Whether a disposition imposing value-added tax on a gift for the purpose of donation of business assets is legitimate

Even if parents donated a commercial building to their children for the purpose of donation, the plaintiffs' claims are without merit since they constitute the subject of value added tax.

Article 9 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Daejeon District Court-2019-Gu Partnership-102965

GG outside of 1

Daejeon Head of the District Tax Office

June 26, 2017

August 28, 2017

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs registered and "business operators, such as real estate leasing and selling business," under the trade name of "AAFD on April 24, 2007," and on April 15, 2008, the building 9 stories above ground on the land 806, Jung-dong, Daejeon Pyeong-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter referred to as "the building on the ground").

'The building of this case' is newly constructed and registration of ownership preservation (1/2 shares each in their names) is completed in their names.

The lease was set aside.

B. BB and CCC are the children of Plaintiff GG, DD and EE, Plaintiff FF.

C. On December 22, 2016, the Plaintiffs: (a) No. 401 to 403 of the instant building were DD; (b)

heading 601 through 603 to EE, 701 to 703 to BB, 801 to 603

803 No. 803 For each co-owned share to CCC, the term “donation” if the person is his or her child.

As a person, each registration of ownership transfer was completed on the grounds of "trade" if he is not his own child.

D. The Plaintiffs’ tax base amount on January 25, 2017, with respect to value-added tax for the second quarter of 2016.

1,00,330,280 won, calculated tax amount of KRW 81,518,995, which shall be reported, paid, and thereafter paid, respectively.

25. A final return was filed by modifying the tax base amount to KRW 1,712,91,280.

E. The Plaintiffs’ assertion to the effect that donation to their children constitutes the subject of VAT exemption.

on April 10, 2017, the tax base for value-added tax on the Defendant’s first return on the value-added tax

Claim for rectification seeking the reduction of an amount to KRW 1,00,330,280, and calculated tax amount to KRW 81,518,995.

Although the defendant made a gift to a real estate sales businessman on June 12, 2017, the gift of the leased building by the real estate sales businessman is goods.

In supply, the plaintiffs' request for correction is rejected on the grounds that the final return on the above subsection (d) is justified.

The disposition(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case") was made.

F. The Plaintiffs are dissatisfied with the instant disposition and file an objection with the Tax Tribunal on November 16, 2017.

On February 21, 2018, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the above appeal.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6 through 8 (if any)

Each entry, the purport of the whole pleading, including the number

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 2)

1) The grant of free donation to parents’ own consciousness is not subject to value-added tax, and donor’s death.

The imposition of value-added tax depending on whether a business operator is a business operator violates the principle of equality.

2) The general rules of the established rules based on which the Defendant is liable for taxation are null and void beyond the bounds delegated by the mother law.

B. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

A) Article 9(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the supply of goods shall be all contractual or legal sources.

The Value-Added Tax Act provides that goods shall be delivered or transferred by person.

Article 18 (1) 4 of the Enforcement Decree shall be one of the supply of goods under Article 9 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act.

(3) the delivery of goods by means of auction, expropriation, investment in kind, or other contractual or legal grounds;

The term "those which are either transferred or transferred" is defined.

(b) the supply of goods subject to value-added tax is contractual or legal;

2) The Plaintiffs asserted that “the imposition of income tax on the same commercial building on which gift tax was imposed” constitutes double taxation, but this constitutes the Plaintiff.

Since they are not related to their claims, they are excluded from those subject to judgment.

The term "delivery or transfer of goods" means the delivery or transfer of goods for all reasons, and the taxpayer shall be for profit.

A person that supplies goods or services independently on a business basis, regardless of whether it is reasonable to do so;

Where a person delivers or transfers goods on contractual or legal grounds, value added thereto.

Except as otherwise provided for in special circumstances, the payment of value-added taxes shall not be levied or exempted;

It is subject to taxation to be attached (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du2459 decided July 24, 2008).

C) After completing business registration, the Plaintiffs newly constructed the instant building and use the said building.

12 of the building in this case during the second taxable period of 2016, in which real estate rental business is carried on;

The fact that the shares in the office are donated to each of his or her children, as seen earlier, is the same.

Among the buildings of this case where the plaintiffs who operated the real estate sales business of this case were provided for their own business

The donation of a part of the goods shall be made by reason of a contractual cause regardless of whether it is for profit in connection with it.

Value-added tax shall be exempted because the other party to the donation is a child.

in comparison with the case of a donation by a child who is not a business operator, the principle of equality is against

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

2) Judgment on the second argument

According to the above evidence, the defendant is in accordance with the Value Added Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Value Added Tax

The plaintiff is only deemed to have taken the disposition of this case, and the rules and regulations of this case which are the basis of taxation by the defendant.

The plaintiffs do not specify the "Common Provisions of the Rules" even with respect to the assertion that they are filial duty.

The claim in this part is without merit to be examined further.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.