Seocho 2014 Schedules 4254 ( October 16, 2015)

It does not constitute a ground for filing a subsequent claim for rectification

Since the claim for correction of this case does not constitute a ground for filing a subsequent claim for correction, it is illegal as the deadline for request expires.

Article 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2015Guhap5870 Revocation of Disposition Rejecting Inheritance Tax Correction

KimA

YThe director of the tax office

September 10, 2015

October 22, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant's rejection disposition of correction of inheritance tax for the year 2008 against the plaintiff on March 27, 2014 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 11, 2008, the Plaintiff reported and paid the inheritance tax ○○○○○○, which was calculated on January 6, 2009 with the taxable amount of inheritance tax as ○○○ upon the death of the deceased KimB (hereinafter “the decedent”).

B. On October 1, 2010, the Defendant (at the time, the head of Song District Tax Office was the head of Song District Tax Office due to the division due to the reorganization) conducted an inheritance tax investigation, and as a result, the Plaintiff, ParkCC, and KimD owned 1/3 of each equity interest, and the land and above-ground buildings (hereinafter “instant real estate”) were deemed as the trust property under the name of the inheritee, and were imposed and notified on the Plaintiff on October 1, 2010, including the inherited property.

C. On December 23, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office on the purport of the said decision that the instant real estate is not a title trust, but a prior donated property. The Plaintiff filed an objection with the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office having to recognize the obligation to return the deposit deposit (hereinafter “the obligation to return the deposit deposit of this case”) with respect to the instant real estate as the obligation of the inheritee. On May 12, 2011, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office decided on May 12, 201 that the instant real estate shall be added to the inherited property under the name of the inheritee, but shall be assessed as the amount actually borne at the time of acquisition, and the obligation to return the deposit of this case shall be deducted from the taxable amount of inheritance tax to the amount actually borne at the time of acquisition, and the Defendant calculated the taxable amount of inheritance tax by deducting the obligation to return the deposit deposit of this case from the taxable amount of inheritance tax to

D. On August 18, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal to the effect that the instant real estate is not a trust property under the name of the decedent, but a prior donated property. On March 20, 2012, the Tax Tribunal decided that the instant real estate should be deemed a prior donated property, and thus, it should be excluded from inherited property and the tax base and tax amount should be corrected. The Defendant excluded the instant real estate from inherited property on April 17, 2012, but excluded the instant real estate from the amount deducted from the amount deducted, thereby reducing the inheritance tax to KRW 904,034,451.

E. On June 14, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition imposing inheritance tax, which was corrected as of October 1, 2010, as of this court’s reduction, and argued to the effect that the instant rental deposit ought to be deducted from the taxable amount of inheritance taxes by recognizing the obligation to return the instant rental deposit as the obligation of the inheritee.

F. On January 4, 2013, the instant court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim by deeming that the obligation to return the instant rental deposit cannot be deducted from the taxable amount of inheritance taxes (2012Guhap1882), and the Plaintiff appealed against it (2012Guhap1882), and the Seoul High Court, which was the appellate court, revoked part of the disposition to impose inheritance tax on November 29, 2013, but determined that the Plaintiff’s assertion was groundless since it was deducted from the taxable amount of inheritance taxes because the obligation to return the instant rental deposit was already recognized as an obligation of the inheritee (2013Nu7195), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 19, 2013. On December 19, 2013, the Defendant corrected the inheritance tax to ○○○○ upon the said final judgment.

G. On January 13, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office to the effect that even if the instant real estate was donated in advance, the obligation to return the instant lease deposit ought to be deducted as the obligation of the inheritee. However, on January 28, 2014, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on the ground that the Plaintiff’s disposition disputing on January 28, 2014 was the decision of reduction as of April 17, 2012, and that it did not have been legitimate within

H. On February 4, 2014, the Plaintiff determined that the Defendant’s obligation to return the instant rental deposit was recognized as the Defendant’s obligation and deducted from the taxable amount of inheritance taxes, and thus, the obligation to return the instant rental deposit should be deducted from the taxable amount of inheritance taxes. Although the additional tax on negligent tax returns should be calculated based on the Act amended on December 27, 2010, an excessive amount was calculated based on the previous Act before the amendment, and the amount of interest paid by annual installments should also be determined based on the decision to reduce the amount of tax, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction of the tax base and tax amount (hereinafter “instant request for correction”).

I. On March 27, 2014, the Defendant: (a) calculated the Plaintiff; (b) calculated the additional tax on negligent tax returns on negligent tax returns in accordance with the amended Act as of October 27, 2010; and (c) notified the Plaintiff of the payment of interest on annual installments by specifically stating the grounds therefor; (b) issued a disposition rejecting a request for correction on the ground that the amount of the payment of interest on annual installments differs from the taxable amount of inheritance tax; and (c) filed an objection against the same portion of the amount of the payment of the deposit deposit in question, but the period of objection was dismissed due to the lapse of the period of objection (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(j) On August 12, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on March 16, 2015.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On December 4, 2013, the Plaintiff received the Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu7195 on December 27, 2013, and notified the Defendant of the details of the determination of the amount of tax. On December 27, 2013, the Plaintiff found not to reflect the purport of the said judgment in the details of the determination, and found any error in the calculation of the amount of the penalty tax, and filed a request for correction of the instant case on February 4, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction of the instant case on December 4, 2014, pursuant to Article 45-2(2)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 121848, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter referred to as the “former Framework Act on National

Furthermore, since the lease deposit of this case was received and managed by the decedent, the obligation to refund the lease deposit of this case shall be deemed the obligation of the decedent, and it shall be deducted from the taxable amount of inheritance

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) According to the facts acknowledged earlier, while the Defendant excluded the instant real estate from inherited property on April 17, 2012, the Defendant determined that the obligation to return the instant rental deposit does not constitute the obligation of the inheritee to be deducted in calculating the taxable amount of inheritance and imposed the inheritance tax, and the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation seeking revocation thereof, but the Plaintiff’s assertion that the obligation to return the instant rental deposit constitutes the obligation of the inheritee was not accepted, and the judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

In this regard, the plaintiff asserted that the Seoul High Court's above decision was accepted the plaintiff's claim that the obligation to return the deposit money of this case constitutes the obligation of the inheritee that should be deducted when calculating the taxable amount of inheritance taxes, but that decision rejected the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the obligation to return the deposit money of this case was already deducted, and thus, the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted (the Seoul High Court's decision was accepted after recognizing the obligation to return the deposit money of this case as the obligation of the inheritee in the decision of reduction on June 29, 201, and then deducting the obligation to return the deposit money of this case as the obligation of the inheritee in the decision of reduction on April 17, 2012, it cannot be deemed that it was due to misconception of the facts that

If so, it is difficult to view that the transaction or act that became the object of the dispute as the basis for calculating the tax base and the amount of tax in the decision of correction on April 17, 2012, that is, the obligation to return the instant lease deposit, is not recognized as the obligation of the inheritee, and it is difficult to view that the reason for filing a subsequent request for correction under Article 45(2)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes is not recognized.

2) Furthermore, according to each subparagraph of Article 45-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, an application for rectification shall be filed within three years from the statutory due date of return, and pursuant to Article 67(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9269, Dec. 26, 2008), an inheritance tax shall be reported within six months from the date of commencing the inheritance.

As seen earlier, the commencing date of the instant inheritance was July 11, 2008, and the statutory due date of return of the instant inheritance is apparent from January 11, 2009, and the instant claim for correction was filed three years thereafter, and thus, is unlawful.

3) Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was any error in the instant disposition rejecting the instant request for correction on the grounds that the period of request was elapsed.

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.