Examination-transfer-2015-0026 (Law No. 12, 2015)

Disposition that is imposed at the conversion value because the objective acquisition value is not verified at the time of determining a person who has filed a transfer tax return;

The plaintiff filed a non-declaration of capital gains tax, and the materials presented as acquisition value are not accompanied by objective evidence, and other specific and objective supporting materials are not presented to know the acquisition value, except for the case where the real acquisition value is unclear, and the decision is made as the conversion value and disposition is legitimate.

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses in Transfer Income)

The revocation of the disposition of revocation of imposition of capital gains tax shall be the District Court 2015 Gudan5601

GaO

OO Head of the tax office

oly 26, 2016

December 28, 2016

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 capital gains tax on August 1, 2014 by KRW 00,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 16, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired forest land 92-9 forest land in 00, 000, 000,000,000, from two persons, and owned it. On December 22, 201, the Plaintiff sold 00 billion won to 00 billion won to 00,000,000,000 won, but did not report capital gains tax.

B. In imposing capital gains tax on the Plaintiff on August 1, 2014, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff’s transfer price of the instant land is KRW 00 billion; and (b) deemed that the acquisition price is unclear; and (c) determined and notified the Plaintiff of the KRW 00,00 (including additional taxes) which is the conversion price of the officially announced land x the amount of KRW 3.6 billion in comparison with the officially announced land price at the time of acquisition / the officially announced land price at the time of acquisition (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. Upon the Plaintiff’s objection on November 17, 2014 and dismissal on December 19, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on February 13, 2015, but was dismissed on May 12, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination of legality of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On June 11, 2004, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with 00 billion won on the date of the contract with 00 billion won, the intermediate payment KRW 00 billion on July 15, 2004, and the intermediate payment KRW 00 billion on August 10, 2004, and paid all the above sales amount. The Plaintiff was operating a construction company at the time, and paid a large amount of cash and check, and some of which were sold by the Plaintiff around October 2, 2003, paid KRW 200,000,000,000,000 won. Accordingly, the instant disposition was unlawful to convert the acquisition value of the instant land into the transfer income tax by using the said KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.

B. Determination

(1) Article 97 of the Income Tax Act provides that the acquisition value shall be one of the necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value in calculating transfer income. The acquisition value shall be the actual transaction example value, appraisal value or conversion value prescribed by the Presidential Decree where it is impossible to verify the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition. Article 114 of the Income Tax Act provides that the acquisition value shall be determined based on the actual transaction value and the actual transaction value, and where it is impossible to recognize or confirm the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition of the relevant assets based on books or other evidentiary documents due to reasons prescribed by the Presidential Decree, the head of the competent tax office, etc. shall determine the transfer income tax base and the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition, the acquisition value shall be determined based on the transaction example, appraisal value, conversion value (referring to the actual transaction value, appraisal value or appraisal value converted by the method prescribed by the Presidential Decree) or the standard market value, etc. If it is difficult for the tax authority to prove the necessity of proof of the actual transaction price or the actual transaction value within the area of the taxpayer at the time of the transaction (see, 20.).

(2) Therefore, in accordance with the Plaintiff’s argument, No. 3, which corresponds to the seller’s claim, the seller’s leap○○, each.

The Plaintiff, the purchase price of which is KRW 00,000, is the sales contract stating that the Defendant did not report the transfer income tax. The above sales contract was submitted only by the Defendant at the time of filing an objection against the defects in the disposition imposing the transfer income tax, and the authenticity thereof cannot be verified, and even if the land was prepared at the time of acquiring the instant land, the owner of the instant land did not have the same entries as the sales contract for evidence No. 3. As seen above, although the entries were identical to the sales contract for evidence No. 3, the Plaintiff’s name and seal of 00,000,000 won were written in the seller’s name and seal No. 1,000,000 won, and it was difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s name and seal No. 2,000,000 won was insufficient to verify the credibility of the sale price of the instant land due to the fact that the Plaintiff’s name and seal No. 2,000,000 won, which was not known to the Plaintiff’s name and seal No. 5.

In addition, according to the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 6, 7, 10, and 12, although the plaintiff was found to have made a preliminary return of capital gains tax on the transfer value of ○ billion shares of New○ Corporation to the defendant on October 2, 2003, there is no evidence to prove that the above sale price of shares was kept in cash until June 2004, the purchase date of the land of this case, and used it as purchase price. Rather, it is recognized that the plaintiff's account of ○○ Bank (Account Number ○○○-○-○○○○○○) on October 10, 203, which is the transfer date of the above shares, deposited KRW 00 million with the plaintiff's account (Account Number ○○○○○-○○○○○) on October 10, 2003. The plaintiff did not claim that the money deposited from each bank account from around January 200 to June 204, 2000 to the above bank account.

Finally, the evidence Nos. 16 through 29 (including each number) is about the market price near the land of this case, and it is insufficient to recognize that the purchase price of the land of this case by the plaintiff is KRW 1.8 billion only with the above evidence.

(3) Therefore, since it cannot be confirmed the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition of the instant land, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, which calculated capital gains tax on the basis of the conversion price under such premise, is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.