early 2014 Mine2993 ( October 17, 2014)

The Plaintiff did not constitute an organization deemed a corporation at the time of transferring the instant real estate.

If the plaintiff filed an application for an organization deemed an individual after closing its business, the head of the competent tax office shall be deemed to have accepted the intention of change, and the plaintiff cannot be deemed an organization deemed an individual at the same time as the plaintiff is a corporation under the Corporate Tax Act.

Article 13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes [Organization Considered as Corporation]

Jeonju District Court 2015Gudan509

○ ○ school conference

○ Head of tax office

December 4, 2015

January 15, 2016

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 92,186 for the Plaintiff on January 15, 2014 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 1, 200, the Plaintiff, an organization established for missionary activities, submitted an application for approval of an organization deemed a corporation under Article 13(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (a non-profit corporation) and received the notification of approval from the Defendant (the head of the tax office). On May 12, 2000, the Plaintiff received business registration number (401-82-O, and the identification number of an organization deemed a corporation).

B. On November 12, 2002, the Plaintiff purchased ○○○-dong land on June 5, 2003, purchased the same 45-12 land (hereinafter referred to as “three parcels of land”) on June 5, 2003, and obtained a building permit to build a church building (hereinafter referred to as “instant church building”) on August 13, 2003. On August 22, 2003, the Plaintiff started new construction work on August 22, 2003, and completed the registration of initial ownership by completing the instant church building on March 3, 2004.

C. On the other hand, on September 5, 2003, at the request of the Plaintiff’s representative, the organization’s identification number (the above 401-82-○○○○○○○) assigned to the Plaintiff as a juristic person is reported of business closure, and on the same day, the Plaintiff was given a unique number under the Income Tax Act (the business registration number of an organization to be considered as an individual) to the Plaintiff.

D. On December 27, 2011, the Plaintiff transferred the instant church site and the instant church building (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant real estate”) to the regional housing association at KRW 1,405,000.

E. At the time of the transfer of the instant real estate, the Defendant deemed the Plaintiff as a resident under the Income Tax Act on the ground that the Plaintiff does not fall under the “organization deemed as a corporation” under Article 13(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and on January 15, 2014, determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 92,1860 as the transfer income tax attributed to the year 201 on the disposal of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. On March 31, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an objection with the Defendant, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 23, 2014. However, the Plaintiff was dismissed on October 17, 2014, and filed the instant lawsuit on December 26, 2014.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

On May 12, 200, the Plaintiff was approved by the Defendant as an organization deemed a corporation under Article 13(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, but notified from the Defendant that the organization deemed a corporation should be changed from "organization deemed a corporation" to "organization deemed an individual", and submitted an application therefor around September 2003.

The substance of the plaintiff is the business registration form. Article 8 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that approval may be revoked ex officio when he finds that the organization deemed a corporation did not meet the requirements as a part of post-supervision of the organization. However, the defendant did not revoke approval ex officio.

Therefore, the income accrued from the disposal of fixed assets directly used for the purpose business by a non-profit domestic corporation under the Corporate Tax Act, is excluded from taxable income, and the Plaintiff disposes of the real estate in this case after using it directly for the proper purpose business for at least three years, so it cannot be subject to taxation.

Ultimately, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is unlawful.

3. Relevant statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

4. Determination

A. Whether the Plaintiff constitutes a “organization deemed a corporation” under Article 14(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes at the time of transferring the instant real estate

1) On May 12, 200, the Plaintiff has been recognized as a "organization deemed as a corporation" and upon the request of the Plaintiff's representative, as to the organization deemed as a corporation on September 5, 2003, the report of business closure is made, and on the same day, the Plaintiff's unique number under the Income Tax Act was imposed on the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's representative was notified of the change from "organization deemed as a corporation by the tax authorities" to "organization deemed as an individual by the tax authorities on September 2003, and accordingly submitted an application to the tax office." (However, there is no document containing the relevant application and the details of processing submitted by the Plaintiff's representative upon the expiration of the preservation agency. The Plaintiff also stated to the purport that "the representative of the Plaintiff shall not memory the submission of any application."

2) We examine the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's representative applied for the change of the plaintiff's representative to an "organization deemed a corporation". Accordingly, the report of business closure is made on the part of the organization deemed a corporation as seen above. At the same time, if the income tax law is imposed on the portion approved as a "organization deemed a corporation by the plaintiff's representative upon the plaintiff's application, it indicates the intention of change to an "organization deemed as an individual", and the head of the competent tax office shall accept the intention of change and take related measures (the plaintiff shall not be deemed as an "organization deemed as a corporation under the Corporate Tax Act and shall not be deemed as a resident (the organization deemed as an individual) at the same time) under the Income Tax Act.

3) As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff still constitutes an organization deemed a corporation under the Corporate Tax Act, since there was no Defendant’s revocation ex officio. The reason for revocation of ex officio is merely limited to the purport that the tax authority may revoke the approval ex officio by examining whether a person subject to revocation of ex officio is an organization deemed a corporation, even if there is no application from the person subject to approval. If there is no such reason for revocation of ex officio, a request for change of an organization deemed a corporation from an organization deemed a corporation to be a corporation, and the tax authority cannot be viewed to the purport that it is impossible to make the disposition accordingly (i.e., allow a party meeting the requirements for ex officio to become an organization deemed a corporation by obtaining approval from the tax authority, and it does not prohibit a party to become an organization deemed a corporation even if it satisfies such requirements. Therefore, it is difficult to say that there is an error by clarifying the intention of change of an organization deemed a corporation in the absence of the grounds for revocation of ex

Therefore, just because there was no ex officio revocation, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to be an organization considered as a corporation under tax law.

4) The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

B. The defendant's notification that "a change to an organization deemed an individual from an organization deemed a juristic person" was given to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff applied for a change in accordance with the plaintiff's claim that the disposition in this case is unlawful, and even if the plaintiff notified the same purport as the plaintiff's assertion (which seems to fall under "administrative guidance", it is insufficient to prove that it was illegal administrative guidance, such as that the defendant's guidance was a compulsory administrative guidance (the plaintiff's submission No. 4). However, in the case of another church, the plaintiff's submission No. 1 to No. 4 was notified that the religious organization should be changed to an organization deemed as an individual in the case of a business place, but it maintains the status of an organization deemed as a base corporation because it is not important for each other). Thus, there is also insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the tax authority expressed its intention not to impose capital gains tax in the case of subsequent administrative guidance.

This part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

C. Sub-decision

Thus, since the plaintiff does not constitute a "organization deemed a corporation at the time of disposing of the real estate of this case, it cannot be said that there was an error in the disposition of this case by the defendant, which is based on the premise.

5. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as there is no ground.