Early High Court Decision 2016J 2162 (2016.05)

Whether the appraised value at the time of transfer can be recognized as acquisition value

In light of the appraisal value at the time of expropriation, it is difficult to accept the proposal for the claim because there is no objective evidentiary data, and there is no legal basis to regard the amount of compensation at the time of expropriation as the acquisition value.

Article 94 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Suwon District Court 2016Gudan9262 (No. 12, 2017)

Kim*

○ Head of tax office

2017.04.28

2017.05.12

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The rejection disposition against the plaintiff on May 13, 2016 made by the defendant of the Gu office against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

(1) On June 1, 2001, the Plaintiff purchased cri cri cri 574-16, 574-17, 1721 square meters, 574-19 square meters per annum, 8153 square meters per annum, 574-20 square meters per annum, 574-20 square meters per annum, 574-33 forest land and 1453 square meters per annum, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under one’s name on June 25, 2001.

Before April 202, 2002, Shed Kimd-D (referring to the Plaintiff) newly constructed the following buildings and completed the registration of ownership preservation in its name on the land of 574-19, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name on January 18, 2006. Meanwhile, on March 10, 2006, the transfer income tax (taxation) was levied at KRW 247 million with the acquisition value of KRW 27 million and the transfer value of KRW 220 million with the transfer value of KRW 20,000,000. The Plaintiff filed a report on the amount of transfer income tax under its name. The Plaintiff filed a report on the amount of transfer income tax (tax) of KRW 10,000,000 with the 1st floor and animal-related facilities with the 1st floor of 204,000 roof roof roof roof roof roof and plant-related facilities with 945,000 m299,000 m2.

Article 27 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The Plaintiff shall construct the following buildings on the land on November 2012, 574-16.” The Plaintiff shall construct a new building on the Adong BJ A, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, and C, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, 877.5 square meters of animal and plant-related facilities.”

In order to implement public works (project for the creation of a general industrial complex for the Gyeonggi-do Ballast), and to expropriate each of the above land and buildings incorporated into the project site on November 6, 2014, the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff the total of KRW 5,648,020,320 (i.e., the above five parcels of land plus KRW 3,279,098,650 + the above KRW 574-19 + the above KRW 1,452,623,221 + the above KRW 1,452,623,221 + the above above KRW 574-16 Ground building and its appurtenant facilities + KRW 491,01,200,200, such as the above KRW 916,298,449, and the livestock industry compensation).

(v) On January 31, 2015, the Plaintiff reported and paid the transfer income tax of KRW 770,190,643 (= calculated tax amount of KRW 920,50,394 - reduced or exempted tax amount of KRW 150,90,909,751) for the year 2014 on the ground that the actual transaction price is unclear and that the acquisition price is 2,128,342,166 won (i.e., the total conversion price of each of the above lands + KRW 287,612,03 won in total + the total conversion price of each of the above buildings and their accessory facilities 1,840,730,133 won in total).

⑹ 원고는 2015. 4. 6. 피고에게 위 574-19 지상 건물과 부속시설에 대하여 당초의 환산취득가액(1,062,843,587원)을 실지거래가액(222,316,908원)으로 변경하는 수정신고를 하고 추가세액 261,057,370원을 납부하였는데, 그 수정신고 내역은 아래와 같다.

⑺ 원고는 2015. 4. 14. 피고에게 위 수정신고가 잘못되었다는 이유로 다시 위 환산취득가액(1,062,843,587원)으로 변경해달라는 경정청구를 하였다가 거부당하자 조세심판원에 심판청구를 제기하여 인용결정이 내려짐에 따라 위와 같이 추가납부한 세액261,057,370원을 전부 환급받았다. 당시 원고는 '자신이 2006. 1. 17. 위 574-19 지상 건물과 부속시설을 2억 2,000만 원에 취득한 후 약 20억 원을 투자하여 가축분뇨시설 등을 설치하였음에도 수용보상금 산정 당시 위 가축분뇨시설 등을 별도로 구분하지 않고 일괄 감정하여 그 보상금 1,452,623,221원을 지급받아 이를 양도가액으로 신고한 것이니, 위 취득가액 2억 2,000만 원과 위 가축분뇨시설 등의 자본적 지출액을 합한 가액을 필요경비로 공제하여야 하므로, 구체적인 증빙이 미비하더라도 수용보상금을 고려하여 취득가액을 필요경비에 포함하여 양도소득세를 경정하여야 한다'고 주장하였다.

