The legitimacy of the assertion that the transfer value reported should be calculated on the basis of the standard market price if it is different from the fact

If the returned value of capital gains is confirmed differently from the fact, the tax base and tax amount of capital gains shall be corrected by using such confirmed value as the transfer value or acquisition value.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 55 (Tax Rates of Gu Income Tax)

Article 94 (Scope of Transfer Income Tax of Gu)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on October 6, 2007 is revoked.

A. On March 10, 200, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred the instant farmland to ○○○-dong 214-○○○-dong 214-○, 1521 square meters; (b) 215-○○ 3 square meters; and (c) 214-○ Do 217 square meters (the sum of the said three parcels). On May 31, 2005, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,890,000 transfer income tax to the Defendant upon filing a final return with the Defendant on May 31, 2005 as KRW 220,000,000,000,000.

B. On July 16, 2007, the Defendant confirmed that the transfer value was KRW 680,000,000,000, and notified the correction amount of KRW 176,212,250 in total for the transfer income tax belonging to the year 2004, but thereafter, upon receiving a claim from the Plaintiff that the farmland of this case should be reduced or exempted as long as it falls under one of one’s own farmland for not less than eight years, the Defendant recognized that the transfer income tax should be reduced or exempted,

C. On October 9, 2007, the Plaintiff calculated the transfer value and acquisition value of the instant land to the Defendant on the basis of the standard market price, not the actual transaction value, not the actual transaction value, and the Defendant rejected the transfer income tax on the instant farmland on October 16, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 5

2. The legality of disposition.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts to the purport that it is unfair for the plaintiff to calculate and impose transfer margin on the basis of the standard market price if the value reported by the plaintiff is different from the actual transaction price, and that even if the actual transaction price is based on the family affairs, the procedure of confirming both the transfer value and the acquisition value should be prior to the procedure by a reliable agency

In addition, as long as capital gains tax on the farmland in this case is naturally reduced or exempted without waiting for the plaintiff's report, it does not fall under "income amount to be reported" under Article 115 (1) of the Income Tax Act, and thus, imposing additional tax is illegal.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 55 (Tax Rates of Gu Income Tax)

Article 94 (Scope of Transfer Income Tax of Gu)

C. Determination

(1) The legality of taxation based on the actual transaction price

In this regard, the proviso of Article 114 (4) of the Income Tax Act provides that where a resident files a preliminary return or a final return on the tax base of transfer income pursuant to Article 96 (1) 6 and Article 97 (1) 1 (a) (proviso) of the Income Tax Act provides that the tax base and tax amount of transfer income shall be corrected by using the verified value as the transfer value or acquisition value if the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the director of the regional tax office confirms the actual transaction value, and on the other hand, the transfer value of this case shall be the transfer value of 6.8 million won as the transfer value, and it shall be deemed reasonable and reasonable and recognized as the acquisition value of 2.2 million won as the acquisition value reported by the Plaintiff, unlike those reported by the Plaintiff. Thus, the above assertion by the Plaintiff is without merit.

(2) The legality of imposing tax

However, according to Articles 110 and 115 of the Income Tax Act, a resident having capital gains shall file a final return on capital gains tax base by no later than May 31 of the year following the corresponding year, but a person who files a preliminary return may choose not to file a final return on such income, but a person who files a preliminary return on such income shall file a final return in the corresponding year at least two preliminary returns on the assets subject to progressive tax rates in the corresponding year. The fact that the Plaintiff transfers three assets, including the farmland in this case is the subject of progressive tax rates as seen above. In this case, the Plaintiff is obligated to file a final return on capital gains tax for the farmland in this case. Since the Plaintiff filed a false report on actual transaction price and filed a return on the amount below the income amount to be reported under Article 115 (1) of the Income Tax Act, the Defendant cannot be said to have committed any error by imposing additional tax, and the above assertion by the Plaintiff is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.