The early 2012 middle 4430

The disposition imposing tax on the transfer value reported by the former owner as the acquisition value by the plaintiff is legitimate.

The Plaintiff is confirmed to have paid the acquisition tax in accordance with the sales contract of Party A, and since the Plaintiff reported the transfer value by delegation of the former owner’s tax return, the disposition imposing tax on deeming the transfer value reported by the former owner as the acquisition value by the claimant is not erroneous.

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses of Capital Gains)

2013Gudan473 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

IsaA

Head of the High Tax Office

October 28, 2013

November 25, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of OOOO for the year 2006 against the Plaintiff on July 12, 2012 is revoked (the date of the disposition stated in the complaint seems to be written in writing).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 2, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred 10-10-18 multi-household 101 "multi-household 101" and 76.74m2 (hereinafter "the instant house") to Nonparty KimB, and completed a preliminary return on August 18, 2006 with the transfer value of the instant house as OOO and the acquisition value as OOO's won.

B. On January 22, 2002, the Defendant confirmed that, at the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant housing on January 22, 2002, NonpartyCC, the former owner of the instant housing, reported the transfer value as an OOO, and deemed the acquisition value of the said housing as an OOO, on July 12, 2012, the Defendant corrected and notified the OOO of the capital gains tax reverted to the Plaintiff in 2006 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 8, 2012, but was dismissed on December 13, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff, when the plaintiff purchased the housing of this case, lent OOO won out of the purchase price, acquired OOO's debts for loans secured by the housing of this case, and if the plaintiff combines interest on the above loans, acquisition tax and registration tax, the acquisition price of the housing of this case shall be OO's.

B. Determination

In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in evidence Nos. 3 through 5, ① stated that thisCC was forged with respect to evidence No. 2 (hereinafter “instant dispute contract”) that the Plaintiff asserted as a genuine sales contract prepared with thisCC; ② the Plaintiff acquired the instant house and filed a transfer income tax return directly stating that the transfer price on behalf of thisCC was OOO won; ③ the Plaintiff paid the acquisition tax and registration tax on the instant house as an OOO won is acknowledged. The above facts are acknowledged. The Plaintiff’s payment of the acquisition tax and registration tax on the instant house also can be recognized based on the following circumstances: (i) the Plaintiff did not submit objective data to prove the remainder of the purchase price including OO loan No. 2 on the instant house; and (ii) the Plaintiff did not fall into the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant loan No. 2 had been made on the date of preparation of the contract; and (iii) the fact that the acquisition price and registration tax on the instant house is legitimate and acceptable.

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.