Examination Donation 2008-0028 (Law No. 26, 2008)

deemed donation of stock title trust;

It cannot be readily concluded that there was no tax avoidance purpose, such as reducing income tax burden through title trust, and otherwise, it cannot be concluded that there was no other obvious purpose, not for the purpose of tax avoidance, but for other obvious purpose, or that the progress of tax reduction is minor or minor.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. Each plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed.

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

피고 ○○세무서장이 2008. 1. 16.(2009. 11. 17.자 청구취지 변경신청서 기재 '2008. 1. 14.'은 오기로 보인다)자로 원고 최AA에게 한, 피고 ☐☐세무서장이 2008. 1. 10.자로 원고 최BB에게 한, 피고 ☆☆세무서장이 2008. 1. 8.자로 원고 최CC에게 한, 각 별지 부과처분 내역의 잔액(가산세 포함, 이하 같다)란 기재 각 증여세 부과처분을 취소한다.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. HongD acquired new shares by participating in each issue offering of new shares by a △△ firm on July 12, 1996, July 1, 1999, and August 18, 200, while holding the shares issued by a △△ firm in the name of the Plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as “△△ firm”). The number of shares held in the names of the Plaintiffs before and after the issue of new shares is as listed below.

B. Accordingly, the Defendants imposed gift tax on the Plaintiffs by applying Article 32-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5193, Dec. 30, 1996; hereinafter referred to as the “former Inheritance Tax Act”) and Article 41-2 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6780, Dec. 18, 2002; hereinafter referred to as the “former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) with respect to the title trust of this case through the subscription of each new shares as stated in the preceding paragraph, and subsequently the first decision of correction was issued following the review and decision of first reduction. Accordingly, the Defendants issued a second decision of revocation of the second reduction relating to some additional taxes during the proceeding of the instant case, which is the previous taxable date, as stated in the purport of the taxation and the attached Form (hereinafter referred to as the “each disposition of imposition of gift tax in the balance column of the imposition disposition”).

다. 한편, 홍DD는 위 시기에 △△기업 외에도 ★★해운 주식회사(이하 '★★해운'이 라 한다) 발행 주식 중 일부를 원고들 명의로 각 보유하고 있었는바, 홍DD가 △△기업 및 ★★해운 주식을 원고들에게 각 명의신탁함에 따라 자신의 명의로 보유했을 때와 비교하여 회피되는 배당소득 관련 종합소득세액은 아래 표와 같다(단위: 년, 원).

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence 1-1 to 8-1, 2, and 3-1 to 6, each of Eul evidence 9-1 to 12, Eul 16, 17, and 18-1.2 and each of 71 evidence and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the dispositions of the instant case are legal.

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

이 사건 명의신탁은 다음과 같이 조세회피목적 없이 이루어진 것인바, 이와 달리 본 이 사건 처분은 위법하다. 즉 △△기업 설립 무렵의 명의신탁은 ●●인의 한국 내 대리점인 ▲▲해운 주식회사를 설립 ・ 운영하고 있던 홍DD가 그와 경쟁관계에 있던 ◆◆린과의 독점 대리점계약 체결 및 유지를 위해 타인 명의로 △△기업을 설립할 필요성과 당시 상법상 필요한 7인의 발기인 수 충족을 위한 것이었고, 이 사건 각 증자 및 명의신탁은 기업공개 준비를 위하여 균등증자를 하는 과정에서 기존 명의수탁자들에게 지분비율에 따라 선주가 균등배정된 것에 불과하며, 주주배정 방식의 균등증자의 경우 증자 전후를 불문하고 명의신탁된 지분비율에 아무런 변동이 없어 그 증자 주식의 명의신탁으로 인하여 명의수탁자의 배당소득이나 세액의 차이가 발생할 수 없으며, 기타 △△기업 설립 당시의 명의신탁 ★★해운주식의 명의신탁이 사건 각 유상증자별 명의신탁에 대하여 각각 조세회피목적이 판단되어야 하는 점, 기존 명의신탁이 이미 수십 년 전에 이루어졌고 그 이후에도 기존 명의신탁과 추가척인 명의신탁 모두가 10년 이상 계속 유지되어 온 점, 이 사건 각 증여세액과의 상대적 고려와 필요성 등을 아울러 감안할 때, 조세회피목적을 인정할 수 없다.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 41 and Article 41-2(1)1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that where the actual owner and the nominal owner are different from each other, the value of the property shall be deemed donated from the de facto owner on the date when the property is registered as the nominal owner: Provided, That this shall not apply in cases where the property is registered, etc. in the name of another person without the purpose of tax avoidance, and where the property is registered in the name of another person, it shall be presumed that the purpose of tax avoidance exists (Article 32-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act does not conflict with the former Inheritance Tax Act in the relationship where the nominal owner must prove that the purpose of tax avoidance was not the purpose of tax avoidance in light of the form of such provision). Since the legislative purport of Article 41-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act recognizes an exception to the substance over form principle by effectively preventing the act of tax avoidance using the title trust system, the proviso of the same Act is applicable only where the title holder did not have any objective of tax avoidance in the future.

In light of such legal principles, the title trust of this case was held in title trust with respect to the new stocks allocated in proportion to the number of stocks owned by the plaintiffs in the name of the plaintiffs through active exercise of preemptive rights, such as subscription for new stocks and payment of subscription price for new stocks. The acquisition of new stocks is not a duty of shareholder's rights, and it is not a duty of shareholder's right, and there is no obstacle to waiver of preemptive rights (no circumstance exists to deem that HongD has any obstacle to giving up preemptive rights to stocks owned by the plaintiffs). The purpose of title trust and preparation for corporate disclosure, etc., including the time of the establishment of △△ enterprise, etc. conducted before the title trust of this case, cannot be deemed to have direct relations with the title trust of this case. In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to view that the title trust of this case was made for any other obvious purpose, not with a tax avoidance purpose, not with a clear other purpose.

또한 이 사건 명의신탁에 따른 회피되는 종합소득세액을 계산함에 있어 관련 배당 소득금액을 실질소유자인 홍DD에 대한 과세표준에 산입하는 경우와 원고들에 대한 과세표준에 산입하는 경우를 비교하여야 할 것인데, 과세표준에 따라 세율이 달라지는 구조 하에서 이 사건 명의신탁 이전에 이루어친 △△기업 및 ★★해운 발행 주식에 대 한 명의신탁 관련 배당소득금액 또한 이를 원고들에 대한 과세표준에 산입하여서는 안 되고, 그럴 경우 이 사건 명의신탁으로 인해 회피되는 종합소득세액이 위 1.다.항 기재 와 같은바, 그 회피세액 합계가 원고들별로 1,500여만 원 내지 5,800여만 원에 이르고 그 전체 합계액이 105,094,809원이나 되어, 01 사건 명의신탁으로 인한 조새경감의 결 파가 사소하거나 경미한 정도라고 볼 수 없다.

Ultimately, it cannot be readily concluded that there was no tax avoidance purpose, such as reducing the burden of global income tax, which is the global income tax, at least with respect to dividend income through the instant title trust, and otherwise, it cannot be deemed that it was conducted for another obvious purpose, not with the purpose of tax avoidance, or that the result of tax reduction is minor or minor. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.