Staff members
Ministry of Justice
2,500
8,000
20,000
ARTICLE *
Staff members
Ministry of Justice
2,500
8,000
20,000
ARTICLE *
Staff members
Ministry of Justice
2,500
8,000
20,000
ARTICLE *
Staff members
Ministry of Justice
2,500
8,000
20,000
L**
Staff members
Ministry of Justice
1,250
8,000
10,000
ship**
Staff members
Ministry of Justice
1,500
8,000
12,000
L**
Staff members
Ministry of Justice
1,250
8,000
10,000
J*
Staff members
Ministry of Justice
1,250
8,000
10,000
Gangwon*
Staff members
Ministry of Justice
1,250
8,000
10,000
Park*
Staff members
Ministry of Justice
1,250
8,000
10,000
An*
Staff members
Ministry of Justice
1,250
8,000
10,000
fixed**
Staff members
Ministry of Justice
5
2011.23
O*
10,600
8,000
84,800
fixed**
Staff members
such institution.
6
2013.04.02
이@@
13,051
8,000
104,408
박##
Executive Officers' Office
Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy
7
2013.05.24
Kim*
3,224
8,000
176,000
L**
Ministry of Gender Equality
such institution.
8
2013.08.02
이@@
22,000
8,000
20,000
O*
A.
J. (Transaction in this case)
이@@
22,000
8,000
8,000
L**
Ministry of Gender Equality
such institution.
9
2014.09.03
ARTICLE *
2,500
8,000
12,000
L**
Ministry of Gender Equality
such institution.
10
December 05, 2014
00*
1,000
8,000
30,000
Kim*
Staff members
Ministry of Justice
1,500
8,000
12,000
L**
Ministry of Gender Equality
such institution.
11
2015.04.14
O*
3,750
8,000
30,000
L**
Ministry of Gender Equality
such institution.
12
2015.08.19
An*
1,250
8,000
10,000
Changes*
Staff members
Ministry of Justice
1,250
8,000
10,000
*
Staff members
Ministry of Justice
13
2016.03.17
이@@
53,843
14,115
760,000
** Soux
** Holdings
corresponding to this section
Ministry of Justice
(Auction)
281,662
2,612,216
4) 한편, 이 사건 거래 이후 이@@이 보유하고 있던 이 사건 법인 주식 53,843주에 대해 채권자인 남궁&&이 압류 및 특별현금화 명령을 신청하였고, 2016. 3. 17. 청주지방법원 영동지원 2015본&&&호(이하 '이 사건 경매절차'라 한다)로 위 주식이 주식회사 $$솔루텍과 주식회사 $$홀딩스에게 760,000,000원(1주당 매각대금은 14,115원)에 매각되었다.
(5) The Defendant reviewed the instant transaction at the “Planning and Inspection of Unlisted Stock Price Transaction” in 2015. The Defendant deemed that there was no transaction example during the period of the instant transaction and it is difficult to compute the market price, and thus, evaluated the value per share as 53,166 won in accordance with the supplementary assessment method based on Article 60(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. The said value is larger than the instant transaction amount (8,000 won per share) and demanded the Plaintiff to be asked on June 29, 2015 for an explanation against the suspicion of gift. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was traded at KRW 8,00 per 20,000 for the instant corporation’s stocks and per 4 months prior to the instant transaction date. Non-specific even on April 2, 2013.
The parties concerned argued that it should be recognized as the market price because they are traded in 8,000 won per share.
(6) Accordingly, on October 8, 2015, the Defendant filed an application with the Seoul Regional Tax Office for consultation on the market price recognition of the case price of selling and selling inherited and donated property. Since then, it is difficult to recognize the Plaintiff’s transaction value as the market price, which is an objective value, and thus, it is reasonable to evaluate the market price according to the supplementary assessment method under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. The Seoul Regional Tax Office’s property appraisal report was notified of the results of deliberation as of November 12, 2015, and issued the instant disposition against the Plaintiff. (7) The financial status and profit and loss status of the instant corporation from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2014 are as listed below.
