The assessment of inherited property and the scope of normal price

Article 100 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6051 of Dec. 28, 1999); Article 166 (1), (2) Item 2 (a), subparagraph 3 (de Facto Deletion), and (4) subparagraph 3 (see current Article 96 (1) 6 of the current Income Tax Act) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15969 of Dec. 31, 198)

Supreme Court Decision 92Nu15352 delivered on March 26, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1326), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu18481 delivered on June 11, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2055), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu6090 Delivered on June 10, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2052), Supreme Court Decision 2002Du691 Delivered on August 22, 2003

Macio-research

Head of the Daegu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 2001Nu503 delivered on September 7, 2001

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

1. According to the provisions of Article 100 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6051 of Dec. 28, 1999), Article 166 (1), (2) 3, and (4) 3, etc. of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15969 of Dec. 31, 1998; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree") of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15969 of Dec. 31, 199), where the transferor submits evidentiary documents within the date of determining the tax base of capital gains tax and the amount of tax, and where only the actual transaction price at the time of transfer is confirmed, the acquisition price shall be the amount calculated by the formula under Article 166 (2) 2 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, or the value converted by the lower value (hereinafter referred to as "converted value") among the values appraised at the time of commencement of inheritance.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on September 30, 1989, the plaintiff succeeded to one half of the shares of the land and building of this case (hereinafter "the subject matter of this case") due to the death of her husband on November 9, 1998, and the defendant transferred to the Korea Textiles Machinery Co., Ltd. on January 3, 200, the actual transfer value of the subject matter of this case is 450,000 won reported by the plaintiff, but the actual acquisition value is not verified, and the transfer value cannot be calculated according to the formula under Article 166 (2) 2 (a) of the Enforcement Decree, and the transfer income tax amount is 78,171,370 won for the transfer income tax for 198, but at least 63,685,980 won for correction of the standard market price by mistake, etc. on April 7, 1989 to the head of the competent tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment at the time of transfer.

2. In the case of transfer of the property acquired by inheritance, the actual transaction price required for the acquisition of the inherited property refers to the normal price at the time of acquisition, and the normal price refers to the market price, actual transaction price, appraisal price, etc. at the time of acquisition (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu15352, Mar. 26, 1993; 95Nu6090, Jun. 10, 1997; 95Nu6090, Jun. 10, 1997, etc.). Moreover, the acquisition price is calculated in accordance with the criteria for determination of the Income Tax Act, so the taxable amount pursuant to the Inheritance Tax Act cannot be deemed as the actual transaction price (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu18481, Jun. 1

In light of such legal principles and the records, the court below's determination is difficult to view the taxable amount of inheritance or the current value of appraised value, which is based on the fact that the normal value at the time of inheritance exceeds the actual transfer value, as one of the normal value, and the appraised value as of March 19, 190 shall also be calculated based on the date after five months from the time of inheritance, and it shall not be considered as the material supporting the normal value at the time of inheritance. Furthermore, the above values required by the court below cannot be the basis for estimating the normal value at the time of inheritance.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which held that transfer margin cannot be generated based on the actual transaction price is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of transfer margin, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)