Scope of real estate trading under the Value-Added Tax Act

Real estate transactions are performed as part of business activities, and for profit-making purposes are continuity to the extent that business activities can be seen as business activities in light of the scale, frequency, mode, etc. of the sale and purchase. Where there is repetition, it falls under real estate transactions.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed. Litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

다음과 같은 사실은 당사자사이에 다툼이 없거나, 갑 제1호증의 1 내지 8, 갑 제7호증, 갑 제13호증, 갑 제14호증, 을 제1호증의 1, 2, 3, 을 제2호증, 을 제3호증, 을 제4호증의 1 내지 4, 을 제5호증, 을 제9호증의 1, 2, 을 제12호증의 1 내지 8, 을 제13호증의 2의 각 기재에 증인 최ㅇㅇ, 전ㅇㅇ의 각 증언을 종합하면 이를 인정할 수 있고 반증없다.

가. 원고는, ① 1987. 1. 20. ㅇㅇ ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ번지 대 204㎡를 취득하고 그 지상에 주택 및 점포 543.83㎡를 신축하여 같은 해 9. 15. 이들(이하 이 사건 제1부동산이라고 한다)을 대금 1억 4천만 원에 양도하고, ② 1988. 5. 24. 같은 구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ번지 대 134.9㎡와 지상주택을 취득하여 주택을 헐고 위 대지상에 주택 및 점포 199.82㎡를 신축하여 같은 해 10. 4. 이들(이하 이 사건 제2부동산이라고 한다)을 대금 1억 2천만 원에 양도하였으며, ③ 1988. 10. 13. 같은 구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ번지 대 121㎡를 취득하여 그 지상에 주택 142.44㎡를 신축하여 1989. 3. 28. 이들(이하 이 사건 제3부동산이라고 한다) 을 대금 9,150만 원에 양도하고, ④ 1989. 4. 27. 소외 원ㅇㅇ와 함께 ㅇㅇ ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ번지 대 157.7㎡와 지상주택을 취득하여 주택을 철거하고 위 대지상에 주택 및 점포 273.45㎡를 신축하여 같은 해 11. 30. 이들(이하 이 사건 제4부동산이라고 한다)을 대금 1억 5천만 원에 양도하였으며, ⑤ 1990. 8. 31. ㅇㅇ ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ번지 대 104.5㎡ 및 지상주택을 취득하여 주택을 철거하고 위 대지상에 주택 및 점포 408.03㎡를 신축하여 1991. 6. 26. 이들(이하 이 사건 제5부동산이라고 한다)을 대금 4억 1천만 원에 양도하였다.

(b) The defendant, while carrying on real estate sales business, did not submit necessary books and documentary evidence in calculating the tax base and tax amount of global income tax, 120(1) of the former Income Tax Act and 169(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, 200 won for each of the above real estate, 30 won for 8 years, 40 won for 16 years, 30 won for 8 years, 40 won for 20 won for 9 years, 30 won for 6 years, 40 won for 8 years, 40 won for 6 years, 40 won for 16 years, 30 won for 8 years, 40 won for total amount for 9 years, 40 won for 16 years, 30 won for total amount for 9 years, 40 won for 6 years, 97, 193 for the plaintiff on April 16, 199.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

가. 먼저 원고는, 1년에 1번 정도 일시적.우발적으로 주택 등을 신축하여 양도한 것에 불과하므로 원고의 위 각 부동산 양도가 사업자의 지위에서 이루어진 것이 아닐 뿐만 아니라 이 사건 제5부동산의 양도는 1989. 11. 주택 등을 신축, 양도한 이후 1년이 훨씬지난후에 이루어진 것이고 또한 이는 원고가 1987. 12. 15. 처와 이혼하면서 처에게 지급한 위자료로 인하여 부담한 채무 및 위 주택 등의 신축시 부상을 입은 소외 윤ㅇㅇ에 대한 손해배상금을 마련하기 위하여 부득이 이루어진 것이므로, 피고가 원고의 위 각 부동산의 양도가 사업자의 지위에서 이루어진 것으로 보아 위와같이 원고에 대하여 부가가치세, 종합소득세 등을 부과한 것은 위법하다고 주장한다.

First of all, Article 2(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that any person who supplies goods or services independently for business purposes regardless of whether they are for profit-making purposes shall be liable to pay value-added taxes pursuant to this Act. Article 2(1)1 and proviso of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13542 of Dec. 31, 1991) provides that construction business shall be deemed a business that supplies services and real estate sales business shall be deemed a business that supplies goods. Article 1(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that any person who sells real estate (including a case of newly constructing a building) or its brokerage shall be deemed to operate real estate sales business if he sells real estate at least once during one taxable period for business purposes and sells real estate at least twice. Article 2(1)3 of the former Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that a new housing sales business income shall be determined by Presidential Decree No. 1318 of the area of the same real estate.

