Early High Court Decision 2012Gu0848 (No. 26, 2012)

Since a false sales contract is prepared and submitted, the exclusion period for imposition is ten years.

Since it is recognized that a certified judicial scrivener has prepared and submitted a false sales contract when he/she delegated the transfer income tax to a certified judicial scrivener and there is no evidence to prove that a certified judicial scrivener prepared a false sales contract in the past, the exclusion period for exclusion is ten years, and since the value of the church properties is recognized as necessary expenses among the transfer values, the disposition is legitimate.

2012Guhap1855 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AAA

Head of North Daegu Tax Office

September 21, 2012

October 24, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the year 2002 against the Plaintiff on January 6, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 22, 2002, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax of KRW 00,000, the Plaintiff sold OOO-dong 000 OO-dong 000 commercial buildings in Gangdong-gu Seoul (hereinafter “the instant trade”), and the acquisition value of KRW 000 and KRW 000.

B. The head of Samsung Tax Office confirmed that the instant purchase price was KRW 000, and notified the Defendant thereof. Accordingly, on January 6, 2012, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the transfer income tax for the year 2002 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On February 7, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, which was dismissed on April 26, 2012.

[Based on Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 4-1, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

A. A certified judicial scrivener may not know the plaintiff and submit a sales contract in the name of the plaintiff to the defendant, and the plaintiff has not evaded taxes due to "Fraud and other unlawful acts." Therefore, even though the exclusion period of imposition of the transfer income tax of this case is five years, it is unlawful that the disposition of this case was made after the lapse of the exclusion period of imposition.

B. Although the purchase price of this case includes KRW 000,000, the sale price of church properties, the instant disposition was not deemed necessary expenses and is unlawful.

3. Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

4. Determination

A. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion No. 2. A

(1) According to Article 26-2 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 2006, hereinafter referred to as the "former Framework Act on National Taxes"), and Article 26-2 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 2006, 1) if a taxpayer evades, is refunded, or is deducted from national taxes by fraud or other unlawful means, 10 years from the date on which the national tax is assessable (subparagraph 1) and 2 from the date on which the national tax is assessable if the taxpayer fails to file a tax base return within the statutory due date of return, 7 years (subparagraph 2) and 3 years from the date on which the national tax is assessable, and 5 years from the date on which the national tax is assessable. "Fraud or other unlawful acts" in Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes means fraudulent or other active acts that make it impossible to impose or collect taxes.

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 4-1 through 6, and on April 11, 2002, the plaintiff sold the above commercial building and church sex to 000 won in total, and delegated the transfer income tax to a certified judicial scrivener introduced by LaoB, and reported the transfer income tax under the name of the plaintiff (Evidence No. 4-1) with a false contract stating 00 won in the purchase price (Evidence No. 4-2), and submitted a written confirmation of transaction under the name of plaintiff and Eul (Evidence No. 4-4), and the plaintiff's certificate of personal seal impression (Evidence No. 4-5 and No. 6). On the other hand, there is no evidence to support the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff made a false sales contract and reported the transfer income tax by submitting a false contract. According to the above facts, the plaintiff's assertion that the transfer income tax was evaded by fraudulent or other unlawful act, and the period for exclusion of imposition of the transfer income tax in this case is without merit.

B. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion No. 2.B.

According to the records in Eul, and Eul evidence No. 1, while the plaintiff issued the disposition in this case, the plaintiff recognized a total of 000 won including 000 won of the church church work as necessary expenses, and the plaintiff's assertion that the church work value was not recognized as necessary expenses from the transfer value of this case is without merit.

5. Conclusion

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