(unit: million won)
Classification
Financial Status
Current status of profits and losses
Assets:
Debt
Capital;
Sales
Operating Income
net income
15.Woo (1.6.30)
178,267
162,318
15,950
25,143
3,776
2,390
16.Crash (12.6.30)
211,944
192,116
19,828
28,881
5,827
4,591
17.Flag (13.6.30)
24,866
199,120
25,746
30,959
8,475
6,734
18.Flag (14.6.30)
212,743
179,706
3,036
29,770
10,775
8,450
8) The annual dividend amount from 2009 to 2015 of the instant corporation shall be set out in the following table:
The same shall apply.
Classification
Above 2009 up to 2012
2013
2014
2015
Distribution Amount
800,000,000
1,200,000,000
1,400,000,000
1,600,000,000
Amount of dividend per stock;
1,000
1,500
1,750
2,000
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries in Gap's 1 through 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 18, Eul's 2 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings
D. Determination
1) Article 35(1)1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that where a person acquires property from another person at a price lower than the market price, the difference between such price and the market price, which is equivalent to the profits prescribed by Presidential Decree, shall be deemed the value of property donated to the transferee. Article 60(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the value of the property on which the inheritance tax or gift tax is levied under this Act shall be determined on the date of commencing the inheritance or donation (hereinafter referred to as "date of appraisal"), and in such cases, the value appraised under the method stipulated in Article 63(1)1 (a) and (b) shall be deemed the market price at the same time. Article 63(1)1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "where a transaction is made freely between many and unspecified persons, the market price under paragraph (1) shall be determined at the market price at a price higher than the market price at the same time." The main sentence of Article 49(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the market price at issue shall not be determined at the market price at issue."
Therefore, even in a case of unlisted stocks with low market value, where there is a transactional fact, the price of the stocks shall be deemed the market price and the price of the stocks shall not be assessed by the supplementary evaluation method stipulated in the Act. However, since the market price means the objective exchange price formed by the general and normal transaction, in order to recognize such transactional example as the market price, the circumstances that can be seen as properly reflecting the objective exchange value at the time of the donation should be acknowledged by the relevant transaction made in a general and normal manner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du26988, Apr. 26, 20
2) In light of the relevant provisions and legal principles, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged as a whole by comprehensively taking into account the facts acknowledged as above and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is difficult to view that the transaction cases of corporate stocks, which the Plaintiff asserted as transaction example from 2011 to 2016, reflects objective exchange values to calculate the market price of the instant stocks at the time of the instant transaction. Furthermore, it is difficult to view KRW 8,000 per share, the transfer value of the instant stocks, as the market price at the time of the instant transaction.
① 이@@이 이 사건 거래 4개월 전인 2013. 4. 2. 특수관계에 있지 않은 박##에게 이 사건 법인 주식 13,051주를 1주당 8,000원씩 합계 104,408,000원에 양도하였고, 그로부터 이 사건 거래 당시까지 이 사건 법인의 재무현황 및 경영환경 등에 큰변화가 있는 것으로 보이지는 않는다. 그러나, 원고의 주장에 의하더라도 이@@은 재정적 어려움으로 이 사건 법인 주식을 급히 매도하고자 하는 상황에서 매수자를 찾기가 어려워 박##에게 부탁하여 위 주식을 양도하였다는 것인 점, 박##는 위 거래 당시 이 사건 법인의 임원이었던 강**5)의 처인 점, 이@@과 박##가 위 거래가격에 합의하였다는 것만으로 위 거래가격을 객관적 교환가격이라고 할 수 없고, 달리 이@@과 박## 사이에 위 거래가격 결정 기준 내지 과정을 알 수 있는 자료가 존재하지도 않으며, 아래에서 보는 바와 같이 위 거래가격은 이 사건 법인의 재정상태를 반영하지 않은 금액으로 보이는 점 등을 고려할 때, 이@@과 박## 사이의 위 거래가 일반적이고 정상적인 방법으로 이루어진 거래라거나 그 거래가격이 객관적 교환가치를 적정하게 반영하고 있다고 보기는 어렵다.