Therefore, unlike the transfer value of the former owner of the above building and its affiliated facilities (220 million won), the Tax Tribunal made a comprehensive appraisal of livestock excreta facilities, etc. at the time of transfer without distinguishing it from the appraisal for the calculation of the expropriation value, and the Plaintiff made a revised return of the total amount of KRW 1,452,623,221, which is the value of the building originally acquired by the Plaintiff, and the total amount of investment in facilities (capital expenditure) to be used as both money after acquisition, is not included. In light of the fact that the necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value to calculate the transfer value of the above building and its affiliated facilities are not verified, and it is reasonable to make the conversion value (1,062,843,587 won) as above, on the ground that it is reasonable to make the conversion value (1,062,843,587 won).

⑺ 원고는 2016. 3. 31. 피고에게 '위 574-19 지상 건물과 부속시설' 및 '위 574-16 지상 건물과 부속시설'을 양돈장으로 사용하기 위하여 설치한 가축분뇨배출시설 등의

설치비 1,450,772,170원(= 위 각 건물과 부속시설 보상금 합계 2,368,921,670원 - 위 각 건물의 감정가액 합계 918,149,500원)을 필요경비(자본적 지출액)로 인정하여 세액126,418,704원을 환급해달라는 경정청구를 하였는데, 피고는 2016. 5. 13. 위 경정청구를 거부하는 '이 사건 처분��을 하였다.

⑻ 원고는 이 사건 처분에 불복하여 조세심판원에 심판청구를 제기하였으나, 조세심판원은 2016. 9. 5. 위 심판청구를 기각하였다. 인정근거 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 제1 내지 18호증, 변론 전체의 취지

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(1) The Plaintiff: (a) invested approximately KRW 2 billion in order to use each of the above buildings as both money; (b) installed livestock discharge facilities, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “nive facilities for raising money”); (c) calculated the sum of the appraisal value of each of the above buildings and its accessory facilities at KRW 2,368,921,670, subtracting KRW 918,149,500 from the aggregate of the appraisal value of each of the above building and its accessory facilities at the time of calculating the compensation for expropriation; (d) KRW 1,450,72,170, and KRW 1,450,772,170 as the value of the above accessory facilities at the time of calculating the compensation for expropriation; and (e) calculated the above KRW 1,450,72,72,170 as the capital expenditure at the time of filing a revised return; and (e) calculated the tax base at KRW 3,112,345,570,170 as the tax base amount to be refunded; and (iii61,507,707

D. As seen in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value when calculating transfer margin refers to the acquisition value (in the actual transaction value, if the actual transaction value cannot be confirmed, the conversion value, etc.), capital expenditure, transfer expenses, etc. However, in this case, if the acquisition value of a building and its affiliated facilities is converted as in this case, unless the assets acquired before the date of fictitious acquisition under Article 8 of the Addenda of the amended Act of 4803, the total of the estimated expense deduction under Article 163 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and the "amount calculated by adding the estimated expense deduction amount under Article 163 (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act to the estimated expense deduction amount under Article 163 (1) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and the transfer expenses, etc. under Article 97 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act are the conversion value

Furthermore, capital expenditure refers to the expenses disbursed in order to extend the useful life of the transferred asset or to increase its real value, or the expenses disbursed for the purpose of altering, improving or convenient use, etc. The above amount claimed by the Plaintiff is not the expenses actually paid, but only the appraised value. It is clear that the claimed amount falls short of KRW 1,840,730,133 in total of the conversion value of each of the above building and its appurtenant facilities and its appurtenant facilities, and there is no evidence supporting that the capital expenditure, etc. is larger than the estimated expenses deduction amount in the above conversion value. In this respect, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.