beta
Title
Whether the amount of deposit transfer between husband and wife actually constitutes a donation
Summary
It is reasonable to view that the amount that was withdrawn from the deposit account of the deceased and deposited to his spouse by account transfer is the amount that the deceased donated.
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
Purport of claim
Defendant ○○○ Head of the tax office’s imposition of KRW 34,867,10 among the imposition of KRW 56,295,330 on December 5, 2005 against the Plaintiff, and the imposition of KRW 6,074,50 on the 15th day of the pertinent month by Defendant ○○ Head of the tax office, which exceeds KRW 6,094,290 among the imposition of KRW 48,707,140 on the 17,835,430 on the 17,961,420 among the imposition of KRW 23,835,430 on the 15th day, and the imposition of KRW 36,138,060 on the 36,65,240 on the 15th day by the ○○ Head of the tax office shall be revoked.
Reasons
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. Details of taxation; and
The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or if they gather the purport of the whole pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-7, Eul evidence 1-2-2, Eul evidence 2-5, Eul evidence 3-9, and Eul evidence 3 through 9, they can be acknowledged, and there is no other counter-proof.
A. On November 3, 2004, 2004, ○○○○-dong, ○○○○-dong, ○○○○○-dong, and died. The Plaintiff is his wife, the South ○○, the South ○○, the South ○, and the South ○○ are his wife, and the South ○○, and the South ○○ and the South ○○ are their children.
B. On May 2, 2005, co-inheritors, including the Plaintiff, (hereinafter referred to as "co-inheritors, including the Plaintiff,") calculated and reported the tax base of the inheritance tax and the amount of tax payable at KRW 4,288,015,025 and KRW 1,016,235,990, such as the entry in the item of the reported tax amount of the inheritance tax on May 2, 2005, to the head of the tax office of ○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as "Inheritance tax invoice"). At that time, the tax amount paid at KRW 1,016,235,990 was voluntarily paid.
C. From August 26, 2005 to October 25 of the same year, the director of ○○○ Regional Tax Office conducted an inheritance tax investigation on the co-inheritors, including the Plaintiff, from August 26, 2005 to October 25 of the same year. The co-inheritors, including the Plaintiff, etc., recognized that there are some errors in the value of inherited property reported as provided in the preceding paragraph, as well as that of the Plaintiff, Nam○○, and South ○○ had omitted the report of gift tax on each amount indicated in the list of the gift value donated from South ○○○
Details of the gift value list
(unit: Won)
Testamentary donee
Date of donation
Value of donation
Testamentary donee
Date of donation
Value of donation
Testamentary donee
Date of donation
Value of donation
Plaintiff
7 April 2004
300,000,000
South ○
January 24, 2000
20,000,000
South ○
o April 3, 200
15,000,000
August 13, 2004
500,000,000
April 19, 2000
30,000,000
July 20, 200
59,502,400
7, 204
155,031,750
7.21 200
42,634,020
June 11, 2001
22,664,450
7, 204
10,901,689
December 4, 2003
124,659,420
6, 2002
70,000,000
7, 204
62,044,414
September 18, 2002
130,000,000
September 16, 2004
100,000,000
o October 22, 2002
84,171,905
9.24 2004
142,000,000
November 25, 2002
130,000,000
December 9, 2002
17,829,950
January 22, 2003
11,000,000
United States of America
819,977,853
217,293,440
740,168,705
D. On December 5, 2005, the head of the ○○○○○○ Tax Office, as indicated in the item on the inheritance tax invoice, shall calculate the total amount of tax imposed at KRW 1,777,439,98 as the value of donated property for which the co-inheritors, such as the Plaintiff, etc. omitted the return as described in the preceding paragraph, as indicated in the item on the inheritance tax invoice: KRW 819,977,853 (amount omitted in filing a return by the Plaintiff) + KRW 217,293,440 (amount omitted in filing a return by the Plaintiff) + KRW 740,168,705 (amount omitted in filing a return by the South ○○○○) calculated the taxable amount of inheritance taxes; KRW 5,807,843,711; KRW 1,484,973,211, the total amount of tax imposed at KRW 468,737,218 (amount deducted from the tax amount to be paid); and KRW 3687,737,737,7.737
E. On the other hand, on December 15, 2005, the head of the Defendant ○○○○○ Tax Office rendered a decision to calculate each gift tax and impose the gift tax equivalent to the amount of each gift tax (hereinafter “instant gift tax disposition”) as stated in the total determined tax amount column on the gift amount of KRW 819,97,853, which failed to file a return, as seen earlier, on the Plaintiff, and at that time notified the Plaintiff thereof.
