The legality of imposing gift tax in consideration of stock title trust.

The disposition of this case is legitimate because there is no ground for violation of jurisdiction, violation of the taxation principle, and the extension of the scope of investigation, and there is no ground for recognizing the non-party as the actual owner of the shares.

Donation of trust property under Article 45-2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Daejeon District Court-2019-Gu Partnership-134 ( October 10, 2019)

The Plaintiff stated that the capital required at the time of incorporation was loaned KRW 500 million to the Plaintiff, but

the corporation of this case, the first time after the incorporation of the corporation of this case

I am in light of the following: (a) the statement that the person is memoryed and that the statement is contradictory to each other:

The actual owner of the instant shares is fff, and fff is ordered to order the Plaintiff to hold the instant shares.

I think that this part of the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

3) Determination as to the assertion that there was no unfair act

The fact thatff held the shares of this case in title trust to the Plaintiff is as seen above, and Eul

According to the overall purport of the evidence Nos. 3, 4, 10, and 11, the Plaintiff prepared a false document, etc. in order to conceal or disguise the title trust of the instant shares, and made a false statement on the acquisition price of the instant shares. The Plaintiff’s above act constitutes “unlawful act” under Article 47-2(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is rejected.

4) Determination as to the assertion that the extension of investigation scope is unlawful

The amount of income shall be 10 billion won in the business year of 2014, which is the initial task period for the instant corporation to be investigated.

No dispute between the parties that was a small or medium-sized taxpayer of less than

As such, the actual representative of the corporation in the name of the corporation of this case in the process of tax investigation

payment, etc. is made to the plaintiff and c that it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff and c have performed his duties;

As a result, the head of the Gangnam District Tax Office partially expanded the scope of investigation on the labor cost for the representative of the business year from 2011 to 2013. However, this does not relate to the disposition of the instant case due to the expansion of the scope of investigation related to corporate tax. Moreover, since the Plaintiff’s error in the report of the instant corporation was verified and implemented in relation to more than two taxable periods, it cannot be said to be subject to the approval following the deliberation of the Taxpayer Protection Committee. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.

aa

Daejeon Head of the District Tax Office

2019.19

o October 10, 2019

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition of the gift tax of KRW 194,314,200 on August 22, 2017 by the former Defendant against the Plaintiff on August 22, 2017 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2011. 1. 19. 서울시 강동구 명일동에서 양약 도매업을 영위하는 주식회사 @@동서약품(2014. 6. 11. 주식회사 @@약품으로 상호를 변경하였음. 이하 '이 사건 법인'이라고 함)을 자본금 5억 원으로 설립하여 이 사건 법인의 발행주식 100,000주를 인수한 후, 2011. 2. 11. 추가로 발행한 주식 2,000주를 주당 5,000원에 인수하여 총 102,000주(지분 100%, 이하 '이 사건 주식'이라고 한다)를 인수하고 이 사건 법인의 대표이사로 취임하였으며, 원고의 배우자인 bbb은 이 사건 법인의 감사로 취임하였다. 나. 원고는 2012. 5. 18. 이 사건 주식 중 99,000주를 ccc(개명 전 이름 eee)에게, 3,000주를 ddd에게 각 양도하였다.다. 강동세무서장은 2017. 5. 29.부터 2017. 6. 27.까지 이 사건 법인에 대한 주식변동조사를 실시하여, 이 사건 주식의 실제 소유주는 원고의 사위인 fff인데 그가 장모인 원고에게 이 사건 주식을 명의신탁한 것으로 보고 상속세 및 증여세법(이하 '상속세및증여세법'이라고 한다) 제45조의2를 적용하여 2017. 8. 21. 피고에게 과세자료를 통보하였다. 라. 피고는 2017. 8. 22. 원고에게 2011년 귀속 증여세 194,314,200원(부당무신고가산세 37,200,000원 포함)을 결정ㆍ고지하였고(이하 '이 사건 처분'이라고 한다), fff을 연대납세의무자로 지정통지하였다.

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 22, 2018 on September 25, 2017, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on November 20, 2018. The Plaintiff was served the said decision on November 22, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition shall be revoked on the grounds that it is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The tax investigation conducted by the head of the Dong tax office, who is not the head of the competent tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s domicile,

2) The instant disposition imposes taxes on only a unilateral trend without any grounds.

3) The Plaintiff did not actively engage in any act that makes the imposition and collection of taxes impossible or considerably difficult, and imposing an unfair penalty tax on the Plaintiff is unlawful.

4) The head of the Gangnam District Tax Office expanded the scope of the tax investigation on the instant corporation without undergoing deliberation by the Taxpayer Protection Committee.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination as to the assertion of violation of jurisdiction

As the competent agency having jurisdiction over the domicile of the pertinent corporation under Articles 12 and 9(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 11603, Jan. 1, 2013) and Article 81-11 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (Amended by Act No. 1520, Dec. 19, 2017) are entitled to conduct an integrated investigation on the instant corporation, the act of discovering data on the Plaintiff and notifying the Defendant of gift tax assessment data in the course of the investigation conducted by the Gangwon-dong Head of the tax office is lawful. In addition, the instant disposition is lawful. The Plaintiff asserted that the disposition of this case was taken by the Dongdaemun-dong Head of the tax office based on the evidence No. 5, but it cannot be deemed that the internal data prepared by the Gangwon-dong Head of the tax office, who is the investigating authority, was insufficient to conduct the tax investigation on the instant corporation and that the instant disposition was taken due to this. The Plaintiff’s assertion in this part is rejected.

2) The following facts and circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the respective entries in the evidence Nos. 3 through 5 and the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., ddd, stated that theff was establishing the instant corporation by lending the Plaintiff’s name for the purpose of receiving rebates under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act. The Plaintiff was unable to specifically state not only the business of the instant corporation, but also his/her remuneration or commuting to and from work received during the course of the investigation, and did not submit any data on finance, and the Plaintiff did not specifically state the details of the instant corporation’s business related to the instant corporation. The Plaintiff is only fff to specifically state its business related.