National Tax Service Review and Transfer 2011-0267 (Law No. 16, 2012)

It is legitimate to divide the value of commercial buildings and housing into the standard market price in cases where the classification is unclear.

In light of the fact that the sales contract was prepared by dividing the housing and the commercial building into the transferred building, but the sales price is set at more than two times the acquisition price without presenting the detailed standards for calculating the sale price, etc., it is difficult to believe the contents of the sales contract and it is reasonable to divide them into the standard market price due to the case where the classification by assets

Article 100 of the Income Tax Act

2011Guhap3379 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

KimA

Head of Changwon Tax Office

May 24, 2012

July 5, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the year 2009 against the Plaintiff on May 13, 201 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 13, 2009, the Plaintiff drafted a contract on the transfer of the parts of the commercial building (hereinafter referred to as the “instant commercial building”) of the underground floor in the Changwon-si OO200, the 000 OOdong, and the part of the commercial building of the 0th floor above the ground (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) from the 0th floor above the ground to the E, and ② the parts of the residential unit of the 0th floor (hereinafter referred to as the “instant residential unit”) to the F, the husband of the E, respectively.

B. On December 31, 2009, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 000 as capital gains tax on the transfer income tax [the purchase price of the instant commercial building is KRW 000 and the purchase price of the instant commercial building subject to taxation is KRW 000,000, while the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 000 as capital gains from the transfer of the instant commercial building [the acquisition price of the instant commercial building is KRW 00,000, = 000 capital gains from transfer ( = 000 capital gains - other necessary expenses - special deduction for long-term holding amount of KRW 000) - special deduction for long-term holding].

C. For this reason, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that the Plaintiff calculated in the course of transferring the instant building en bloc, and that the transfer value of the instant building is not reasonable, and that of the instant building is 000 won in its transfer value, and that of the instant commercial building, the instant commercial building is the individual housing price, and that of the instant commercial building is 000 won in proportion to its standard market price, and that of the instant commercial building, the price of the instant commercial building is 00 won, and the price of the instant commercial building is 00 won, and that the Plaintiff corrected and notified the transfer income tax of 2009 upon the transfer of the instant commercial building to the Plaintiff.

D. On July 18, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition with the Defendant, but is not the Defendant.

on August 24 of the same year, the Plaintiff dismissed the above application, and on November 9, 201, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on April 16, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

At the time of the sale of the building of this case, the commercial building of this case was sold to DoD with 000 won, and the sales contract of this case was prepared by dividing the commercial building of this case into Do and Do, and it was legitimate that the plaintiff calculated the transfer value of the commercial building of this case at the time of the initial report of transfer income tax, based on 00 won which is the actual transaction value. However, the disposition of this case was unlawful in which the defendant did not recognize each purchase price of the building of this case and the commercial building of this case as stated in the above sales contract without any specific ground, but it is unclear that the sales value of the house of this case and the commercial building of this case is unclear, and the transfer value of the building of this case is calculated by dividing the transfer value of the building of this case 00 won according to the ratio of the standard market value of the building of this case and the commercial building of this case, and then the amount additionally borne by the plaintiff is more

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) According to Article 100 (1) and (2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9774 of Jun. 9, 2009), in calculating gains on transfer, in cases where the transfer value or acquisition value is calculated based on the actual transaction price, the transfer income tax shall be calculated pro rata by taking into account the actual transaction price as prescribed by the Presidential Decree in cases where the person liable to pay transfer income tax has submitted a sales contract concerning the acquisition and transfer, a transaction certificate, a certificate of seal imprint, etc. of a contractualO, and a certificate of seal imprint, etc. as supporting documents concerning the actual transaction price, unless there are special circumstances such as that each of the above supporting documents has been prepared differently from the actual transaction price, and even if the transfer value or acquisition value is calculated based on the actual transaction price on each of the above supporting documents (amended by Act No. 95Nu3183 of Jun. 25, 1996).

