National Tax Service Review Donation 2011-0026 (201.02)

Inheritance tax taxation is legitimate because it constitutes a borrowed account substantially managed by the deceased.

The signature completion of an application for financial transaction in the account used as the funds for acquiring real estate is the body of the deceased, and the resident registration certificate of the deceased is attached to the real name verification column of the application for financial transaction, and the registration of the seal imprint is also registered as the deceased, and the seal imprint is affixed on the deposit withdrawal money slip, and thus falls under the borrowed name account.

2011Guhap6227 and revocation of revocation of disposition of gift tax and inheritance tax imposition

AnAA 4 persons

Head of the Northern District Tax Office and one other

December 20, 2012

February 7, 2013

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

피고 북부산세무서장이 2010. 11. 8. 원고 안AA에 대하여 부과한 2004년도 증여세 000원， 000원， 000원， 000원， 000원，000원， 2005 년도 증여세 000원， 000원， 0000원， 0000원， 2006년도 증여세 000원， 2008년도 증여세 000원， 2012. 、6. 4. 부과한 2006년도 증여세 000원，000원，000원 합계 000원의， 원고 정BB에 대하여 2010. 11. 8. 부과한 2005년도 증여세 000원，000원， 2009년도 증여세 000원 합계 000원의， 피고 동래세무서장이 2012. 6. 1. 원고 안AA에 대하여 부과한 2009년도 상속세 000원， 2010. 11. 5. 원고 김CC에 대하여 부과한 2009년도 상속세 000원， 원고 안DD에 대하여 부과한 상속세 000원， 원고 안EE에 대하여 부과한 상속세 0000원 합계 000원(원고들의 2012. 12. 18.자 청구취지정정신청서상 '합계 000원'은 '합계 000원'의 오기로 보인다)，2010. 11. 5. 원고 안EE에 대하여 부과한 2005년도 증여세 000원， 000원， 2007년도 증여세 000원 합계 000원， 2010. 11. 5. 원고 안EE에 대하여 부과한 2007년도 증여세 000원，000원，000원 합계 000원의 각 과세처분은 이를 취소한다.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff KimCC is the spouse of the net F (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), and the plaintiff AA, euD, E, and alG are the children of the deceased, and the plaintiff AB is the spouse of the plaintiff.

B. The deceased died on June 26, 2009, and the plaintiff AA and the KimCC reported and paid 000 won inheritance tax on December 26, 2009 with the amount of inherited property as KRW 000.

C. From April 1, 2010 to May 20, 2010, the head of the same tax office notified the Plaintiffs of the result of the tax investigation to determine and notify the aggregate of KRW 000 and KRW 000,00,00,00,00,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

D. Accordingly, while requesting the review of the legality of the taxation before taxation, the Plaintiff AA, KimCC, and JeongB asserted to the effect that the financial property of the donated property among the donated property is a borrowed-name account opened by the Deceased in the name of the Plaintiffs at the AAdong branch of Nonghyup, and not a donated property, since it is a deposit owned by the Deceased, it constitutes inherited property, not a donated property (the details of the borrowed-name account claimed by the above inheritors are as shown in

E. From August 23, 2010 to September 20, 2010, the Defendants conducted a reinspection of inheritance tax, and determined that the Plaintiffs’ assertion on the following account was reasonable, and revoked the above disposition of gift tax (the details of the borrowed account additionally confirmed at the above investigation and determination are as shown in the table II). However, on the ground that most of the funds actually accrued to the Plaintiffs were used as the acquisition price of the Plaintiffs’ real estate, the Defendants reported 00 won of gift tax (real estate 00 won, financial assets 00 won, and financial assets 00 won) and 00 won of inherited property, and the Defendant’s first disposition of imposition of gift tax on the Plaintiff’s respective real estate 00 won and 00 won, and the first disposition of imposition of gift tax on the Plaintiff’s real estate 200 won and 00G, and the first disposition of imposition of gift tax on the Plaintiff’s real estate 200 won and 00G, respectively, should not be made to each of the Plaintiffs’ real estate 200.

(The following table omitted):

F. On January 27, 2011, the Plaintiffs filed an objection to the effect that “The accounts in the names of the Plaintiffs are not the borrowed account of the Deceased, and that real estate owned by the Plaintiffs was acquired by the proceeds from the sale of real estate owned by their respective owners, and that the amount of cash donation from the Deceased was paid to the Plaintiff, etc. or provided as a son’s school expense, and thus, there was no property donated in advance from the Deceased.” The Plaintiffs filed a request with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for review on May 20, 201, but dismissed on September 2, 2011.

G. On March 2012, while the lawsuit in this case is pending, the defendants confirmed that the above OO00 land owned by the plaintiff 00 with respect to the donation of the fund for the acquisition of riveryang real estate was owned by the plaintiff 1, and the intermediate payment of 000 won with respect to the acquisition of the above real estate was omitted from the donated property unlike the above O00 land (it shall be owned by the plaintiff 1/2). The defendants calculated the gift amount according to their shares, and added 50,000,000 won for the intermediate payment of 27 March 27, 2006 to the gift amount of 0.0,000 won, and the defendant 20,000 won for the above additional tax assessment to the plaintiff 1, 200,000 won for the total amount of 0,000 won for each of 0,0000 won for the gift tax, and the defendant 20,000 won for each of the above additional tax assessment to the plaintiff 20.

