2013Guhap1305

Gift tax on deemed gift of title trust for tax avoidance

(The judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance) to impose gift tax on the constructive gift of title trust with the purpose of tax avoidance, such as avoidance of designation of the secondary taxpayer and avoidance of global income tax on dividend income

Article 41-2 (Presumption of Donation of Title Trust) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2014Nu52536 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

AAA and 4

BB Director of the Tax Office

National Rotations

November 27, 2014

December 11, 2014

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed. 2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The part of the judgment of the first instance court against the plaintiffs shall be revoked. [Attachment] The Office of Disposition of the "Gift Imposition Table"

(Defendant) Each of the plaintiffs described in the column of "title trustee (Plaintiff)" on each of the dates stated in the column of "date of notice".

Each disposition to impose gift tax on them shall be revoked (the plaintiff shall be subject to such disposition in the appellate court).

No day was corrected.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation in this decision is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the following Paragraph (2) (Provided, That the part concerning the joint plaintiffs who did not appeal other than the plaintiffs of this case among the joint plaintiffs of the judgment of the court of first instance is excluded), Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A. On the fourth 10th 10th 10th 10th 2 judgment of the first instance court, “Plaintiff CCC” has been written “Plaintiff DCC.”

B. In light of the fact that the court of first instance did not determine whether the aforementioned taxes were evaded or not, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone does not constitute “the fact that the aforementioned taxes were evaded or not” under the above legal principles and comprehensive view of the fact that “the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs is not sufficient to determine whether the said taxes were evaded or not, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs and the circumstances of their arguments are considered.”

C. The part of the 8th judgment of the court of first instance stating that the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit (the plaintiffs' assertion that the provision on constructive gift of title trust property under the above Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which constitutes the basis of the disposition of this case, goes against the principle of proportionality and the principle of excessive prohibition, etc. However, the above provision recognizes an exception to the principle of substantial taxation in order to realize tax justice by effectively preventing the tax avoidance act using the title trust system, and the public interest is remarkably higher than the disadvantage that the trustee suffers from the imposition of gift tax, and the imposition of gift tax under the above provision is reasonable in an appropriate way to realize tax justice and the fairness of tax, so the above provision does not violate the principle of proportionality or the principle of excessive prohibition, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Du14521, May 29, 2014; 2012Hun-Ba259, Sept. 26, 2013).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.