2014 middle 3780

Cost of construction without objective evidence shall not be considered as necessary expenses

The construction cost, etc. of a building without objective evidence shall not be deemed necessary expenses to be deducted when calculating capital gains tax.

Revocation of disposition imposing capital gains tax

the United Nations A

Head of the tax office

December 8, 2015

January 12, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 105,652,650 for the year 2012 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2013, which exceeds KRW 68,391,194, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 31, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired 00 m2,354 m2,354 m2 prior to 53 m2,000 m2,354 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,00 m2,00

B. On October 31, 2002, the Plaintiff newly constructed two factory buildings (the first building of this case, the first building of this case, the second building of this case, the second building of this case, and the second building of this case, the "each building of this case" of this case) on the land prior to the subdivision. On December 8, 2005, the Plaintiff obtained the construction permit on the land prior to the subdivision, and obtained the approval for the use on December 8, 2005.

C. From the previous land before subdivision, ○○○-si ○○-4 ○○, 00 m2, 1,639 m2, 53-12 m2, 53-13 m2, 1,710 m2, and 53-13 m2, m2, and 1,710 m2 of the same Ri were divided (hereinafter referred to as “each of the above lands divided”), the instant 1-dong building is located on the instant 53-4 land, and the instant 2-dong building is located on the instant 53-12, 53-13 land.

D. On March 29, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land and the instant land No. 53-4 and the instant building No. 1 and the instant land No. 12 square meters to KimB. Upon filing a transfer income tax report thereon, the Plaintiff filed a total of 304,406,669 won, total of 489,250,528 won, total of 489,250,528 won, and the acquisition value of the instant building No. 1 was 254,685,886 won (total construction cost, etc. required for construction of each of the instant buildings reported by the Plaintiff 520,591,40 x 75.23 square meters of total floor area of each of the instant buildings 1,543 square meters of total floor area of each of the instant buildings 1,543.73 square meters of total floor area, and the transfer value was 206,674,927.

E. On April 24, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred the instant land and the instant building No. 53-12, 53-13; and (b) reported the transfer income tax on the said land toCCELS Co., Ltd.; and (c) reported the transfer income tax on the said land as the acquisition value of KRW 512,00,00 in total; (b) the transfer value of KRW 725,00,000 in total; (c) the acquisition value of the instant building and machinery; and (d) the transfer value of the instant building and machinery was KRW 666,943,889 in total; and (e) the transfer value was KRW 450,00,000 in total (= KRW 250,000 in building + KRW 200,000 in total).

F. As a result of a field investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff filed an excessive report on the acquisition value of the building No. 2 of the instant case with respect to the transfer of the building No. 1 of the instant case, and accordingly, calculated the construction cost required for the construction of each of the instant buildings reported by the Plaintiff in proportion to the total floor area of each of the instant buildings: KRW 265,905,513 (i) the acquisition value of the building No. 2 of the instant building is KRW 520,591,400 x the total construction cost, etc. required for the construction of each of the instant buildings x 788.5m2 of the instant building / the total floor area of the building No. 2 of the instant building 1 of the instant case / 783m2 of the instant building / the total area of each of the instant buildings 1,543m20, 2013 x the acquisition value of each of the instant buildings / 2018m21 of the instant building.

G. On July 16, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on December 23, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff shall pay 161,631,000 won for the construction price to Korea-D while constructing each of the buildings of this case.

In addition, since Korea-Japan ceased construction of each building of this case and completed construction directly by the Plaintiff with a construction cost of KRW 100,948,450, and the total construction cost of KRW 262,579,450 shall be added to the acquisition value of each building of this case. Therefore, if the construction cost of this case is divided in proportion to the total floor area of each building of this case, the construction cost to be added to the acquisition value of the building of this case of this case shall be KRW 128,46,408, and the transfer income tax calculated including the acquisition value shall be KRW 68,391,194, and the part exceeding 68,391,194, out of the disposition of this case shall be revoked.

B. Determination

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff paid KRW 532,573,40 (i.e., total construction cost reported by the Plaintiff + KRW 520,591,400 + additional construction cost of KRW 11,982,00) due to the construction cost, etc. following the new construction of each building of this case. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff paid KRW 262,579,450 of the Plaintiff’s assertion as construction cost, other than KRW 532,573,40, as seen above, when the Plaintiff newly constructed each building of this case, was insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff paid additional construction cost of KRW 532,573,40, as well as KRW 562,579,450 on the premise that the Plaintiff paid additional construction cost of each new building of this case without any need to further examine the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the Plaintiff paid additional construction cost of KRW 262,579,450.

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.