Expenses of a dependent for living, etc. not subject to gift tax;

The key amount of this case is the living expenses, etc. of a dependent who is socially accepted and not subject to gift tax exemption.

Article 46 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2015Guhap82747 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Inheritance Tax

AA

00 Si/Gu 00 00 00

a) the Director of the Tax Office

Litigation performers 000

September 9, 2016

October 7, 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The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 68,691,090 on July 1, 2015 against the Plaintiff was revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 25, 2013, the Plaintiff, BB, and CCC succeeded to the inheritee’s property upon the decedent’s death on July 25, 2013, and DD was the husband of CCC but divorced around 1995.

B. On January 31, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a return on the tax base of inherited property with the Defendant’s taxable value of KRW 855,045,00, debt, and deductible amount of KRW 500,000,000, and the tax amount of KRW 53,108,100.

C. From June 30, 2014 to November 30, 2014, the Defendant discovered omission of donated property in advance, etc. as a result of conducting an inheritance tax investigation on the decedent, and notified the heir of inheritance tax amounting to KRW 251,374,560, and notified the witness DD and CCC of gift tax amounting to KRW 118,770,80.

D. On January 29, 2015, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the foregoing pre-announcement of taxation, filed a request for review of the legality before taxation (hereinafter “request before taxation of this case”) with the Defendant on January 29, 2015. After examining the instant request for taxation prior to taxation, the Defendant decided on March 6, 2015 to re-examine the fact-finding of KRW 329,000,000, which was initially included in the inherited property, by deeming the said claim as omitting cash as an omission of property

E. According to the above decision, the Defendant: (a) as a result of re-audit of the inheritance tax on the decedent from April 20, 2015 to May 29, 2015, the decedent deemed that the decedent had made a prior donation of KRW 68,00,00 (hereinafter “D key amount”) to DD; (b) CCC 175,70,000 (hereinafter “CCC key amount”); and (c) determined and notified gift tax of KRW 10,727,880, and gift tax of KRW 29,454,950 to CCC; and (c) on July 1, 2015, the Defendant decided and notified the heir including the Plaintiff, etc. of KRW 68,691,090, which was reverted to July 1, 2013.

F. On July 29, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the request on September 23, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 3, Gap evidence 2, 3, Gap evidence 4-1, Gap evidence 5-5, Eul evidence 1-4, Eul evidence 5-1 through 5-4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff asserted that, on June 4, 2010, DDR received KRW 10 million for checks issued from the account of the inheritee on July 21, 201, from which DDR received KRW 58 million for the amount of the instant DD issues, since DD’s children are between the decedent and lineal blood relatives, the portion used as the living expenses and educational expenses for the children should be exempted from gift tax, and the portion used for other DD’s hospital expenses and medical expenses should be exempted from gift tax, falling under “personal relief money and other valuables and other valuables recognized under social norms.”

2) As to the key amount of the CCC of this case, the Plaintiff asserted that the CCC of this case transferred the decedent a total of KRW 62,900,000 on December 43, 2002 and KRW 62,90,000 on January 7, 2003, and that the amount of KRW 192,457,860 on April 24, 2008 to September 11, 2009, paid KRW 192,457,860 on behalf of the decedent was much more than KRW 175,70,00,000 on the above amount of money, and thus, the CCC of this case should be excluded from the inheritance tax amount.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Determination on the issue amount of the DNA in this case

Article 13(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") provides that "the taxable value of inherited property shall be the amount calculated by adding the following value to the value of the inherited property after deducting the amount under Article 14 from the value of the inherited property." Article 13(1)2 of the same Act provides that "The value of the property donated to a person who is not the heir within five years before the commencement date of the inheritance." Since the fact that the amount of DNA issue in this case is the money donated by the decedent to DD within five years before the commencement date of the inheritance

Meanwhile, Article 46 subparagraph 5 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "No gift tax shall be imposed on the amount corresponding to the transferred money and goods, medical expenses, family's living expenses, education expenses, and other amount similar thereto that are recognized under the social norms," and Article 35 (4) 2 and 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "school expenses or scholarships and other similar money and goods (title 2), souvenirs, congratulatory money and congratulatory money, congratulatory money and other similar money and goods, which are recognized as normally necessary (title 3) and directly disbursed for the relevant purpose."

The evidence of evidence No. 4-2, evidence No. 7-7, and evidence No. 7-8 alone is insufficient to acknowledge that DDR used the amount of DD dispute of this case as children’s living expenses, education expenses, etc., or as medical expenses. In addition, the following circumstances, which can be known by adding the whole purport of pleadings to the written evidence No. 2 through No. 4, i.e., (1) DD received 60 million won from the Defendant on November 27, 2014 (Evidence No. 3) as hospital visa name name, and received 60 million won from the Plaintiff, and received 60,000 won from the FFFF National Tax Service as prosecution investigation or hospital consolation benefits, and the Plaintiff stated that DD was not aware that DD was voluntarily released from the address of the inheritee at the time of taxation prior to the Plaintiff’s request, and thus, D’s statement that DD was insufficient to acknowledge that DD was donated to the Defendant’s debt collection agency and the Plaintiff’s statement of this case No. 241.

7.1. Diplomaticity is determined and notified to Diplomaticity KRW 10,727,880 as gift tax, but Diplomaticity does not dispute that Diplomaticity is improper to dispose of the above gift tax. In light of the fact that Diplomaticity amount in this case does not constitute a case where gift tax is not levied as a family's living expenses, etc. recognized by social norms.

2) Determination on the issue amount of the instant CCC

Article 13 (1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "The taxable value of inherited property shall be the amount calculated by adding the following value to the value of the inherited property after deducting the value under Article 14 from the value of the inherited property," and Article 13 (1) 1 of the same Act provides that "the value of the property donated to a person who is not the heir within

In addition, as long as it is found that a person recognized as a donor by the tax authority in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the imposition of gift tax has been withdrawn and deposited as a deposit account in the name of the taxpayer, such deposit is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer. Thus, if there are special circumstances, such as withdrawal of such deposit and deposit in the name of the taxpayer, etc. for the purpose other than donation, the necessity of proof lies on the taxpayer (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du4082, Nov. 13, 2001). 6-2-6-2, 5-1 through 4-5-2, the Defendant recognized the amount of evidence No. 300, May 12, 2010 to the Plaintiff as the amount of KRW 200,000,000,000 were deposited in the account of the inheritee’s deceased’s account, but the actual owner of the said account was deemed to have donated the above amount to the CCC, and determined the amount of KRW 100,3005,7000,7000.

However, it is insufficient to acknowledge the above assertion by the Plaintiff only with the statement Nos. 4-3 through 6, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Furthermore, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statement and argument No. 4, i.e., the 155,700,000 among the issues of the CCC in the instant claim prior to the commencement of the inheritance, are merely the amount not repaid to the decedent as of the commencement of the inheritance, and the CCC did not have the ability to repay to the decedent as of the commencement of the inheritance, and there is no proof of the correlation between the amount received from the decedent and the amount paid to the decedent. (ii) Even if CCC paid the medicine expenses to the decedent, such circumstance alone cannot be deducted from the amount donated to the decedent. (iii) In light of the fact that the Defendant did not dispute the above CCC’s decision and disposition on July 1, 2015 regarding gift tax amount of KRW 175,700,00 as a prior donation.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, all of the above arguments by the plaintiff are without merit, and the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.

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.