[1] Method of notice of capital gains tax on co-inheritors

[2] The case holding that the duty payment notice by the notice of tax payment without stating the tax amount and the tax base to be borne by the co-inheritors was unlawful, in case where the inheritance ratio of the co-inheritors was written, but the tax amount divided by each co-inheritors was attached to the separate sheet of decision of capital gains tax

[1] Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 114 of the Income Tax Act, Article 177 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act / [2] Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 114 of the Income Tax Act, Article 177 of the

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu4749 delivered on March 25, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1269) Supreme Court Decision 96Nu741 delivered on June 13, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2069) Supreme Court Decision 98Du19650 delivered on March 10, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 985) Supreme Court Decision 2003Du4973 Delivered on October 28, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1968)

Yangsan et al. (Law Firm Gyeong & Yang, Attorneys Park Young-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Ansan Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Nu8991 delivered on November 5, 2004

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the tax disposition in this case, which the defendant imposed capital gains tax on the plaintiffs, who are his co-inheritors after the death of authorized salt, by increasing or correcting transfer income tax, was legitimate on the ground that the inheritor itself stated the total amount to be paid by the inheritor, but notified the plaintiffs individually by indicating the inheritance shares, and that the tax payment notice in this case was unlawful since the co-inheritors did not specify the amount to be paid by each co-inheritors in the above notice of payment separately.

However, according to Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 114 of the Income Tax Act, and Article 177 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, when notifying the tax base and tax amount of transfer income tax, the head of a tax office shall notify the tax payment notice by specifying the taxable year, tax item, tax amount, grounds for calculation, deadline for payment, and place of payment. In cases where the transfer income tax of an inheritee is imposed on at least two heirs, the tax base and tax amount shall be distributed according to their shares and notify each heir individually. Unlike other persons jointly and severally liable for tax payment, a tax payment notice that has the effect to specifically determine their tax obligation against each co-inheritors must specify the amount of tax to be individually paid to each co-inheritors (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu4749, Mar. 25, 1997, etc.). Thus, it cannot be deemed legitimate

According to the records, the notice of tax payment of this case includes the total amount of tax to be paid by all inheritors and the tax base, tax rate, additional tax, and deductible tax, which are the basis for the calculation thereof, and the tax base to be borne by the plaintiffs are not stated. As acknowledged by the court below, even if the "influence" of the written decision on capital gains tax (Evidence A No. 4) stating the plaintiffs' inheritance ratio was attached to the notice of tax payment, so long as the tax amount divided by each plaintiff is not stated, the above mentioned alone cannot be deemed to have been specified. Thus, the notice of tax payment of this case is illegal

Nevertheless, the lower court’s rejection of the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the instant tax notice was unlawful is a result of misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the notice of tax payment to co-inheritors of capital gains tax, and the allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Kang-tae (Presiding Justice)