early 209 middle 1620 (209.03)

The act of giving credibility to a false report constitutes fraud or other improper means.

In order to grant credibility to a false declaration while underreporting the reported value and to conceal the actual transaction value, the preparation and submission of a false double contract in which the sale price is underfinite is underfinite to constitute a "Fraud or other fraudulent act that significantly makes it difficult to impose and collect taxes by actively deception."

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On March 3, 2009, the Defendant issued a disposition of imposition of transfer income tax of 12,224,700 won for the year 2002, in lieu of the Plaintiff on March 3, 2009 (the entry of the purport of the claim on March 31, 2009).

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2000. 7. 27. 인천 남동구 ⊗⊗동 29 주공아파트 213동 1308호(이하 '이 사건 아파트'라 한다)를 매매대금 73,500,000원에 취득하였다가,2002. 8. 20. 노☊☊에게 매매대금 115,000,000원에 양도하였다.

B. On August 23, 2002, the Plaintiff filed a preliminary return on the tax base of capital gains tax with the acquisition value of the instant apartment as KRW 73,500,000, and the transfer value as KRW 75,000,000.

C. On March 3, 2009, the Defendant: (a) considered the acquisition value of the instant apartment as KRW 73,500,000 for the Plaintiff; and (b) considered the transfer value as KRW 115,00,000 for the transfer value as KRW 12,224,70 for the transfer income tax corresponding to the year 2002; and (c) rendered the instant disposition imposing the transfer income tax on the Plaintiff

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence No. 5 of A, purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a)the master of the plaintiff;

(1) 5 years have passed since the Defendant was entitled to impose capital gains tax on the Plaintiff. Since there was no fraud or other unlawful act by the Plaintiff, such as preparing a false double contract, the Defendant was unlawful in the instant disposition that deemed otherwise inasmuch as the Defendant did not impose capital gains tax on the Plaintiff.

(2) The instant disposition that the Defendant imposed capital gains tax on the Plaintiff is unlawful even though the transfer value should be calculated based on the standard market price under the Income Tax Act at the time of the transfer value.

B. Determination

(1) Whether the instant disposition was conducted within the exclusion period of the imposition right

Article 26-2(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the limitation period for the right to impose national taxes shall be ten years from the date on which the national tax can be imposed if a taxpayer evades a tax as a "Fraud or other unlawful act". "Fraud or other unlawful act at this time" refers to a deceptive scheme or other active act that makes it considerably difficult or considerably difficult to impose or collect taxes, and it does not constitute a mere failure to file a tax return under the tax law or failure to pay taxes without accompanying such an act (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do2429, May 8, 1998). However, in a tax in which the tax base is determined based on the reported value by a taxpayer, preparing and submitting a false contract in which the taxpayer underreporting the reported value while granting credibility of the reported value and concealing the actual transaction value constitutes "any fraudulent or other unlawful act that significantly difficult to impose or collect taxes by actively deception (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do3014, Jun. 14, 2004).

이 사건에 관하여 살피건대,원고가 2000. 7. 27. 이 사건 아파트를 매매대금 73,500,000원에 취득하였다가,2002. 8. 20. 노☊☊에게 매매대금 115,000,000원에 양도한 사실, 그런데 원고는 2002. 8. 23. 피고에게 이 사건 아파트의 취득가액을 73,500,000원으로, 양도가액을 75,000,000원으로 하여 양도소득세과세표준 예정신고를 한 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같고, 을 제1호증의 1 내지 5,을 제2호증의 1 내지 4의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 원고가 2002. 8. 23. 피고에게 이 사건 아파트의 양도가액을 75,000,000원으로 하여 양도소득세과세표준 예정신고를 하면서 매도인 원고,매수인 노☊☊,매매대금을 75,000,000원으로 기재한 허위의 이중매매계약서 및 위 계약서의 내용을 확인하는 취지의 매수인 노☊☊ 명의의 부동산거래사실 확인서, 그의 인감증명서를 첨부하여 제출한 사실을 인정할 수 있는 바, 위 인정사실에 의하면, 납세자가 선고한 가액에 의하여 과세표준이 결정되는 양도소득세에 있어서, 원고는 양도신고가액을 과소신고하면서 허위 신고가액에 신빙성을 부여하고 실제 거래가액을 은닉하기 위해 양도금액을 과소하게 기재한 허위의 이중매매계약서를 작성하여 함께 제출하였으므로, 이러한 원고의 행위는 적극적인 기망행위로서 조세의 부과징수를 현저히 곤란하게 하는 '사기 기타 부정한 행위'에 해당된다.

Therefore, since the plaintiff is judged to have evaded national taxes due to "Fraud or other unlawful acts", the exclusion period of the right to impose the transfer income tax of this case is ten years. The disposition of this case was made before the exclusion period of the right to impose the transfer income tax of this case expires, so it is legitimate and the plaintiff'

(2) Whether the disposition of a provisional case which is assessed based on the actual transaction price is unlawful

Article 96 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6781 of Dec. 18, 2002; hereinafter the same) provides that "The transfer value of assets under Article 94 (1) 1 and 2 of the former Income Tax Act shall be based on the standard market price at the time of each Do of the relevant assets: Provided, That where the relevant assets fall under any of the following subparagraphs, it shall be based on the actual transaction price at the time of the transfer and the date of acquisition, and Article 94 (1) 6 of the same Act provides that "Where the transferor reports the actual transaction price at the time of transfer and the date of acquisition to the head of tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment

이 사건에 관하여 살피건대, 원고가 2000. 7. 27. 이 사건 아파트를 매매대금 73,500,000원에 취득하였다가,2002. 8. 20. 노☊☊에게 매매대금 115,000,000원에 양도 한 사실, 그런데 원고는 2002. 8. 23. 피고에게 이 사건 아파트의 취득가액을 73,500,000원으로, 양도가액을 75,000,000원으로 하여 양도소득세과세표준 예정신고를 한 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같고, 을 제1호증의 1 내지 6,을 제2호증의 1 내지 4,을 제4호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 원고는 위 양도소득세과세표준 예정 신고를 하면서 취득가액이나 양도가액을 기준시가가 아닌 실지거래가액으로 한 사실을 인정할 수 있는바,위 인정사실에 의하면, 양도가액을 실지거래가액에 의하여 한 이 사건 처분은 적법하고, 원고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

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.