On the other hand, since the transaction of real estate was conducted as a part of the business activities, the transfer of the building constitutes the supply of goods subject to taxation under the Value-Added Tax Act. In addition, the issue of whether the income from the sale and purchase of real estate belongs to the business income shall be determined according to the ordinary social norms by considering whether the sale and purchase of real estate is made for the purpose of profit and whether there is continuity and repetition of business activities in light of the size, recovery and attitude of the sale and purchase of the real estate. The provisions of Article 1(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act are merely an example provision

이에 이 사건에 있어서 보건대, 을 제3호증, 을 제9호증의 1, 2, 을 제10호증의 각 기재에 증인 최ㅇㅇ의 증언을 종합하여 보면, 원고는 ① 1982. 8. 31. ㅇㅇ ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ번지 토지를 취득하여 그 지상에 건물을 신축하고 1984. 3.경 이를 양도하였으며, ② 1984. 3.경 ㅇㅇ ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ번지 토지를 취득하여 그 지상에 건물을 신축하고 같은 해 12. 31. 그 대지와 함께 이를 양도하고, ③ 1985. 4.경 ㅇㅇ ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ번지 토지를 취득하여 그 지상에 건물을 신축하여 같은 해 9.경 이를 양도하고, ④ 같은 해 3.경 ㅇㅇ ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ번지 토지를 취득하여 그 지상에 건물을 신축하여 1987. 1.경 이를 양도하였으며, ⑤ 그 후 앞서 본 바와 같이 5건의 토지를 취득하고 그 지상에 건물을 신축하여 양도한 사실을 인정할 수 있고 반증없는바, 위와 같은 원고의 부동산 거래의 규모, 회수, 보유기간, 양도의 태양 등에 비추어 볼 때 원고의 이 사건 각 부동산의 매매를 일시적, 우발적인 것으로 보기는 어렵고 오히려 수익을 목적으로 한 것으로서 사업활동으로 볼 수 있을 정도의 계속성과 반복성이 있다고 할 것이며, 나아가 원고가 이 사건 제5부동산을 위 주장과 같은 동기에 의하여 이를 양도하였다는 점에 부합하는 증인 윤ㅇㅇ의 증언은 이를 믿지 아니하고 달리 이를 인정할 증거 없을 뿐 아니라 사업성 유무를 부동산 매도의 동기에 의하여 판단할 것은 아니므로 원고의 위 주장은 그 이유없다.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that Article 120(1) of the former Income Tax Act provides that the government shall determine the standard rate of income to be applied to the determination of the tax base and tax amount of capital gains by means of the estimation method through the deliberation of the Deliberation Committee on Standard of Income. Thus, comprehensively delegating the determination of the standard of income to the government is null and void as it goes against the principle of no taxation without law, and even if it is not so, the standard rate of income to be applied to the taxation of this case is determined without examining the matters stipulated in the Regulations on Standard of Income which are the instructions of the National Tax

However, since the business operator's income amount is diverse according to the type of business, region, scale, and economic situation, and the standard rate cannot be stipulated in the law, etc., it cannot be viewed as a violation of the principle of no taxation without the law, etc. by requiring the government to investigate and determine it. Furthermore, there is no evidence to deem that the standard rate of income applied to the taxation disposition in this case is determined without examining the matters stipulated by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service

다. 원고는, 또한 국세청장이 정한 1987년도 내지 1991년도의 건설업 또는 부동산매매업에 대한 소득표준율은 토지 등의 보유기간을 고려하지 아니한 채, 수입금액의 다과에 의하여만 차등율을 정하고 있어 구 소득세법 시행령 제169조의2 제2항에 위배될 뿐 아니라 일반적인 주택 등 건설업자의 실제소득율(1990년도 11.28%, 1991년도 12.7%) 및 ㅇㅇ시내 대기업 건설업자의 실제 평균 소득율 (10%미만) 보다도 훨씬 높아 합리성과 정확성을 갖추었다고 볼 수 없어 이는 무효로 보아야 하고, 따라서 이를 적용하여 한 이 사건 과세처분은 위법하다고 주장한다.

On the other hand, Article 169-2 (2) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the Commissioner of the National Tax Service may determine a differential rate calculated by adding a certain rate to the basic rate according to the degree of loyalty in transaction and the scale of revenue amount in determining the standard income rate for the pertinent taxable period. The Commissioner of the National Tax Service set a differential rate based on the size of revenue amount without considering the retention period of the land, and it cannot be deemed that it violates the above provision or it is not reasonable because the differential rate was set based on the size of revenue amount, without considering the retention period of the land. In addition, it is insufficient to view that the standard rate of income for construction or real estate sales in the year 1987 through 191 as much higher than the actual income rate determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service solely based on the results of the reply by the Minister of Construction and Transportation based on the fact inquiry by the party members, and otherwise, it is unlawful because the above standard rate of income is not consistent with the rationality and

D. As to the transfer of the fourth real estate in this case, the Plaintiff again holds a sales contract (Evidence A5) for the purchase of the land, and the acquisition value of the building can be calculated by the standard market price of local tax based on the building management ledger. Thus, the determination of the income amount based on the method of estimated investigation is unlawful.

However, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff did not submit to the Defendant the account books and documentary evidence regarding the transaction of the real estate No. 4 of this case until the time of the disposition of this case, and there is no other material to deem that the Plaintiff had documentary evidence, etc. to calculate the tax base for the transfer of the above real estate in light of the evidence No. 5 (Real Estate Sales Contract) among the real estate No. 4 of this case, and contrary to the belief of the evidence No. 11-2, it is legitimate to determine the amount of income by the Defendant’s estimation of the tax base for the transfer of the above real estate

E. Finally, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant taxation disposition, which was determined by applying the income standard rate, is unlawful as it goes against the principle of good faith, the principle of no advice, etc., on the ground that, in the case of real estate sales business, the acquisition value was determined based on the standard market price and the profit margin was calculated (income 1264-98 on January 12, 1982).

However, the above interpretation by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service (No. 9) is about the calculation of profit margin in the preliminary return of profit margin and the final return of profit margin on the newly constructed store seller, and it does not correspond to this case. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the tax disposition of this case is unlawful, and it is all dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

June 20, 1996