propriety of the disposition imposing tax by the standard market price

The case holding that it is lawful to impose the tax on the standard market price without recognizing the actual transaction price submitted by the plaintiff as the actual transaction price merely 67% of the standard market price.

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

Article 166 (4) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

According to Article 8(2) of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14860 of Dec. 30, 1995), Article 16(4)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that capital gains shall be applied from the first determination after the enforcement of the Enforcement Decree. This transitional provision provides that capital gains shall be applied from the first transfer after the enforcement of the parent law (Article 96 subparag. 1 of the Income Tax Act) as amended by Act No. 5031 of Dec. 29, 1995, Article 8(1) of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the parent law, Article 8 of the Addenda to the amended provisions of the parent law, and Article 8(1) of the Addenda to the amended provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree shall be applied retroactively to the transfer of the above amended provisions in favor of taxpayers if the former Enforcement Decree determines capital gains after the enforcement date (after January 1, 1996).

Subparagraph 1 of Article 96 and Article 97 (1) 1 (a) of the Income Tax Act, Article 166 (4) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, Article 8 (2) of the Addenda of the Income Tax Act ( December 30, 1995)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. 2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Details of the instant taxation disposition

The following facts are acknowledged according to each of Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 10, Gap evidence 13, Eul evidence 1-1 and Eul evidence 1-2, or there is no dispute between the parties.

가. 원고는 소외 이ㅇ홍과 함께, ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ번지 대 365.3㎡를 소외 유ㅇ길로부터 매수하여 1989. 8. 19.자로 소유권이전등기를 마침으로써 이를 취득하였다가 소외 명ㅇ식에게 이를 매도하고 1990. 10. 27.자로 소유권이전등기를 넘겨줌으로써 이를 양도하였다(이하 이 사건 양도).

B. Accordingly, on January 16, 1996, the Defendant calculated the transfer margin following the transfer of this case based on the standard market price, and imposed the transfer income tax of KRW 23,09,580, and the defense tax of KRW 4,619,910 on the Plaintiff.

2. Whether the instant taxation disposition is legitimate

A. Summary of the parties' arguments

(1) Plaintiff

The Plaintiff reported the actual transaction price by submitting a sales contract for the acquisition and transfer to the employee in charge of the Defendant prior to determining the above tax amount. Thus, the instant taxation by calculating the transfer margin based on the standard market price is unlawful even though the Defendant should calculate the transfer margin based on the actual transaction price.

(2) Defendant

The Plaintiff did not report the actual transaction price to the Defendant with documentary evidence before the Defendant determines the above tax amount, and even if the Plaintiff reported such fact, the actual transaction price reported by the Plaintiff cannot be trusted. Therefore, the instant taxation disposition, which calculated capital gains based on the standard market price, did not err by misapprehending the principle.

B. Details and interpretation of the relevant statutes

According to Articles 23(4)1 and 45(1)1(a) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281, Dec. 31, 1990) and Article 170(4)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13194, Dec. 31, 1990), real estate transfer margin should be calculated based on the standard market price at the time of acquisition and transfer. However, in cases where the transferor can verify the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition or transfer by documentary evidence when he/she files a return on the return on the profit from transfer or the final return on the profit from transfer (hereinafter “transfer income tax”), the purport of Article 16(4)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14860, Dec. 30, 195; Presidential Decree No. 16620, Dec. 30, 199>

Meanwhile, according to Article 8(2) of the Addenda of the current Enforcement Decree, the amended provisions of this case shall apply from the first determination of capital gains after the enforcement of the current Enforcement Decree (hereinafter “the transitional provisions of this case”). Notwithstanding the provisions of the mother Act amended by Act No. 5031 of Dec. 29, 1995 (Article 96(1) of the Income Tax Act), the amended provisions of the current Enforcement Decree shall apply from the first transfer after the enforcement of the parent Act and the Enforcement Decree (Article 8(1) of the Addenda of the amended provisions of the mother Act and Article 8(1) of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree, the amended provisions of this case shall be deemed to be a transitional provision that provides that the retroactive application shall be made if capital gains are determined after the enforcement date of the current Enforcement Decree, even if they are transferred before the enforcement date of the mother Act and the Enforcement Decree.

Therefore, even if the transfer was made before January 1, 1996, if the actual transaction price was reported to the head of the competent tax office with documentary evidence prior to the date of determination of the tax amount, and if the reported details are believed, the tax office should calculate the transfer margin based on the actual transaction price.

C. Determination

(1) Whether the Plaintiff reported the actual transaction price to the head of the competent tax office by keeping evidential documents prior to the date of determination of tax amount

If Gap evidence No. 9-2 and Gap evidence No. 14 collected the whole purport of the pleading, the plaintiff received a notice from the defendant that the transfer of this case would be subject to a transfer income tax (Evidence No. 14) and submitted a sales contract (Evidence No. 4) and a sales contract (Evidence No. 1) on the acquisition and transfer of the same details as the taxation disposition of this case on January 1, 1996, prior to the date of the taxation disposition of this case, and submitted a sales contract (Evidence No. 14) to the public official belonging to the defendant, and the actual acquisition value is 77,250,000 won (the plaintiff's share among the purchase price No. 4, 154,500,000 won as stated in the evidence No. 4), and the actual transfer value is 88,400,000 won (the plaintiff's share equivalent to the purchase price No. 176,800,000 won as stated in the evidence No. 1).1.

According to the above facts, if the plaintiff submitted a sales contract for acquisition and transfer to the public official in charge before the date of determination of the amount of tax, even though the plaintiff did not receive the return in a fixed manner, it shall be deemed that it constitutes a case of reporting the actual transaction price to the defendant

(2) As to the credibility of the Plaintiff’s report

In order to calculate gains on transfer based on the actual transaction value, the actual acquisition value and actual transfer value reported by the transferor should be confirmed by the documentary evidence submitted by the transferor (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu13807, May 10, 196). Therefore, first of all, we examine the credibility of the transfer value reported by the Plaintiff.

As evidence consistent with the details of the Plaintiff’s report, the above name-based transaction contract (Evidence A) submitted by the above name-based transferee while completing the registration of transfer of ownership and the above name-based transaction confirmation (Evidence A2). However, if the above name-based transaction document Nos. 2-2, 2- Eul’s evidence Nos. 3, 6-2, and 7 are collected, the above name-based transfer value reported by the Plaintiff is about 67% of the standard market price, and the above name-based transfer value is merely about 67% of the standard market price. The above name-based transfer value stated that the above name-based transfer value reported by the Plaintiff is different from the facts, and that the Plaintiff’s name-based transaction price is about 2.5 million won per reputation (if calculated accordingly, the Plaintiff’s share transfer value shall be about 130 million won per reputation). In light of the above facts, it is difficult to believe that the above facts of the Plaintiff’s report are consistent with the above evidence.

Therefore, since the transfer of this case constitutes a case where the transfer value reported by the Plaintiff cannot be confirmed by documentary evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it shall be deemed that the transfer value reported by the Plaintiff cannot be calculated based on the actual transaction value without examining whether the acquisition value reported by the Plaintiff is reliable or not.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the instant taxation disposition that calculated capital gains based on the standard market price is lawful. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking revocation on the ground that the instant taxation disposition is unlawful is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing Plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.