early 201J 2103 ( October 11, 201)

The application of heavy tax rates to three housing owners per household is legitimate.

Since there is no evidence to prove that the mother was registered as the same household member at the time of transferring a house and that the mother was residing in a place other than the resident registration, the mother was composed of one household as the same household, and since it constitutes a case of possessing three houses, the application of heavy tax rate is legitimate.

Article 89 of the Income Tax Act

Article 154 of the Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act

2011Guhap531 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

KimA

Deputy Director of the Tax Office

May 24, 2012

June 21, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of 000 won against the plaintiff on January 4, 2011 is revoked (the date of disposition entered in the complaint is clear that " January 10, 201" is a clerical error).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 4, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired a detached house located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul OOdong 000 (hereinafter referred to as “instant detached house”) by auction, but on December 29, 2006, transferred it to Nonparty AA real estate consulting (hereinafter referred to as “instant transfer”). However, on December 29, 2006, the Plaintiff did not report the transfer income tax.

B. At the time of the transfer of this case, the Plaintiff resided in the OB-owned 00 OO apartment 00,000 OO apartment 00,000 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, and owned a detached house located in 000 Odong 00,000, and HoB-in, the mother, as the Plaintiff’s member, registered the apartment of this case as the Plaintiff’s member.

C. On the other hand, the Defendant applied the heavy taxation rate of 3 houses per household with respect to the instant capital gains, and the instant disposition was rendered to determine and notify the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the capital gains tax accrued in January 4, 201, on the ground that there was no objective evidentiary document, and that KRW 000 as the capital gains tax accrued in 2006 was not recognized as necessary expenses.

D. On May 31, 201, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 4, 201, but the appeal was dismissed on October 11, 201.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including household numbers), and Eul evidence 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

① Due to the husband’s business failure, due to the husband’s business failure, he was registered as the apartment of this case for the reason of the obligee’s claims and the receipt of postal items, but actually resided in the Seoul Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government OOO 000 000 OO 000 OO 000 OO, and there was no record of residing with the Plaintiff, and thus, it does not constitute three houses for one household.

② It is unreasonable to recognize 000 won as necessary expenses for remodeling construction of the instant housing.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether it constitutes three houses for one household

Article 154(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19687, Sep. 22, 2006; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "one house for one household" under Article 89(1)3 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144, Dec. 30, 2006) shall be defined as "one household comprised of the residents and their spouse at the same address or same place of residence", and the concept of the above one household shall also apply to "three houses for one household" under Article 104(1)2-3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19687, Feb. 1, 200; hereinafter the same shall apply), and that it is reasonable to recognize that these two houses were registered as the plaintiff's mother, and that those apartment houses were registered as the plaintiff's household members at the time of the transfer, and that it is more than 30O's residence.

According to the above recognition, HoB resided in the apartment of this case and constituted "one household" as the same household under the Income Tax Act with the plaintiff, and at the time of the transfer of this case, the fact that the plaintiff owned the apartment of this case, ② O-dong detacheds, and ③ HaBB owned the apartment of this case, ③ The transfer of this case constitutes three houses for one household, and it is legitimate that the defendant applied the transfer income tax rate of three houses for one household, and the plaintiff's assertion on this is without merit.

(2) Whether the cost of remodeling construction is recognized as necessary

According to Article 97 (1) 2 of the former Income Tax Act and Article 163 (3) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, expenses paid for the change, improvement or convenience of the use of transferred assets shall be capital expenses, etc.

The Plaintiff is liable to prove that the transfer value falls under the necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value, and whether the expenses were paid, and the amount thereof are proved. The Plaintiff submitted Gap evidence 16 and 17 as evidence proving the spending of remodeling construction expenses and the amount thereof, but the Plaintiff’s trade name of supplier Gap evidence 17 (tax invoices) and the supplier of the tax invoice submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of request for a trial is different from KK Construction and PP5 (PP5) respectively, and there is no details of the sales report at the time of reporting the second period sales of PP5 (P5) in 2006 (the fact that there is no dispute, and the purport of Gap evidence 1, as a whole), and there is no reason to acknowledge that the above remodeling materials or construction expenses were paid in excess of the above remodeling construction expenses, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above remodeling costs were paid in excess of the above remodeling costs and the amount thereof (the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the first period and the second period).

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.