② Over the course of the instant transaction, there are more than 40 cases of the instant corporation’s stock transaction, such as the entry in the table of Section 2-C(3) above. Of them, the instant corporation’s stocks were traded at KRW 8,000 per share in all transactions except for the trading amount (29,64 Shares, 9,000 per share) on May 6, 2011.
5) Steel** was employed as an internal director of the instant corporation from March 2, 2012 to July 29, 2014. However, it is difficult to view that some of them were traded in a general and normal manner, or at least the interval between the instant transaction and the instant transaction, and the remaining transaction are also the relatives of the largest shareholder, the officers and employees of the instant corporation, and their related parties. Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, among the assignees, the employees purchased shares on the grounds of verbal expression, personnel positive influence, etc., and the employees who retired or retired have transferred shares to the relatives or employees of the largest shareholder at KRW 8,00 per share, and there is no objective data on each of the above transaction circumstances, the reason for determining the transaction terms, etc., or that the transaction price properly reflects the objective exchange value.
③ Furthermore, the instant corporation has continuously increased the sales, operating, and net income from 2011 to 2014; the net income amount of 2.8 times in 2013 has continuously increased compared to the year 2011; the amount of the instant corporation’s dividends has also been at a considerable level; the amount of the instant corporation’s dividends per share is at least 53,166 won per share; and the assessed amount of the instant corporation’s stocks calculated by applying supplementary evaluation methods is at approximately 6.6 times per share, the transaction value claimed by the Plaintiff at KRW 8,000 per share, in consideration of the fact that the market value of the instant corporation’s stocks continues to be at least 8,00 won per share from 2011 to 2015.
It appears that the plaintiff would be against the rule of experience that the market price of the shares of this case is the market price of this case.
From 2011 to 2015, KRW 8,00 per share, the transaction price of the shares of the instant corporation, is only the price formed without properly reflecting the financial status of the instant corporation, and it is difficult to view it as the amount appropriately reflecting the objective exchange value of the shares of the instant corporation.
④ 이@@이 보유하고 있던 이 사건 법인 주식 53,843주가 2016. 3. 7. 이 사건 경매절차에서 1주당 14,115원씩 합계 760,000,000원에 매각되었다. 그러나, 위 낙찰가액은 이 사건 거래 시점으로부터 2년 6개월 이상 도과한 시점에 형성된 것인 점, 그기간 동안 이 사건 법인의 재무현황 및 경영환경 등에 변동이 없다고 할 수 없는 점, 위 주식이 이 사건 경매절차에서 여러 차례 유찰된 끝에 낙찰되었고, 당시 최초 책정된 위 주식의 최저매각가격 4,521,896,690원으로 이를 1주당 가격으로 환산하여 보면 83,983원에 달하는 점 등을 고려할 때, 이 사건 경매절차의 이 사건 법인 주식 매각가
It is difficult to view that the objective exchange values of the instant shares are properly reflected at the time of the instant transaction (the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit) on the grounds that the ratio of the sale prices of the instant shares to the appraised values of the instant shares at the time of the sale calculated in accordance with the supplementary valuation method, and that the ratio of the transaction prices of the instant shares to the appraised values of the instant shares at the time of the instant transaction, which were calculated in accordance with the supplementary valuation method, is similar to the ratio of the transaction prices of the instant shares to the appraised values of the instant shares at the time of the instant transaction, but the market prices of the instant shares at the time of the instant transaction cannot be deemed to be KRW 8,00 per share for the said reason, and it is difficult to view that the said sale prices are reasonable reflecting the objective exchange values of the instant shares
⑤ It is difficult to view the instant transaction price as the market price of the instant shares solely for the following reasons: (a) the Financial Supervisory Service, in 2011 and 2012, issued an order to suspend 11 savings banks, including the % savings bank; (b) the stock transaction at the time of the instant transaction; or (c) the stock company whose capital size was much larger than the Plaintiff and listed on the KOSDAQ market; (d) the market price at the time of the instant transaction of the instant savings bank’s shares was lower than 2,890 won.
3) Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s assessment of the instant shares in accordance with the supplementary assessment method under Articles 60 and 63 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and calculated the price per share of the said shares at the time of the instant transaction, as KRW 53,166.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.