Cho High Court Decision 2008west0836 (No. 26, 2008)

Whether the value-added tax already paid may be deducted from the transfer income tax in connection with the transfer of the sale right.

Value-added tax is impossible to deduct between the transfer income tax imposed on the transfer of assets regardless of the purpose of business, depending on the tax requirements, tax bases, and tax rates. If the return and payment of value-added tax are made on the basis of the business income in relation to the transfer of the sales right in this case, it is only subject to

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

Article 96 (Transfer Price)

Article 100 (Calculation of Gains on Transfer)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On September 1, 2007, the Defendant revoked the portion exceeding KRW 35,890,90 in the imposition disposition of KRW 106,535,018, which is reverted to the Plaintiff on September 1, 2006.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2005. 12.경 소외 주식회사 ◯◯공영으로부터 신축 중이던 서울 ◯☆☆ ◯◯동 1280-6 ◯◯뉴타운 ◯◯단지 내 제상가동 제108호 내지 112호의 분양권(이하, 이 사건 분양권이라 한다)을 12억 원에 취득하였다가, 2006. 1. 20. 소외 허☆☆에게 14억 3,000만 원에 양도하였으나, 이를 사업소득으로 보아 양도소득세 신고, 납부를 하 지 않았다(대신에 원고는 위 분양권의 양도와 관련하여 2006. 8. 9. 2006년 l기분 부가가치세 24,710,360원을 확정 신고, 납부하였다).

B. On August 22, 2006, the Plaintiff again acquired Nos. 108 through 112, 100,000, 100,000, which was completed from Non-Party Do-dong, Do-dong (hereinafter the “instant commercial building”) and transferred Nos. 112 (hereinafter the “instant real property”) among the same day to Non-Party Do-dong, Kim ○, 325,000,000,000 for transfer loss with the acquisition value of KRW 400,000,000 for transfer loss and the scheduled return of transfer income tax for the year 2006.

C. On June 20, 2007, the Defendant notified the head of Sungdong Tax Office of the details of the decision of capital gains tax according to the result of regular audit. On September 1, 2007, the Defendant imposed capital gains tax of KRW 104,402,170 calculated by applying the transfer value of the sales right of this case to KRW 1.20 million, the acquisition value of this case to KRW 325 million, the transfer value of this case to KRW 325,500,00 calculated by applying the acquisition value to the total standard market value of the commercial building of this case to KRW 296,535,00,00,000, including capital gains tax of KRW 116,911,660, including capital gains tax of KRW 12,509,490, which was calculated based on the ratio of the standard market value of the real estate of this case to the Plaintiff (hereinafter the disposition of this case).

D. On April 8, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 8, 2008, and on September 26, 2008, the Plaintiff decided to deduct the real estate acquisition tax and the registration tax in addition to the necessary expenses. The Defendant issued a disposition to reduce or correct the transfer income tax that reduces the transfer income tax to the amount of KRW 10,376,653 on October 9, 2008 (the transfer income tax reverted to the year 2006 was reduced to KRW 106,535,018 upon the above disposition to reduce or correct the transfer income tax).

E. On February 12, 2008, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition.

F. After that, on June 1, 2009, the Defendant issued a disposition to increase or correct capital gains tax to increase KRW 16,303,890 by excluding KRW 24,710,360, which was already paid by the Plaintiff from necessary expenses in relation to the transfer of the sales right of this case (hereinafter “instant disposition to increase or decrease capital gains tax”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers), evidence 1 to 1-1

68 654 delivered on May 1, 200

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

원고가 2005. 12.경 이 사건 분양권을 소외 주식회사 ◯◯공영으로부터 12억 원에 취득하여 2006. 1. 20. 허☆☆에게 14억 3,000만 원에 양도함으로써 2억 3,000만 원 상 당의 양도차익이 발생한 사실은 맞으나, 그 후 완공된 이 사건 상가를 2006. 8. 22. 허 시구로부터 다시 취득하면서 위 상가 중 이 사건 부동산을 4억 원에 취득하고, 2006. 8. 22. 3억 2,500만 원에 양도하여 75,000,000원의 양도차손이 발생하였고, 그 이외에 위 부동산의 취, 등록세로 18,400,000원을 지출하였으므로, 위 각 양도와 관련된 양도 소득세 과세표준은 일응 113,600,000원(230,000,000원 - 75,000,000원 - 18,400,000원) 이 되고, 여기에 1년 미만 보유의 경우에 적용되는 세율 50%를 적용하면 양도소득세 는 56,800,000원으로 산정되며, 여기에서 다시 이 사건 분양권의 취득, 양도 과정에서 신고, 납부한 부가가치세 20,909,091원을 공제하면, 실제 납부할 2006년도 귀속 양도소득세는 35,809,909원(56,800,000원 - 20,909,091원)에 불과하다. 따라서 이 사건 처분 중 35,809,909원을 초과한 부분은 위법하여 취소되어야 한다.

