Whether the denial provision of wrongful calculation falls under the market price

Since the appraised value per share of a tax accounting corporation cannot be regarded as the market price, the value per share under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act should be regarded as the market price.

Article 15 of the Corporate Tax Act Article 52

2015Guhap10203 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

(d) c. c. c. d. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c.

The gift tax shall be reported on the donation of 24,370 shares and the donation of such shares to 123,098 won per share.

b. The details of stock changes in B. B.D. in 209 are as follows:

(c) The Director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office shall have cC on August 31, 2009: (a) b. d. d. c. b. shares per share.

123,098 won per share and at the same time, each of the above shares shall be 117,000 won per share to the plaintiff.

Do and notified the defendant that the difference occurred, and accordingly, the defendant on January 9, 2014.

the c. 'B.' purchase at low price of the shares of b. B.I.D. c. 'B.'

Currently 736,123,140 won [$141,562 won (=123,098 won) at the market price of the shares in this case x 1.15) -

The purchase price of KRW 117,00 】 29,970 】 The corporate tax for the business year 2009 by adding the purchase price to the Plaintiff’s gross income

210,626,430 won (including additional tax) was corrected and notified (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

D. The Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition on March 6, 2014, but was dismissed; and

On June 9, 2014, a request for adjudication was rejected on October 21, 2014, even though the request was filed with the Director of the Tax Tribunal.

(c)

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 3, 5, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3

Each entry of evidence, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The instant transaction cannot be deemed as an abnormal transaction lacking economic rationality.

for this reason, it is not possible to apply the provision of wrongful calculation under Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act.

C. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant transaction was an unfair transaction beyond the economic rationality.

The instant disposition imposing corporate tax is unlawful.

2) The Plaintiff may request a tax accounting corporation to conduct an appraisal to calculate an appropriate market price of the instant shares.

Accordingly, the value per share of the instant shares was 117,000 won and the instant transaction was made.

The value is against the rapid increase in net income during the year 2008 due to exchange rate fluctuations.

It properly reflects objective exchange values. Nevertheless, the plaintiff will be entitled to exchange values.

The plaintiff on the ground that he purchased the shares of this case from cc at a price below the market price

The disposition of this case, which imposes corporate tax, is unlawful.

3) Even if the Plaintiff purchased the instant shares at low prices, the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

The provisions governing special cases of appraisal of shares of the largest shareholder of small and medium enterprises under Article 101 are applied.

in calculating the market price of the stock. Nevertheless, the value of the stock shall not be assessed.

The instant disposition that calculated the market price of the instant shares by means of a premium increase of 15/100 is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether the disposition in this case is unlawful since the provision regarding the wrongful calculation is not applicable

The former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "former Corporate Tax Act")

Article 15(2)1 of the Tax Act ("Tax Act") provides that an individual with a special relationship under the provisions of Article 52(1).

purchase of securities at a price below the market price under paragraph (2) of the same Article.

In the case of market price and the relevant purchase price, the amount equivalent to the difference shall be considered as the profits of the relevant corporation.

section 52(1) provides that "the chief of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the commissioner of the district tax office shall:

A person having a special relation as prescribed by the Presidential Decree with the calculation of the amount of an act or income of a domestic corporation.

The tax burden on the income of the corporation is unfair due to transactions with the person with special interest.

If it is deemed that the act or income of the corporation has been reduced, it shall not be related to the calculation.

corporation's income for each business year of such corporation shall be calculated as follows:

In the application of the provisions of paragraph 1, the sound social norms, commercial practices, and special officers in the application of the provisions of paragraph 2.

Standard for the price applicable or deemed to be applicable to normal transactions between persons other than the persons concerned;

In full view of the above provisions, Article 15(2) of the former Corporate Tax Act provides that "....."

Where a corporation purchases securities at a low price from a person with a special relationship, the market price and the purchase price thereof shall be followed.

