National Tax Service Review Inheritance 2011-003 (Law No. 13, 2011)

Any disposition imposed on the basis of transaction example in the same complex is legitimate.

This case's commercial building and comparative commercial building are located in the same Tong within the distribution center of this case, and their size are the same, and their use is also the same as the lease to the production and repair company of the Moter, power generator, etc. at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. The disposition imposed on the basis of business example which is deferred to the same point at the time of the commencement of the inheritance is legitimate.

2011Revocation of revocation of disposition imposing inheritance tax, etc.

KimA

The director of the tax office.

March 20, 2012

March 29, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On December 1, 2010, the Defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of the inheritance tax ○○○○○○○, which was made against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 7, 2009, the Plaintiff reported the inheritance tax on the inherited property with the remaining inheritor (three children) on the death of the largestB, who is the husband, and reported the inheritance tax on the inherited property, and the combined value of the inherited property on the commercial building and its appurtenant land (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) assessed as the standard market price for the value of the inherited property among the inherited property, the commercial building and the comparative commercial building are located in the same Tong within the distribution center of this case and are leased to the manufacturing and repair company such as the mother and power generator. ② The standard market price at the time of the commencement of inheritance between the commercial building and the comparative building in this case is the same.

B. As a result of the inheritance tax investigation conducted on the Plaintiff around October 2010, the Defendant confirmed that each of the instant commercial buildings and its appurtenant land (hereinafter “the instant commercial building”) was sold to ○○○○○ on May 27, 2009, where six months prior to the date of commencing the inheritance ( October 7, 2009) was within six months prior to the date of commencing the inheritance, and added the amount of KRW 60(1) and (2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”), Article 49(1) and (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22042, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree”) to the Plaintiff by applying the difference between the amount of comparative property and the amount of KRW 1,000,000,000.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on February 28, 2011, but was dismissed on June 13, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1, 2 and 4 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the comparable commercial building is located in the same Dong as the instant commercial building, it is located at a distance of 80 meters from the instant commercial building, and there is a high accessibility to buyers compared to the instant commercial building, and as a result, the commercial building itself formed is different and its rent is much higher than that of the instant commercial building. In light of such circumstances, the comparative commercial building cannot be deemed identical or similar to the instant commercial building, and thus, the disposition that the Defendant deemed the transaction price of the comparative commercial building as the market price of the instant commercial building is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

(c)a recognition;

A) The instant commercial building and the comparable commercial building are located in 00 or more buildings in the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan GovernmentCC Distribution Center (a place where various industrial products, such as machinery, tools, etc., are sold and distributed; hereinafter referred to as the “distribution center of this case”). The area and the standard market price at the time of commencement of inheritance are as listed below.

(The following table omitted):

B) The 00-dong building where the instant commercial building and the comparable commercial building are located is located located far from the entrance of the instant distribution center to a level of 100 meters, and both commercial buildings are located on both sides. Meanwhile, the commercial buildings in the distribution center of this case are connected to the asphalt road where vehicles can pass. The comparative commercial building is located on the outer side connected to the distribution center entrance. The instant commercial building is located on the opposite part, and is connected to the road located between the distribution center entrance and the distribution center entrance.

C) Both the instant commercial building (146) and the comparative commercial building (119) are leased to and used by manufacturers and repair business operators, such as the bridge and power generator. Meanwhile, as a result of the national tax integrated system inquiry, the rent rate for the instant commercial building, the comparative commercial building, and the surrounding commercial building are as listed below:

(The following table omitted):

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 4-1, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 6-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence, Gap evidence 3-3, the whole purport of the pleading, and the whole purport of the pleading

D. Determination

According to Article 60(1) and (2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the Plaintiff’s value of the property subject to comparison is based on the market price as of the date of commencing the inheritance (the base date of appraisal) and the meaning of the market price is ordinarily established if transactions are conducted freely between many and unspecified persons. Accordingly, Article 49(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the transaction price (No. 1) shall be deemed the market price if there is an event of sale of the pertinent property within 6 months before and after the base date of appraisal. Paragraph (5) of the same Article provides that the purchaser of the pertinent property and its location, use, and category are similar to those of the pertinent commercial building at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. In light of the above facts and the purport of the entire arguments, the number of the commercial building subject to comparison cannot be seen as identical to that of the commercial building at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, and it is difficult to recognize that there is a difference between the sale price of the pertinent property and its neighboring commercial building.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.