If the tax authority becomes aware of the existence of donated property within the reporting period of the taxable amount of gift taxes, a book of valuation of the value of donated property at the time of the evaluation (negative)

Article 9 (2) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022 of Dec. 26, 1988) which applies mutatis mutandis to gift tax is interpreted to mean the value at the time when the tax authority can levy gift tax with the knowledge that the property was donated. Thus, even if the tax authority knew that there was donated property within the reporting period of gift tax amount under Article 20 (1) of the same Act, the reporting period is a provision for the taxpayer's interest, and it is impossible to exercise the right to levy gift tax before the expiration of the reporting period, and the value of donated property at the time cannot be assessed as the value at that time.

Articles 34-5 and 9(2) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022 of Dec. 26, 198)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee

Plaintiff 1 and four plaintiffs, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee and one other

Head of Guro Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu4637 delivered on April 12, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The term "value at the time of imposing gift tax" under Article 9 (2) of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4022 of Dec. 26, 1988), which shall apply mutatis mutandis to the gift tax pursuant to Article 34-5 of the same Act, means the value at the time when the tax authority can impose gift tax with knowledge that there is a donated property. Thus, even if the tax authority knew that there is a donated property within the reporting period of the gift tax amount under Article 20 (1) of the same Act, the reporting period is prescribed for the taxpayer's interest, and the tax authority cannot exercise the right to impose gift tax before the expiration of the reporting period, so the value of the donated property at the time cannot be assessed (see Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu6187, Nov. 9, 199; 90Nu2956, Nov. 27, 199; 82Nu2233, Sep. 27, 1983).

Therefore, the court below was just in holding that the plaintiffs did not report within the reporting period even after they received the donation of this case on April 8, 198 and the location of this case's land was determined by the facts publicly notified as a specific area on September 21 of the same year, and even if the defendant knew that this case's land was donated in April or August of the same year, as alleged by the plaintiffs, since the above reporting period was within the above reporting period, it cannot be assessed at the time, and gift tax can be imposed only on October 9 of the same year, which is the day following the expiration of the above period. Thus, the defendant's assessment of the value of this case's land, which is donated in accordance with the method of distribution of a specific area under Article 5 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, was legitimate, and there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the appraisal

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)