Disposal calculated by the acquisition value as the evaluation amount at the time of donation and the adequacy of additional tax application

The provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act that calculate the acquisition value at the time of transfer of donated articles are lawful and there is no reason to exclude the application of additional taxes.

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses)

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of 38,553,110 won and additional tax of 11,986,160 won for the portion reverted to the plaintiff on May 15, 2006.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and thus, the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the part concerning the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

Jin part

A. To revise the 'the actual transaction value' of No. 9 and No. 10 of the first instance judgment to the 'the transfer value'

(b) revise "transfer income tax of 50,539,270 won" in Part 2 to "transfer income tax of 38,553,110 won and additional tax of 11,986,160 won";

C. On the other hand, the part of the acquisition value of the standard market price at the time of transfer was not reported to the market price at the time of transfer, and the part of the acquisition value at the time of transfer was not reported to the market price at the time of transfer to the acquisition value

(d) revise the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act of Chapter 5 to the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act;

E. The following determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion is added.

(1) The plaintiff calculated the acquisition value of the house of this case by the supplementary evaluation method under the provisions of Article 61 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter "the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act"). Article 60 (3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the transfer value of the house of this case can be calculated by the supplementary evaluation method under the provisions of Article 61 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Article 97 (1) 1 (c) of the former Income Tax Act provides that the transfer value of the house of this case can be calculated by the conversion method under the provisions of Article 61 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act; Article 97 (1) 1 (c) of the former Income Tax Act provides that the transfer value of the house of this case can not be calculated by converting the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition into the standard market value at the time of transfer; Article 60 (3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the acquisition value of the house of this case can not be calculated by the transfer value calculated by the transfer value of the house of this case.

(2) Next, the plaintiff alleged that the acquisition value should be calculated based on the standard market price and the transfer value should be calculated based on the actual transaction price, the defendant sent a revised return notice stating only that "it is subject to reporting on the actual transaction price," and that the plaintiff believed it and caused the plaintiff to make an erroneous return. Thus, the defendant's imposition of penalty tax 11,986,160 won exceeds the plaintiff's wrong notification due to the defendant's unfaithful guidance, and thus, the disposition of this case on the above additional tax should be revoked because it is improper because the defendant's imposition of the above additional tax exceeds the plaintiff's wrong notification due to 1,986,160 won. This case's imposition of the above additional tax is not erroneous because the plaintiff's duty to inform the 10th taxpayer as administrative sanction imposed by the law, and it is unreasonable to view that the plaintiff's taxpayer's intention and negligence cannot be viewed as a legitimate reason for the plaintiff's failure to pay the transfer income tax due to 10th taxpayer's failure to do so.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.