2. Whether the pertinent disposition of inheritance tax and gift tax is legitimate
A. The parties' assertion
The Defendants asserted that the instant inheritance tax and gift tax assessment are lawful in accordance with relevant laws and regulations.
For this reason, the Plaintiff asserts that the portion exceeding the amount stated in the column of tax amount and the calculation statement of gift tax in the instant inheritance tax and gift tax should be revoked as unlawful for the following reasons.
(1) The Defendants acknowledged that the Plaintiff received total of KRW 819,977,853 from South ○○, as indicated in the specification of the gift value as seen earlier, as a full donation.
(2) However, among the total amount of KRW 819,977,853 remitted to the Plaintiff by South ○○, the sum of KRW 300,000,000 on April 7, 2004 and KRW 455,031,750 on September 7, 2004 (hereinafter “instant deposit”) was deposited in the name of South ○○○, but the actual amount of the Plaintiff’s deposit was 45,031,750 on the account of operation with South ○○. However, the amount of KRW 455,031,750 on the account of the Plaintiff’s share (one-half share) was 27,515,875 on the account of the Plaintiff’s inherent property and not the property donated to the Plaintiff from South ○○○○. Nevertheless, the Defendants imposed KRW 45,031,750 on the Plaintiff under the premise that the Plaintiff’s inherent shares of KRW 275,2751,7575 on the Plaintiff’s inherent shares.
(b) Fact of recognition;
The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or if Gap evidence Nos. 7 through 10, 13, 14, 15, and 16-1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 17, 18, and Gap evidence Nos. 19-1 through 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 5 through 9, and the whole purport of the pleadings is collected, these facts can be acknowledged. The entries of evidence Nos. 11 and 12 are insufficient to reverse the above recognition, and there are no other objections.
(1) On February 23, 1952, the Plaintiff obtained a medical license on December 10, 1952, and married with ○○○○ Child, and opened '○○○ Child’ on October 17, 1958, and operated the hospital from that time. However, from April 1, 1953 to March 15, 198, ○○ University’s college as a professor and retired from office on February 18, 1976, and newly opened '○○○ Child’ on April 3 of that year. The Plaintiff discontinued '○○○ Child’ that was opened under its name, and the Plaintiff discontinued '○○○ Child’ from September 15, 1986 to 15, 196 to 100’.
(2) Meanwhile, from March 1, 1987 to February 28, 1991, ○○○○ University operated '○○○ Child’ as well as '○○○○ Child’ as a photographic instructor at ○ University’s medical school. The Plaintiff treated patients entirely in cases where ○○○ University gives lectures to the university.
(3) On December 30, 1974, the Plaintiff acquired a site of ○○○-dong, ○○○○○-dong, ○○○○○○-dong, and a building on its ground under its name 312.4 square meters and 815.37 square meters, and used it as “○○○○-dong, ○○○○-dong, ○○○-dong, ○○○-dong, ○○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○○-dong, ○○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○-dong, and had another ○-dong, a real estate rental business operator from October 27, 202 to donate the building site and had another ○-dong and its operation.
(4) From October 22, 2002 to September 20, 2004, the Plaintiff either paid 316,566,000 won or paid her gift tax on the hospital building remodeling construction cost to the South ○○ Hospital, which was deposited in its own name on seven occasions.
(5) On November 7, 2009, 199, ○○○○○○-○○-○○-15,750 won out of the sales amount was deposited 450,000 won in his/her bank account (○○-○-○○-15,50 won) under the name of the Plaintiff, and deposited 300,000 won out of the principal and interest of his/her bank in his/her bank account (○○-○-○-○○-○○-○○-15,50 won in his/her name). On July 2, 2003, 200, 200 won was deposited in ○○-15,500 won in his/her bank account (○○-15,500 won in his/her name) under the name of the Plaintiff’s bank account (○○-15,500 won in his/her name).