The amount equivalent to the amount shall be included in gross income, and the scope and scope of the above "specially related person" shall be included in the above

In determining the value of "market price", Article 52 (1) and (2) of the same Act shall apply to the determination of the value of "market price".

only if it is deemed that the tax burden on the corporation's income has been unjustly reduced.

It is not stipulated as a requirement for applying Article 15(2) of the former Corporate Tax Act.

Article 15(2)2 of the former Corporate Tax Act that a corporation purchases shares at a low price from a person with a special relationship

In the case of the corporation, the corporation has received profits equivalent to the difference between the market price of the stock and the purchase price.

section 52(1) is a provision for the imposition of corporate tax against it, while the corporation is a special

purchase assets from persons concerned at a price higher than the market price, or purchase non-profit assets, or

If it is deemed that the corporate tax burden has been unjustly reduced, such as receiving investment in kind, such burden shall be reduced.

any provision to deny the settlement of accounts under the transaction and to impose corporate tax, the

otherwise, in light of the language and purport of the above Act, the corporation is a specially related person.

If securities are purchased at a price below the market price, the corporation concerned shall have its income.

Article 15(2) of the former Corporate Tax Act, regardless of whether the tax burden has been unjustly reduced or not.

The inclusion of subparagraph 2 in the calculation of earnings should be applied.

As to the instant case, the Defendant was from the “Person with Special Relationship BB” against the Plaintiff on January 9, 2014.

b The disposition of this case was made on the ground that the shares of balkine were purchased at low prices.

As seen earlier, the defendant applies the provisions of Article 15 (2) 2 of the former Corporate Tax Act.

amount equivalent to the difference between the market price of the stock of this case and the purchase price of the stock of 117,00 won

The defendant seems to have been included in the plaintiff's gross income. Accordingly, the defendant's income tax division on the plaintiff

It appears that the instant disposition could be conducted regardless of whether the fence was unjustly reduced;

whether the instant transaction is an abnormal transaction lacking economic rationality or not;

Since it seems that a disposition can be rendered, this case cannot be applied with the provision of wrongful calculation.

The Plaintiff’s assertion that disposition is unlawful is without merit.

2) Whether the instant transaction constitutes a transaction that falls short of the market price

A) Relevant regulations and legal principles

Article 15 (2) 1 of the former Corporate Tax Act provides for the value of "market price" under Article 52.

section 52(2) provides that it shall be in accordance with paragraph 2, and that the sound social norms and commercial practices

applicable or applicable to a normal transaction between persons who are not specially related persons; or

section 3 of the same section provides that the market price shall be calculated, and the section 3 of the same section provides that

Paragraph (1) is prescribed by Presidential Decree. Accordingly, the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12, 2010)

30. Article 89(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22577) Article 52(2) of the same Act

(1) In applying paragraph (1), in a situation similar to the transaction, the

generally traded at prices of continuous transactions with a person or between third parties, other than persons with a special relationship;

If there is a price, it shall be based on the price, and Article 89 (2) shall be the old corporate tax.

In the application of Article 52 (2) of the Act, where the market price is unclear, the following subparagraphs:

(1) The Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act ("Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act")

one appraisal corporation has appraised value, but it provides that the value shall be the value.

subsection (b) does not expressly exclude shares from market price assessment under such appraisal and assessment.

No. 2, the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010)

The Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the "former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") Articles 38 through 39-2, and Articles 61 through 64 of the same Act

The provision of this section provides that it shall be based on the value assessed by mutatis mutandis application.

Comprehensively taking into account the provisions of the above laws and regulations, the meaning of “market price” is health.

the market price under Article 52 (2) of the former Corporate Tax Act is a general and normal transaction.

The objective exchange values are shown to mean the objective exchange values (Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2233 delivered on December 22, 1994).

(see, e.g., in the case of unlisted stocks, the objective exchange values for them are properly reflected.

(1) If there is a transactional example, the price shall be deemed the market price, and if not, the price shall be deemed the market price.

The objective exchange values at the time of transactions made by general and normal means;

If it can be seen that it reflects the price at the market price (Supreme Court Decision 2012.

