early 2010 Heavy2174 ( December 13, 2010)

If the actual transaction price cannot be confirmed, it is legitimate to calculate the transfer price based on the standard market price.

In light of the fact that no special agreement is attached to a sales contract submitted at the time of the declaration, it is difficult to deem that the sales contract is reliable in light of the fact that the acquisition value of the financial statements of the purchasing company is written differently from the sales value in the contract, and no mention is made on the high-amount collective security established at the time of the contract.

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act

2011Guhap1066 Disposition of revocation of a capital gains tax rectification notice

United StatesA

Head of the Pakistan Tax Office

August 23, 2011

October 4, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 1,630,632,020 against the Plaintiff on November 4, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 28, 1998, the Plaintiff acquired and owned a total of 19,942 square meters of land, other than 2,479 square meters of o, o, o, o, o, o, o, o. 2,479 square meters, and sold it to BB Construction Co., Ltd (hereinafter “B Construction”) on December 30, 2008, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day.

B. On February 28, 2009, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 509,468,390 of the transfer income tax calculated by applying the transfer value as the actual transaction value with respect to the transfer of the instant land to KRW 3,169,476,00, acquisition value as the actual transaction value, KRW 1,438,753,200, gains on transfer, and KRW 2,138,943,880 of the transfer income tax.

C. As to this, the Defendant calculated the transfer value of this case as the standard market price on November 4, 2009, and imposed capital gains tax of KRW 1,630,632,020 on the Plaintiff in 208 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 1, 2010 on June 8, 2010, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on December 13, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 16-1 to 8, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On December 30, 2008, the Plaintiff and BB Construction determined the purchase price of the instant land as KRW 3,619,476,00 on the sales contract executed by December 30, 2008 at the time of the transfer of the instant land. However, if the instant land is expropriated in a public project due to a special agreement, the purchase price shall be calculated by adding the purchase price to the amount of compensation and settling the amount at the time of the receipt of compensation. The transfer price at the time of the instant land is KRW 3,619,476,00, which is the actual transaction price, and the transfer price at the time of the transfer of the instant land is new and payable. The transfer price at the time of the transfer of the instant land is KRW 3,619,476,00, which is the actual transaction price, and the transfer price shall be paid after a revised return is made. However, the Defendant calculated the transfer price at the time of the transfer of the instant land by calculating the transfer price based on

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, Gap's 2, 4, 14, Eul evidence 16-1 through 8, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 16-2, and Eul evidence 2, the plaintiff's sales contract (Evidence A No. 14) submitted at the time of reporting and paying transfer income tax to the defendant on February 28, 2009 was not accompanied by the attached special terms and conditions (settlement of purchase price on the condition of expropriation of public business), and the above special terms and conditions were presented only during the dispute over the disposition of this case. The plaintiff's purchase price of 3,619, 476,00 won stated in the above sales contract was 8,504,473,000 won as standard market price of the land of this case, or 42.5% of the value of the land of this case was 60,000 won as the sale price of this case's 20,000 won as evidence No. 760,600,000 won as the sale price of this case's.

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.