Main Issues
Where an application for payment in kind under Article 29 of the Inheritance Tax Act has been withdrawn, whether an additional payment in arrears may be imposed.
Summary of Judgment
If a taxpayer files an application for payment in kind in accordance with Article 29 of the Inheritance Tax Act with respect to the reported tax amount upon filing a voluntary return of inheritance tax, he does not have the obligation to pay it voluntarily within the deadline for report under Article 20-2 (2) of the same Act, and even if an application for payment in kind was withdrawn upon the recommendation of the tax authority, it does not have the retroactive effect on withdrawal. Thus, for the period from the day following the due date for report payment to the date of withdrawal,
[Reference Provisions]
Articles 20-2(2), 26(2), and 29 of the Inheritance Tax Act
Reference Cases
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Choi Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Plaintiff-Appellee
Plaintiff 1 and 5 others, Attorneys Ansan-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant
Defendant-Appellant
Head of Seocho Tax Office
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu1189 delivered on December 22, 1994
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
We examine the grounds of appeal.
If a person files an application for payment in kind with respect to the reported tax amount in accordance with Article 29 of the Inheritance Tax Act with voluntary declaration of inheritance tax, he does not have the obligation to pay it by annual installments within the report deadline under Article 20-2 (2) of the same Act, and thereafter, even if he withdraws the application for payment in annual installments upon the recommendation of the tax authority, there is no retroactive effect on withdrawal. Thus, for the period from the day following the due date of report payment to the date of withdrawal, an additional tax
The judgment below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)