[Ground of recognition] The non-satched facts, Gap evidence 1, 35, 36 (including household numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), and Eul evidence 10, 16, 31, 32, and 34, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the imposition of inheritance tax or gift tax in this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) The accounts in the name of the Plaintiff A and KimCC are not the name account of the Deceased, and it is difficult to regard the amount that was withdrawn from the above accounts as the donation. In addition, the Plaintiff A, EB, and KimCC deposited the sale price or the compensation for expropriation of the real estate listed below (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “real estate sold in this case”) in the name of the deceased or his family for the purpose of joint property increase, and made the Deceased manage the real estate acquired in this case by using the above money, and there was no prior donation from the Plaintiff A and EAB, and KimCC.

2) The donation of cash from the deceased by the plaintiffs AA, AD, AE, and AB may not be subject to gift tax because they were provided with living expenses or school expenses, as follows:

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) Employment and income of the Plaintiff A and EB

A) The Plaintiff’s operation of the self-employed business with the trade name “J self-employed” from October 15, 1985 to March 29, 1986, and “K General License” from April 1, 1996 to September 30, 2005, and the Plaintiff’s operation of the self-employed business with the trade name “K General License” from March 30, 1987 to June 30, 1989, and the amount of income reported from March 2009 is only KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000.

B) From 1986 to 1986, Plaintiff JeongB served as an elementary school teacher. From 2003 to 2010, the total amount of wages of Plaintiff JeongB from 2003 to 2010 per year is KRW 000 per year, and the credit card income deduction amount during the above period is 000 won in total, and the total amount of actual income during the above period (=total pay + non-taxation benefit + insurance premium + medical expense + donations + tax + tax) are 000 won.

2) The occupation and income of Plaintiff KimCC and the Deceased

The Plaintiff KimCC operated a real estate brokerage business from October 1973. The Deceased retired from office as a civilian military employee from around 1960 to February 1982, and thereafter purchased and sold real estate to make profits, or run a real estate lease business. The Deceased received KRW 000 as land expropriation compensation from around 2004 to 2006.

3) The date of acquisition of the real estate in the name of the Plaintiff AA and the GovernmentB (other than joint land and O-dong apartment) among the real estate sold in the instant case.

4) From 1986 to 1987, the Deceased purchased a total of 14,048 square meters of land 18 square meters located in the OEM in Busan-gun, Busan-gun.

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-speed facts, Gap evidence 2 through 5, Eul evidence 2 through 8, 14, 27, and Eul evidence 8, 9, 12, 13, 30, and 31 through 33, and the purport of Gap evidence 25, as a whole, and the purport of Gap evidence 25

C. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

The purchase price of the acquired real estate in this case was withdrawn from and paid to the account in the name of the deceased and the plaintiff AA and KimCC, and the issues of this case are whether the account in the name of the plaintiff AA and KimCC is the deceased's borrowed name account, and whether the funds withdrawn from the above account can be deemed as the sale price or expropriation compensation of the real estate sold in this case and actually as the funds of the plaintiffs.

A) Whether the accounts in the name of the Plaintiff AA and the KimCC are the borrowed name account of the Deceased

In light of the fact that the purchase price of the real estate in this case was withdrawn, and that the account in the name of the deceased 1-4, the number 2-2, and 2-8 account of the deceased is located in the name of the 1-G government office, and that the account in the name of the 1-G government office was located in the name of the 0-G government office, and that the account was located in the name of the 1-G government office and the 10-G government office and the 2-8 account of the deceased. Considering that the above facts were examined, and that the 8-G government office and the 34th government office and the 32-A government office were not located in the 1-G government office, and that the 2-G government office and the 3-G government office were not located in the name of the 1-G government office and the 1-G government office were not located in the 3-G government office and that the 2-G government office were not located in the 3-G government office.

B) Whether the sales price, etc. of the real estate sold in the instant case can be seen as the source of funds to acquire the real estate acquired in the instant case by AA and AB

In light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to conclude that the above real estate was acquired under the name of the deceased, and that the above real estate was acquired under the name of the deceased, and that the sale price of the deceased was actually transferred to the deceased's bank account under the name of the deceased's father, and that it is necessary to establish separate evidence that the above real estate was actually donated to the deceased's bank account for other donation cases. In addition, it is necessary to prove that the disposal price of the real estate was used as the capital of the donee as well as that of the disposal price of the real estate acquired as gift property in the name of the deceased's bank account, and that it was difficult for the plaintiffs to view that the above real estate was acquired under the name of the deceased's bank account under the name of the deceased's bank account, and that it was difficult for the plaintiffs to acquire the above real estate under the name of the deceased's bank account, and that it would be difficult for the plaintiffs to acquire the real estate under the name of the deceased's bank account or the deceased's bank account.

C) Ultimately, the real estate acquired by the above plaintiffs was acquired with the money of the deceased that was withdrawn from the deceased's borrowed name account, and the above plaintiffs were donated to the deceased, and the above plaintiffs' assertion on this part is without merit.

2) Judgment on the second argument

A) Article 46 subparag. 5 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that gift tax shall not be imposed on the living expenses of a dependent who is recognized by social norms. The entries of spam and evidence No. 23 alone are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff AD and EE have spent the amount transferred from the deceased (00 won in total, and 000 won in total, of Plaintiff AE) directly for their original purposes, such as living expenses, and there is no other evidence to recognize otherwise, and this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion cannot be accepted.

B) Also, in light of the fact that the money remitted to AB from the account under the name of AG and Plaintiff PB (YG 000 won, Plaintiff PB 2000 won, and the money remitted to AII as seen earlier, the money actually transferred from the deceased’s borrowed account is the deceased’s money, and the non-taxable cost or education expense is the amount disbursed by the person under the duty to support, and that if the father who has not been under the duty to support bears the son’s living expenses or educational expenses, it does not constitute non-taxable donated property, and that the above money is not considered to have been used as educational expenses, etc., and that there is no other evidence to support it, the above plaintiffs’ assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are all dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.