Whether a family and a household are formed shall be determined according to whether or not the independent living is maintained.

In a case where a person maintains an independent living, the fact that the resident has sufficient income to maintain his/her own living is insufficient, and the fact that the resident and his/her family have maintained their living with their own living funds without mutual aid should be recognized.

Article 89 of the Income Tax Act

2017Gudan5841 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

○ Kim

○ Head of tax office

October 25, 2017

November 08, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 00,000,000 (including additional tax) for the year 2011 against the Plaintiff on October 00, 2016 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff acquired, on October 0, 190, a house of Daejeon 0000 00-0 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant house”) on 00,000, but transferred on 00 October 200.

B. The Plaintiff did not file a return on the tax base of capital gains on the premise that the transfer of the instant house is a transfer of one house by one household under Article 89(1)3 of the former Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 10789, Jun. 7, 2011; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 154(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23139, Sep. 15, 2011; hereinafter the same shall apply) that the transfer of the instant house is exempt from capital gains.

다. 그런데 피고는, 원고가 이 사건 주택 양도 당시 차녀 AAA의 주민등록지이자 AAA 소유의 서울 도봉구 ㅇㅇ ㅇㅇ아파트에 주민등록 전입신고를 마쳐두고 있었다는 점 등을 근거로 AAA와 동일 세대를 구성하였다고 보고, 이 사건 주택의 양도를 양도소득 비과세대상인 1세대 1주택의 양도로 볼 수 없다는 전제 하에 2016. 00. 00. 원고에 대하여 2011년 귀속 양도소득세 00,000,000원(가산세 포함)을 부과하는 처분을 하였다.

D. On October 00, 200, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal for the instant disposition. However, on October 0, 2016, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request on the Plaintiff’s appeal (based on recognition) on October 0, 2016. [No dispute exists, and the purport of the entire entries and arguments in Gap’s Nos. 1, 2, and 12, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 1,

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Non-existence of taxation requirements

원고는 원래 서울 도봉구 ㅇㅇ에서 오랫동안 거주하여 오다가 2005. 11. 9.경 배우자와 이혼한 이래 이 사건 주택에서 장녀인 BBB와 사위, 손자들과 거주하여 왔다. 원고는 차녀 AAA와는 동거한 사실조차 없을 뿐만 아니라 이 사건 양도 당시까지 이 사건 주택에서 발생하는 임대소득으로 독립 생계를 유지할 만한 충분한 소득이 있었기 때문에 AAA와 생계를 같이 하였다고 볼 수도 없다. 따라서 이와 다른 전제에 선 이 사건 처분은 위법하므로 취소되어야 한다.

2) Violation of the principle of trust protection

On October 00, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the pre-announcement of transfer income tax following the transfer of the instant house. At the time, the Plaintiff explained the circumstances and explained the employee in charge of the Defendant, and the employee in charge of the Defendant expressed his opinion that he would not impose transfer income tax following the transfer of the instant house. The Plaintiff had a legitimate trust that the employee in charge of the Defendant would not be subject to transfer income tax following the transfer of the instant house in the future. In addition, the Defendant’s new disposition of this case was against the Plaintiff’s trust and infringed the Plaintiff’s interest. Accordingly, the instant disposition should be deemed null and void in violation of the principle of trust protection.

3) Violation of the principle of proportionality

In light of the fact that the disposition of this case is accepted, the disposition of this case is a disposition taken without considering the taxpayer's ability under Article 1 of the Income Tax Act, which is conducted without considering the taxpayer's ability under Article 1 of the Income Tax Act, and is thus null and void in violation of the principle of proportionality.

B. Determination

1) Non-existence of taxation requirements

A) “One household” as an object of non-taxation on capital gains under Article 89(1)3 of the former Income Tax Act and Article 154(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act refers to a household in which a resident and his/her spouse make a living together with the family members who make a living at the same address or same place of residence. Therefore, if a resident and his/her spouse do not live with the family members or maintain an independent living even with the family members, the resident cannot be deemed to have formed one household with the family members. Here, in cases where a resident living together with the family members but maintains an independent living, the fact that the resident has sufficient income to maintain his/her own living without the mutual aid is insufficient, and the fact that the resident and his/her family have maintained their living with each other’s own living capital without the mutual aid should be recognized. Meanwhile, as to the transfer of one house for one household as an object of non-taxation on capital gains tax, barring any special circumstance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du8443, Dec.

나) 먼저 원고가 AAA와는 따로 이 사건 주택에 거주하였는지 여부에 관하여 살피건대, 갑 제3 내지 6, 12호증의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 이 사건 주택 인근에서 식당을 운영한다는 CCC 및 약국을 운영하는 약사 DDD이 원고의 주장에 일부 부합하는 듯한 내용이 기재된 사실확인서를 작성하였던 사실, 한편 이 사건 주택이 위치한 대전 ㅇㅇ동 통장은 이 사건 처분과 관련한 과세적부심사 담당자에게 이 사건 주택에서 원고를 다섯 차례 정도 본 적이 있다고 답변하였던 사실을 인정할 수 있기는 하나, CCC의 사실확인서 내용에 따르더라도, CCC가 언제 원고를 보았다는 것인지 확인할 수 없고, CCC도 원고가 이 사건 주택에 거주하였는지는 정확히 모르겠다며 입장을 유보하고 있으며, 나아가 CCC가 실제로 식당을 운영한 사람인지, 식당이 이 사건 주택 인근인지 여부조차 확인되지 아니하는 점, 또한 DDD의 사실확인서 내용도 원고가 2008년경부터 2011년경까지 1년에 3-4회 방문하여 약을 사갔다는 내용에 불과한 점, 또한 ㅇㅇ동 통장의 답변 내용도 이 사건 주택에 원고의 장녀인 BBB 가족이 살았던 것은 기억하지만 원고가 실제 거주하였는지는 알 수 없다는 내용인 점 등에 비추어, 앞서 본 사실만으로 원고가 AAA와 따로 이 사건 주택에 거주하였다고 인정하기 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다.