11. Where the market value is unclear, the Enforcement Decree of the former Corporate Tax Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du1181, 29)

According to the proviso to Article 89 (2) 1, an appraisal corporation shall not be able to based on the appraised value.

under subparagraph 2 of the same paragraph, Article 63 (1) 1 (c) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22042, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter referred to as "former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act")

D) If the market price is calculated in accordance with the supplementary assessment method under Article 54, it is deemed that the market price will be calculated.

(c)

B) Whether the market price of the instant shares is KRW 117,000

In light of the relevant provisions and legal principles as above, health class No. 2-1, No. 6

Each entry of evidence Nos. 7, 9, 10, and 2, 3, and 4 below, for which the purport of the whole pleading is recognized as follows:

In full view of the above circumstances, one share that the Plaintiff claims to be the market price of bbalcon shares.

17,000 won adequately reflects the objective exchange value of the shares at the time of the instant transaction.

Therefore, Article 63 (1) 1 (c) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

The value of shares bb. must be calculated in accordance with the supplementary assessment methods under Article 54.

(1) The Plaintiff’s supplementary balance under the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act at the time of the instant transaction with the tax accounting corporation

b. In accordance with this method, the tax accounting corporation has requested the assessment of the value per share of b.b. stock.

The value per share of the shares was 123,098 won.

(2) However, the Plaintiff’s shares of listed corporations of the same type as B/L, which are the same type of business as B/L.

The best possible assertion that the modified value of shares is too high compared to 20,480 won;

For the purpose of lowering the value of the shares by applying the method to the above tax accounting corporation;

The Trusted.

(3) On the above request for the disposal of property, a tax accounting corporation shall pay the appraised amount and lend money under the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

amount of corporate tax to be paid when the difference between the value of assets under the comparison table has been realized.

approximately 40% of the difference has been deducted by the increase in exchange rates, and b. the net income for the year 2008 net income by the increase in exchange rates.

The profit and loss value has been adjusted as it is judged that there has been a rapid increase, and the bad debt of the credit account.

Considering the rate of 2%, the final price per share of bbalcon shares was calculated as KRW 117,000.

(c)

(4) corporate tax to be paid later in assessing the objective exchange value of shares;

be adjusted on the ground that the net income is derived from an increase in exchange rates.

B. The method of adjusting the value per share under the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act by taking into account the ratio of bad debt of credit sales

tax accounting corporation is a significant equitable valuation method, and the tax accounting corporation is a stock of bb.

at the request of the plaintiff for re-determination by applying the best available method;

It seems that this case's evaluation has been conducted.

(5) ccc as the largest shareholder of the Plaintiff and b.I.D. 209

the shares of each such company shall be donated to dives in order to exercise control over each such company; and

The shares of the Plaintiff were sold to the Plaintiff, and each of the shares of the Plaintiff was sold to the Plaintiff.

In this case, the transaction of this case occurred in the process of the above change of governance structure, and in general.

It does not seem that it is a transaction.

(6) 24,370 shares of b. ccc on the date of the instant transaction.

The donated dd' has declared gift tax by making the value per share of the shares as KRW 123,098.

C) Calculation of the value of the shares b.b. under the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Article 54 (1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall apply to the net value of profit and loss per share and per share.

The value of net asset value shall be appraised in accordance with the weighted average value of the stocks according to the ratio of 3 and 2;

The record provides that Gap's evidence No. 6 shall not be deemed to be the whole purport of the pleading.

The net value per share of balcon shares at the time of the year shall be 118,931 won and the net asset value per share shall be 129,347

The weighted average value of 123,098 won (=the weighted average value of 3 and 2 of each of them) is acknowledged as the facts constituting a cause.

(118,931 won x 3) + (129,347 won x 2) ± 0 ± 5). Therefore, the increase and assessment of bundled stocks are accordingly made.

The disposition of this case on the premise that the previous value is KRW 123,098 is legitimate, and the above shares are legitimate.

