National Tax Service Review Donation 2011-0069 ( December 23, 2011)

It seems that there was a financial resource to acquire real estate, the gift tax disposition is illegal.

It is reasonable to view that there was a sufficient capability to acquire real estate by newly constructing a apartment house, etc. while running the construction business at the time of acquiring real estate, and selling or leasing it in units, etc., and considering that there was a considerable amount of income.

2012Guhap2765 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

Article 3

Head of Ansan Tax Office

October 24, 2012

November 14, 2012

1. On July 1, 201, the Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff for the year 2006, KRW 000 for the gift tax for the year 2008, and KRW 000 for the gift tax for the year 2008, and KRW 000 for the gift tax for the year 2009 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From March 14, 2005 to July 21, 2009, the Plaintiff acquired real estate (hereinafter referred to as "real estate 1", "real estate 2", "third real estate 4", and "third real estate 5", as shown in the table.

B. On October 20, 2010, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office conducted an investigation into the source of funds from August 11, 2010 to September 30, 2010 and notified the Plaintiff of the result of the tax investigation into the gift tax amount of KRW 00 on the gift as of March 14, 2005, and KRW 00 on the gift as of October 16, 2007, and KRW 00 on the gift as of October 16, 2008, and KRW 00 on the gift as of July 31, 2008, and KRW 00 on the gift as of July 31, 2009, and KRW 200 on the gift as of July 31, 2008.

C. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a request for pre-assessment review with the Director of Central Regional Tax Office in 2008, and the Director of Central Local Tax Office in 2008 recognized KRW 000 as the source of funds to acquire each real estate of this case, and decided to re-examine whether the plaintiff borrowed money from ObCC in 2008 as the source of funds to acquire each real estate of this case, and whether the plaintiff borrowed money from ObCC, and whether the source of funds for interest income claimed by the plaintiff and the actual owner, and whether the KimB has financial ability to donate the acquisition funds of each real estate of this case to the plaintiff, and then re-examine each of the above matters, the plaintiff was deemed to have donated KRW 00 as shown in the Table.

(The following table omitted):

D. Accordingly, on July 1, 201, the Defendant imposed KRW 000 on the Plaintiff, and on November 1, 2006, the gift tax for the year 2006 on the gift from July 16, 2008 (No. 4 of the above attached Table), and on the gift from July 16, 2008 (No. 5 of the above attached Table), KRW 000 on July 31, 2008, the gift tax for the year 2008 on the gift from July 31, 2008 (No. 5 of the above attached Table), and KRW 300 on the gift from July 21, 2009 (No. 6 of the above attached Table), respectively, imposed the gift tax for the year 2006 on the gift from July 21, 200 (no. 5 of the above attached Table), respectively, (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant disposition of imposition of gift tax by the Presidential Decree No. 213014. 201. 2081.21. 2041.27.2041.25

E. On September 30, 201, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions, filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on September 30, 201, and was dismissed on December 23, 2011.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-satis, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 2, and Eul evidence 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since 199, the Plaintiff newly constructed EE apartment, 4, and 5 real estate from 199, and acquired rental income by selling or leasing them in units, and there were certain occupations and capabilities at the time of acquiring 2, 4, and 5, and 6 real estate from the Plaintiff, and from the Korean bank, etc. (hereinafter “Korea bank”), while KimB did not have the ability to donate the acquisition fund of each of the above sub-movables to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, each of the dispositions of this case should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Around September 30, 1999, the Plaintiff purchased the O-dong 000 large 543.5 square meters, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name on November 1, 1999, and completed the registration of construction business on November 10, 199, and newly constructed the apartment house (DD loan 14 households) on the ground of the above O-dong 000 O-dong 00 O-dong 00 in Ansan-si, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Plaintiff’s name on July 14, 200, and thereafter sold DD loan 14 households at least KRW 00 per household and at least KRW 00 per household on September 30, 200 (However, the tax authorities should have reduced the sales price and reported it).

2) On December 1, 2003, the Plaintiff registered a construction business with the name of "Evis apartment", and newly constructed one apartment unit (E apartment, 18 households) on the ground of the OE apartment (E apartment, and 18 households) on the land of 946-5 Opo-dong Opo-si on December 16, 2004, and completed registration of initial ownership in the name of the Plaintiff around December 16, 2004. On February 14, 2005, the Plaintiff, with respect to the above EE apartment 201, and 202, with respect to the obligor, and with respect to the credit amount of 00 won, and with respect to the credit amount of 200,000,0000, and 200,000, and 200,000, and 206,00,00,000,000, and 206,000,00.

3) The MediationCC deposited the Plaintiff’s new bank account under the Plaintiff’s name of 13 January 13, 2003, 000 won, and 00 won on January 14, 2003, 6.00 won on March 6, 2003, and 00 won on March 25, 2004, and 00 won on March 25, 2004, and 16.00 won on April 16, 2004, and 00 won on August 18, 2004, and 00 won on August 19, 2004 (i.e., 00 won) and 00 won on November 4, 2006 (i.e., 00 won, x 200 won, and 200 won on March 25, 2004).

4) On March 14, 2005, the Plaintiff purchased 1st real estate and 3rd real estate on November 1, 2006, and October 16, 2007, respectively. On November 29, 2007, the Plaintiff newly constructed and leased 4 real estate and 5 third real estate on the third real estate on the ground, and thereafter purchased 6th real estate on July 21, 2009. In addition, the Plaintiff has registered the real estate rental business on February 10, 2002 and on November 29, 2007.

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 8-1 through 6, Gap evidence 9-1, 2, Gap evidence 14, 15, Gap evidence 16-1 through 28, Gap evidence 17-1 through 29, Gap evidence 18-1 through 41, and Gap evidence 19-1 through 66, and the whole purport of the pleadings

D. Determination

The facts of donation of property, which are the requirements for the imposition of gift tax, are, in principle, proved by the tax authorities, and even if the tax authorities have had a considerable amount of income at the time of acquisition, and even if the funds required to acquire the property are not presented daily, it cannot be deemed that the portion of the funds required to acquire the property is donated to another person unless there are special circumstances. In this case, the following circumstances revealed in the light of the above recognition, i.e., the plaintiff acquired the sales price by newly constructing D loan, i.e., 4, 5, and 5, and EE apartment, i.e., 400 won, 60 won, 60 won, and 00 won, 40 won, and 00 won, 00 won, and 00 won, more than 60 won, and 00 won, more than 60 won, and 00 won, more than 60 won, more than 00 won, more than 00 won, more than 60 won, and more than 6000 won, respectively.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.