Early High Court Decision 2012Nu20084 ( October 20, 2012)

Property used for religious purposes and not subject to capital gains tax;

The Income Tax Act does not list the property used by religious organizations as non-taxable subject to capital gains tax, and if the registration of transfer is made before the price is settled, the date of receipt is the transfer

2012Guhap27527 Disposition of revocation of imposition of income tax, etc.

ParkA et al.

The director of the tax office.

January 18, 2013

February 1, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On September 3, 2010, the attachment disposition taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on September 3, 2010 against Nos. 00, Dong 00, Dong 00 is invalid.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 8, 2007, the Plaintiff transferred 000 OF 00 OF 000 (OF 000) to 000 won, and on May 19, 2008, the Plaintiff transferred OF 0000 OF 000 (OF 000) OF 000 won, but did not report and pay the transfer income tax for 2007 and 2008 (OF 2000) to the Defendant on July 24, 2009, and the Defendant did not impose the transfer income tax for 00 OF 00,000,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000).

[Based on Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 4, 10 (including household numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), and Eul evidence 1 to 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the seizure disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Each disposition of this case is a defect for the following reasons, and the attachment disposition of this case is also illegal, and the degree of the defect is significant and obvious.

1) The Plaintiff’s OBL and OBP are exempt from capital gains tax on property used for religious purposes.

2) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff received the remainder of the purchase price of OBD after October 22, 2008, and the Plaintiff submitted a non-taxation report of capital gains tax on July 24, 2009 and received the receipt thereof, it is unreasonable to impose penalty tax on the grounds that the Defendant did not voluntarily report and pay capital gains tax.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) As to the plaintiff's first argument

Article 89(1) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009, hereinafter the same) lists the subject of non-taxation of capital gains tax, but unlike local taxes, the property used by religious organizations is not subject to non-taxation of capital gains tax. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that capital gains tax is non-taxation of capital gains tax on the ground that OP and OP are property for religious purposes is no longer reasonable.

2) As to the second argument by the Plaintiff

According to Article 21(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same), income tax is established at the end of the taxable period, and capital gains tax is finalized upon filing a final return on the tax base of capital gains by no later than May 31 of the year following the year in which the amount of capital gains is paid. Therefore, in the capital gains tax taking the method of tax return, imposing sanctions such as non-taxation and non-taxation on the taxpayer’s failure to report and pay taxes is reasonable, and even if the taxpayer submitted a non-taxation report on capital gains tax, it does not affect the above reporting and liability, and on the other hand, the Plaintiff’s remaining portion of capital gains tax (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) is deemed to have been transferred to 20GG, and thus, the Plaintiff’s right to receive the registration of ownership transfer before the date of payment is determined.

3) Sub-decisions

As above, the plaintiff's assertion that each of the dispositions in this case is legitimate, and that the defect is succeeded to the seizure disposition in this case on the premise that the above disposition is null and void as a matter of course is without merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is without merit, it shall be dismissed, and it shall be decided with the order.