The plaintiff's assertion that the market price is 117,00 won is without merit.

3) Whether the application of the special provisions on stock increase evaluation by the largest shareholder, etc.

Article 63 (3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall apply to Article 63 (2) of the same Act.

the largest shareholder or largest investor and any shareholder or investor in a special relationship with the shareholder or investor (hereinafter referred to as the “minimum shareholder”).

With respect to the shares, etc. of a corporation, the total number, etc. of shares issued by the corporation

Where it holds in excess of 50/100 of the Act, 30/100 (small and medium aircraft as prescribed by the Presidential Decree)

In the case of the business, 15/100 is added to the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (2010.

1.1. Article 101 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9921 of Jan. 1, 201) is amended by the law

shares or shares of the largest shareholder of a small or medium enterprise under Article 63 (3) of the same Act, if applicable;

When shares are inherited or donated on or before December 31, 2009, Article 63 (3) of the same Act

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 63 (1) 1 and (2) of the same Act, an evaluation under

Tax law states that it shall be valued (hereinafter referred to as "special provisions on the assessment of premium rates").

under the principle of taxation, the requirement of non-taxation, or the requirement of tax exemption shall be prevented and shall be

tin An interpretation in accordance with the law, unless there are special circumstances, and an extended interpretation without reasonable grounds.

It shall not be permitted to analogically or analogically interpret (Supreme Court Decision 6 December 6, 1996).

95Nu1491, etc., shares of the largest shareholder, etc. are not inherited or donated.

Since the special rule on the assessment of premium cannot be deemed to apply to the purchase, the special rule on the assessment of premium;

In calculating the value of the shares of this case, the provision of special cases of appraisal of premium shall be deemed to apply.

section 20.

Provided, That the restriction on special taxation for the purchase of stocks by a corporation from its largest shareholder

Article 101 of the Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to cases where the provisions of Article 101 of the Act apply mutatis mutandis.

It is natural that the market price of the shares should be determined by Article 89 (2) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.

Where it is unclear, the provisions of Articles 38 through 39-2 and 61 through 64 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act;

The rule provides that the value assessed by applying mutatis mutandis the rule shall be applied, and the above rule on December 30, 2010

Where the market price of shares that must be revised by Presidential Decree No. 22577 is unclear, the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Articles 38, 39, 39-2, 39-3, and 61 through 64 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act as well as Articles 61 through 64 of the same Act.

Article 101 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the value assessed by mutatis mutandis (hereinafter referred to as "Revised Corporate Tax Act").

Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 22577, Dec. 12, 2010), which is amended by the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.

30. Business year that begins from the beginning of the first year after entry into force under Article 2, and 2009.

under the amended Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, provided that this transaction is not applicable to the transaction of this case conducted by the Do.

The special provisions on the assessment of increase in the value of the shares of this case cannot be deemed to apply.

Therefore, in calculating the value of shares of this case, Article 63(3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

(2) In addition to the shares held by the largest shareholder, etc., the

b. Shares of ccc and d' in a special relationship with cc and d's shares of b.

The facts that the total number of shares exceeds 50/100 are as mentioned above, and b. the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

The facts constituting small and medium enterprises under the Enforcement Decree do not conflict between the parties.

The market price of the shares of this case shall be 123,098,000 won plus 15/100

141,562 won (i.e., 123,098 won x 1.15). The instant disposition based on the same premise is lawful.

The plaintiff's assertion that the special rule on the evaluation of premium should apply is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.

XX Stock Companies

Daejeon Head of the District Tax Office

May 25, 2016

July 20, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 210,626,430 against the plaintiff on January 9, 2014 by the former defendant of the Gu office shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff and Bridge Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “bridge”) are unlisted companies for the purpose of manufacturing and selling phrases.

B. On August 31, 2009, the Plaintiff purchased b.9,970 shares of cccccc as the representative director with a special relationship (hereinafter “instant shares”) at 117,00 won per share (hereinafter “the instant shares”).