National Tax Service Review and Transfer 2011-0240 ( December 23, 2011)

The value reported by the transferor with the transfer value is recognized as the acquisition value of the transferee.

Since it is reasonable to deem the transferor’s actual acquisition value as the transferor’s actual acquisition value since the transferor’s transfer of land and reporting the fact of payment with the actual transfer value at the time of reporting transfer income tax, and the assertion that the land was transferred as a substitute payment cannot be recognized

Article 97 of the Income Tax Act

2012Guhap3713 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Gux

port of origin

August 22, 2012

September 26, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 on August 1, 201 against the Plaintiff on August 1, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 207, 2007, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 27, 1993 in the name of the Plaintiff on the part of the Nam-gun, Gyeonggi-do, for which the registration of ownership transfer was made under the name of the GuA, with respect to the land of this case 3,091 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) 00 m200 m3,091 m2 (hereinafter “the instant land”).

B. On October 1, 2010, the Plaintiff sold the instant land to LeeB (transfer value: 000 won) and on October 7, 2010, the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of LeeB on the instant land.

C. On August 1, 2011, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land and did not report the tax base of capital gains tax and tax amount, and the Defendant identified the acquisition value of the instant land as KRW 000,000, and accordingly, determined and notified the Plaintiff as capital gains tax for the instant land (including penalty tax for failing to report and failing to pay due diligence) as transfer income tax for the year 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on September 27, 201, upon filing an objection on August 23, 2011, but was dismissed on December 23, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 100(1) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that the transfer value shall be calculated based on the actual market price when calculating gains from transfer, and the acquisition price shall also be calculated based on the standard market price when the transfer value is calculated. However, the Plaintiff, who was a punishment of the Plaintiff, lent only KRW 1,000 to the Gu, for children’s educational expenses and living expenses, and then transferred the instant land, which is farmland, to the Plaintiff on March 27, 1993. Since the Plaintiff, who was residing in Busan, did not obtain an approval seal from the actual market price at the time of acquisition of the instant land, the transfer price of the instant land cannot be determined based on the standard market price at the time of acquisition of the instant land, such as the acquisition certificate, and thus, the Plaintiff’s acquisition price at the time of acquisition of the instant land cannot be determined based on the standard market price at the time of acquisition.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 3 and No. 2, it is reasonable to deem that the actual acquisition value of the land of this case is KRW 000,000, in full view of the following facts: (a) while transferring the land of this case to the Plaintiff and reporting the transfer income tax of the land of this case on August 31, 2007; and (b) the actual transfer value of the land of this case was 00,000 won; and (c) the Plaintiff did not submit specific materials, such as financial transactions, despite the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff lent the land of this case to the Gu and received the transfer of the land of this case as payment in kind; and (d) the transfer registration under the Plaintiff’s name was completed under the Act on the Special Measures for Real Estate; and (e) the cause of registration was on March 27, 1993; and (e) the Plaintiff’s statement under subparagraph 4 alone is insufficient. Therefore, the disposition of this case is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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