(2) 갑 2， 3호증， 을 7호증의 1， 2， 을 9호증의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정 ， 즉 ① 원고가 2009. 10. 13. 이 사건 건물을 이 사건 상가와 이 사건 주택으로 구분하여 부부인 배EE， 조FF에게 양도하였는데， 당시 작성한 매매계약서는 이 사건 상가 000원， 이 사건 주택은 000원에 매도하는 것으로 이 사건 상가와 이 사건 주택을 구분하여 2장을 작성하였지만， 이 사건 건물에 관한 매매대금은 배EE으로부터 모두 지급받았는바，이 사건 건물의 양수인들 사이의 관계， 그 매매대금 지급의 방법 등에 비추어 보면，이 사건 건물은 일괄하여 배EE，조FF에게 매도한 것으로 봄이 타당하고(그럼에도 불구하고 앞서 본 바와 같은 각 매매계약서를 작성한 이유는 1세대 1주택의 양도로서 과세대상이 되지 않는 이 사건 주택의 매매대금과 양도소득세 과세대상인 이 사건 상가의 매매대금을 구분하기 위함으로 보인다)，② 원고는 2005. 5. 19. 김QQ로부터 이 사건 건물을 000원에 매수한 후 부동산임대업을 하였는데，같은 해 6. 5. 피고에게 부가가치세 조기환급신고를 하면서 이 사건 상가의 가액(대지권 가격 제외)을 000원으로 신고하였고， 원고가 2007. 5. 31. 피고에게 2006년 귀속 종합소득세를 신고하면서 제출한 표준합계잔액시산표에는 이 사건 상가의 가액을 000원， 이 사건 건물의 대지가액을 000원으로 기재하였는바， 이 사건 주택의 취득가액은 000원 정도였을 것으로 보이는데도， 원고가 이 사건 주택의 매도대금에 관한 구체적인 산정기준도 제시하지 않고， 그보다 2.5배 정도 높은 금액인 000억 원에 이 사건 주택을 매도하였다고 주장하고 있는 점(이 사건 주택의 개별주택가격은， 원고가 이 사건 주택을 취득할 당시 000원이었으나，원고가 이 사건 주택을 양도할 당시 000원으로 오히려 하락하였다)，③ 원고가 양도소득세를 절약하기 위하여 실제 거래 내용과 상관없이 매수인들의 협조를 얻어 이 사건 상가와 이 사건 주택의 매매계약서를 구분하여 작성하였을 가능성이 충분해보이는 점 등 여러 사정을 참작하면， 위 각 매매계약서에 기재된 이 사건 상가와 이 사건 주택의 각 매매금액은 양도소득세 등의 부담을 줄일 목적으로 작성되었을 가능성이 높은 것으로 그 기재 내용을 그대로 믿기 어렵다. 위 매매계약서의 기재 내용을 믿기 어렵다면，이 사건 건물의 양도는 자산별 매매가액을 구분하지 아니한 채 총 매매가액으로 일괄 양도된 경우로 보아 각 자산별 양도가액의 구분이 불분명한 때에 해당한다고 봄이 상당하다[원고는 KK감정법인 감정결과 이 사건 주택의 가격이 000원 상당이므로， 이 사건 주택의 실지거래가액이 000원이라고 봐야 한다는 취지로 주장하나，실지양도가 액이라 함은 거래 당시 양도자가 당해 자산을 양도함에 있어서 그 대가로 지급받은 가액으로서 매매계약 기타 증빙자료에 의하여 객관적으로 인식되는 가액을 말하고 사후에 양도당시로 소급하여 한 시가감정에 의하여 파악되는 가액은 이에 해당하지 않는다고 할 것인 점(대법원 1997. 2. 11. 선고 96누860 판결 등 참조)， 위 감정은 이 사건 주택과 비교하기 적절하지 않은 인근 아파트를 비교대상으로 삼은 것이므로 적정한 감정이 이루어졌다고 보이지도 않는 점 등에 비추어 보면， 원고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

(3) Accordingly, the instant disposition, calculated by calculating the transfer value of the instant commercial building according to the provisions of Article 100(2) of the Income Tax Act, and the actual transaction value of the instant commercial building according to the standard market price ratio between the instant commercial building and the instant commercial building, is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.