B. Determination

(1) Whether the actual acquisition value of the real estate of this case is 400 million won or more

(A) According to Article 96 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same), the transfer value of assets under Article 94 (1) 1 and 2, including land and buildings, shall be based on the standard market price at the time of transfer of the assets concerned: Provided, That the transfer value shall be calculated based on the actual transaction price in the case of transfer of the right to acquire real estate under Article 94 (1) 2 (a) and transfer of real estate within one year after acquisition, etc. In addition, Article 100 (1) of the same Act provides that if the transfer value is calculated based on the actual transaction price, the transfer value shall be calculated based on the actual transaction price.

Therefore, the Plaintiff acquired the instant parcelling-out right and transferred the instant commercial building on January 20, 2006 to another person on the same day after re-acquisition the instant commercial building, which was completed from Do-ri, Do-ri, Do-ri, on August 22, 2006, and transferred the instant real estate on the same day. As such, the Plaintiff should calculate the gains from the transfer based on the actual transfer value and actual acquisition value in relation to the transfer of the instant commercial building including the instant sales right and the instant real estate, and pay the transfer income tax.

(B) Therefore, on August 22, 2006, the case price for the interest case that has been completed as the plaintiff's head of the household.

According to Gap's 1.5 billion won after acquiring the real estate of this case in 1.5 billion won, and Gap's 2.5 billion won after signing a sales contract with the plaintiff to acquire the real estate of this case in 1.5 billion won on August 22, 2006, "40 billion won" appears as an indication of the sales price of the real estate of this case in 1.5 billion won, and "2.75 billion won" is indicated as the sales price of the real estate of this case in 1.5 billion won, and it is hard to acknowledge that the plaintiff's 1.6 billion won was indicated as the sales price of the real estate of this case in 1.5 billion won, and it is hard to acknowledge that the plaintiff's 1.6 billion won was indicated as the sale price of the real estate of this case in 200 billion won or more (including the number of 1.6 billion won) and the remaining sales price of the real estate of this case in 1.6 billion won or more as the total sale price of the real estate of this case.

(C) However, Article 100 (2) of the former Income Tax Act, Article 166 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19687 of Sep. 22, 2006), and Article 48-2 (4) proviso and subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19892 of Feb. 28, 2007), if the distinction between the value of land and buildings is unclear in calculating transfer margin (transfer value, acquisition value) pursuant to Article 100 (2) of the former Income Tax Act, if the distinction between the value of land and buildings is unclear, it shall be calculated in proportion to the value calculated according to the standard market price as of the date of transfer contract pursuant to Article 48-2 (4) proviso and subparagraph 1 subparagraph 1 of the same paragraph, so the acquisition value of the real estate included in this case shall be calculated based on the ratio of the sum of the standard market price of the above real estate.

This is the case.

(D) Therefore, there is no reason for the part of the Plaintiff’s objection.

(2) Whether the already paid value-added tax amounting to 24,710,000,000 can be deducted from the transfer income tax regarding the transfer of the sales right of this case

(가) 나아가, 원고가 이 사건 분양권을 양도한 후 그 양도차익 230,000,000원에 관하여 세금계산서를 발행하고 가산세를 포함하여 부가가치세 24,710,000원(부가가치세 20,909,000원 + 가산세 3,801,000원)을 신고, 납부하였으므로, 위 부가가치세 상당액을 양도소득세 기 납부세액으로 공제하여 달라는 주장에 대하여 살피건대, 원고가 2005. 12.경 소외 주식회사 ◯◯공영으로부터 신축 중이던 이 사건 분양권을 12억 원 에 취득하여, 2006. 1. 20. 허☆☆에게 14억 3,000만 원에 양도한 후, 이를 사업소득으로 보아 2006. 8. 9. 2006년 1기분 부가가치세 24,710,360원을 신고, 납부한 사실은 앞서 제1항에서 살펴 본 바와 같으나, 한편, 부가가치세와 양도소득세는 같은 국세로서 재화의 공급 내지 자산의 양도와 관련되어 있기는 하지만, 부가가치세는 사업자가 사 업상 재화나 용역을 공급하는 경우 등에 부과되는 세금으로서 그러한 사업목적과 상관없이 자산의 양도에 관하여 부과되는 양도소득세와는 과세요건과 과세표준 및 세율이 달라 상호간에 공제를 하는 것은 불가능하다고 할 것이다{원고가 이 사건 분양권의 양 도와 관련하여 양도소득세를 신고, 납부할 것을 사업소득으로 보아 부가가치세 신고, 납부를 하였다면, 이는 환급 등의 대상이 될 뿐이고, 실제 을 제7 내지 9호증(가지번호 포함)의 각 기재에 의하면, 피고는 2009. 6. 16.자로 원고가 기 신고, 납부한 2006년 1 기분 부가가치세 24,710,360원이 환급 대상이나 기 체납한 양도소득세가 있으므로 위 환급 세액에 가산금 3,242,090원을 합한 금액을 위와 같이 원고가 체납한 양도소득세 에 충당한 사실을 인정할 수 있다}.

(B) Therefore, there is no reason for the plaintiff to have been partially proposed.

(3) Therefore, the defendant's disposition of objection case identical to this theory is legal.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim for objection case is without merit, so it is decided to dismiss it, and it is the same as the disposition.

this decision is rendered.