early 2012west0806 ( October 15, 2012)

It is legitimate to calculate the acquisition value with the amount paid to the seller and the amount paid additionally by the intermediate payment, etc.

Although there is no sales contract, there is no real acquisition value, it is argued that the transfer value confirmed at the seller's declaration of transfer income tax and the seller's declaration of transaction example is difficult to recognize that the details of transaction transaction are false, and the amount additionally paid by adding the amount paid to the seller and the intermediate payment, etc. is legitimate

2012Gudan19420 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

IsaA

The Director of Gangnam District Office

March 27, 2013

April 24, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 5,851,150 against the Plaintiff on June 16, 2011 is revoked.

1. Details of disposition;

A. A. On March 15, 2000, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant real estate by acquiring the ownership of the instant real estate from the KimB on the sales right (it is indicated as 000 Dong 0000, 0000 at the time, hereinafter referred to as 'the instant sales right') with O00 O00 and 0000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the instant real estate'), and transferred the instant real estate from KimCC and 1, on December 31, 2009 to 00 won.

B. On February 23, 2010, the Plaintiff reported that there was no transfer income tax to be paid to the Defendant. However, on June 16, 2011, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the total amount of KRW 000 in capital gains tax and additional tax on the premise that the actual acquisition value incurred by the Plaintiff when acquiring the instant real estate is KRW 000 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff underwent the pre-trial procedure.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 4, 6, Eul 2-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since there is no document, such as a sales contract of sales right, etc. to prove the amount, etc. paid to KimB when the Plaintiff purchases the instant sales right, the Defendant cannot verify the actual acquisition value of the instant real estate. Therefore, the Defendant should recognize the conversion price of KRW 000 as the acquisition value of the instant real estate. In this case, there is no transfer income tax to be paid by the Plaintiff. Ultimately, the instant disposition made on a different premise should be revoked.

B. Relevant statutes

former Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 9897, Jan. 1, 2010)

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses in Transfer Income)

(1) In calculating gains on transfer of a resident, necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value shall be as follows:

1. Acquisition value:

(a) The actual transaction price required for the acquisition of assets under subparagraphs of Article 94 (1): Provided, That in cases falling under the main sentence of Article 96 (2), the standard market price at the time of acquisition of the relevant assets;

(b) In case of the text of item (a), where it is impossible to confirm the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition, the transaction example value, appraisal value or conversion value;

C. Determination

The tax base and tax amount of income tax are determined based on the actual amount revealed by the field investigation method, and it is exceptionally permitted only when there is no taxpayer's account books or documentary evidence, or there is no other method to disclose the actual amount of income without any credibility, so the reason that the taxpayer himself wants to investigate and determine the actual amount of income by the method of estimation cannot be deemed as satisfying the requirements of the estimated investigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu20304, Jan. 15, 199). The following facts are as follows: Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 2, and Eul evidence 3, as it is difficult to determine the tax base and tax amount of income tax by the method of estimated investigation; Eul evidence 0,000 won for sales contract of this case; Eul evidence 0,000 won for total purchase price of the above real estate and 00,000 won for sales contract of this case after the fact that each of the above 00,000 won for sales contract of this case was acquired to the defendant.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed for reasons.