오히려 갑 제12호증, 을 제4호증의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 원고는 주민등록을, 1985. 3. 23.부터 1989. 9. 1.까지 이 사건 주택에 두고 있었다가, 서울 도봉구로 이전한 이래, 2005. 12. 30.부터 2012. 4. 30.까지 AAA의 주민등록지이자 AAA 소유의 서울 도봉구 ㅇㅇ ㅇㅇ아파트에 두고 있었던 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 여기에 원고는 2005. 12. 30.에 이르러 AAA의 주민등록지에 전입신고를 마친 이유에 관하여, 당시는 BBB가 이 사건 주택에 거주하며 정부로부터 지원금을 받고 있었는데, 원고가 이 사건 주택에 주민등록지를 두고 있으면 원고가 BBB를 부양하는 사실이 알려져 BBB가 더 이상 정부로부터 지원금을 수급하지 못할 상황이었고, 한편 교사로 근무하였던 AAA가 소득공제신고를 함에 있어 원고를 피부양자로 하여 인적공제를 원활히 받을 수 있도록 하기 위한 것이라고 설명하고 있으나, BBB는 이미 1998. 10. 4.부터 이 사건 주택에 주민등록을 두고 거주하고 있었던 것으로 보일 뿐만 아니라, 2011. 4. 29.에 이르러 기초생활수급자로 지정되어 생계급여 등을 수급하기 시작하였으며, AAA가 소득공제신고를 함에 있어 원고를 피부양자로 하여 인적공제를 받기 위해서 원고와 생계를 함께하면 될 뿐 반드시 동거를 할 필요까지는 없다는 측면에서 원고의 설명을 납득하기 어려운 점 등을 고려하여 보면, 원고가 AAA와 함께 거주한 것으로 보이기도 한다.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have resided in the instant house separately from AA.

(C) Next, as to whether the Plaintiff maintained his/her livelihood independently with AA, even if the Plaintiff had sufficient income to maintain his/her livelihood with the AA, insofar as there is no assertion or proof as to the fact that the Plaintiff maintained his/her livelihood with the respective funds for living without any assistance between the Plaintiff and the AA (the Plaintiff’s assertion that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to maintain his/her livelihood, but such assertion cannot be viewed as the assertion that the Plaintiff maintained his/her livelihood with the respective funds for living with the AA) and that the Plaintiff maintained his/her livelihood with the AA.

D) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

2) Violation of the principle of trust protection

A) In general, in tax legal relations, the principle of protection of trust in the tax authority’s act should be applied: first, the tax authority must express the public opinion that is the object of trust to the taxpayer; second, the taxpayer should not be responsible for the taxpayer’s reliance on the taxpayer’s reliance on the tax authority’s reliance on the tax authority’s reliance; third, the taxpayer should act in reliance on and what is the taxpayer’s reliance on the reliance on the reliance; fourth, the tax authority’s reliance on the tax authority’s reliance on the reliance on the reliance should result in infringing on the taxpayer’s interest by making a disposition contrary to the above reliance; first, the tax authority’s reliance list should be made by a tax official in a given position in principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du115, Jun. 12, 2008). If the reliance protection principle in tax legal relations is applied only in exceptional cases where it is deemed that the reliance on the tax authority’s reliance on the 10th of public opinion and the reliance.

B) According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 3, it may be acknowledged that the defendant notified the plaintiff on November 29, 2013 of the transfer income tax on the transfer of the house of this case. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the employee in charge of the defendant expressed the plaintiff's opinion not to impose the transfer income tax on the transfer of the house of this case at the time, and even if such fact can be acknowledged, the issue of whether the transfer income tax imposed on the transfer of the house of this case is legitimate or not is a matter of complicated legal principles as a matter of factual determination as to whether the plaintiff constitutes the same household with AA, so the answer by the employee in charge of the defendant can be deemed as non-taxation if it is based on the factual relations asserted by the plaintiff, so it cannot be deemed that the transfer of the house of this case can be deemed as non-taxation, and furthermore, even if the defendant did not make the actual taxation after giving the notice of taxation, it cannot be deemed that there was no violation of the plaintiff's interest in the transfer income tax even if there was any error or omission.

C) Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part.

3) Violation of the principle of proportionality

A) According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 4 and Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff can be found to have suffered from the disability of grade No. 4. However, on the other hand, the plaintiff can be found to have acquired a large amount of 190 million capital gains by transferring the house of this case. The transfer income tax following the disposition of this case is legally calculated pursuant to the Income Tax Act on the basis of the transfer income acquired by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is responsible for neglecting the obligation to report capital gains under the Income Tax Act. In light of the above, the disposition of this case does not seem to have violated the principle of response burden under the Income Tax Act, and even considering all circumstances asserted by the plaintiff, the disposition of this case cannot be deemed to have violated the principle of proportionality.

B) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

C. Sub-committee

The instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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