C. Determination
(1) The following circumstances that can be seen from the facts acknowledged under the preceding paragraph, i.e., ① the issue deposit is presumed to be the deposit of ○○ in the name of ○○ in the name of ○○○, and not only the account is presumed to be the deposit of ○○○ in the name of ○○○○, but also the proceeds from the sale of securities bonds sold on December 2, 2003 by ○○○○ in the name of ○○○○ and jointly with ○○○○ in the name of ○○○, but also operated ○○○○ in the name of ○○○○, but the Plaintiff acquired a considerable amount of real estate under ○○’s own or jointly with ○○○○ in the name of ○○○○, and ③ the inheritance tax and Gift Tax Act recognize a maximum amount of spouse deduction in consideration of the formation of common property among the married parties. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the issue of deposit of ○○○ in the name of the Plaintiff by account transfer is the deposit of ○○○○○.
(2) Therefore, under the premise that ○○○ donated 455,031,750 won to the Plaintiff in full, the Defendants’ taxation of the instant inheritance tax and gift tax is lawful.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's respective claims of this case seeking revocation on the grounds that the inheritance tax and gift tax assessment of this case are illegal are dismissed in all of its grounds. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Statement of Inheritance Tax Amount
(unit: Won)
Classification
Reported Tax Amount
Amount of final tax
The amount of legitimate tax by the Plaintiff Director
Total Taxable Value of Inherited Property
5,308,015,025
6,827,843,711
6,600,327,836
Value of the inherited property
3,244,832,425
3,244,901,113
3,244,901,113
Amount included in the disposition prior to the commencement of inheritance; and
257,680,000
0
0
Value of donated
1,813,530,000
3,590969,998
3,363,454,123
Funeral expenses deduction
8,027,400
8,027,400
8,027,400
Total amount of deduction
1,020,000,000
1,020,000,000
1,020,000,000
Spouse’s deduction
500,000,000
500,000,000
500,000,000
Collective deduction
500,000,000
500,000,000
500,000,000
Financial property deduction
20,000,000
20,000,000
20,000,000
Tax Base
4,288,015,025
5,807,843,711
5,580,327,836
Tax Rate
50%
50%
50%
calculated tax amount
1,684,007,512
2,443,921,856
2,330,163,918
Amount of donated property deducted;
54,856,410
934,192,229
86,691,269
Amount deducted from reported tax amount;
12,915,110
12,915,110
12,915,110
Amount of final tax
1,016,235,992
1,396,814,517
1,330,557,539
Additional Tax on negligent tax returns
63,953,900
53,962,791
Additional Dues
24,204,794
19,990,850
Total determined tax amount
1,016,235,992
1,484,973,211
1,404,511,180
Voluntary Tax Amount
1,016,235,992
1,016,235,993
1,016,235,992
Total imposed Tax Amount
468,737,218
388,275,188
Notes (1) : Fractional trees less than ten won in the calculation of notified tax amount pursuant to the provisions of Article 47 (1) of the Management of the National Funds Act shall be rounded off; hereinafter the same shall apply.
Table of Individual Tax Amount by Inheritor
(unit: Won)
An inheritor
Inheritance Ratio
Plaintiff
argument
Inheritance Ratio
Amount of tax imposed
Plaintiff
argument
Political Party Tax Amount
Plaintiff
12.01%
8.98%
56,295,330
34,867,110
South ○
63.87%
6.07%
299,382,460
256,533,410
South ○
24.12%
24.95%
113,059,428
96,874,660
South ○
0.00%
0.00%
0
0
South ○
0.00%
0.00%
0
0
South ○
0.00%
0.00%
0
0
Consolidateds
100%
100%
468,737,218
388,275,180
A gift tax amount statement
(unit: Won)
Date of donation
April 7, 2004
August 13, 2004
September 7, 2004
September 16, 2004
September 24, 2004
Amount of gift tax
300,000,000
50,000,000
27,977,853
100,000,000
142,000,000
The estimated amount of re-donations;
0
300,000,000
350,000,000
577,977,853
677,977,853
Spouse’s deduction
300,000,000
300,000,000
300,000,000
300,000,000
300,000,000
Tax Base
0
50,000,000
27,977,853
377,977,853
519,977,853
Tax Rate
10%
10%
20%
20%
30%
calculated tax amount
0
5,000,000
45,595,570
65,595,570
95,993,355
Tax Credit
0
0
5,000,000
45,595,570
65,595,570
Amount of final tax
0
5,000,000
40,595,570
20,000,000
30,397,785
Additional Tax on negligent tax returns
0
500,000
3,739,428
1,735,434
2,621,469
Additional Dues
0
574,500
4,372,142
2,100,000
3,118,812
Total determined tax amount
0
6,074,500
48,707,140
23,835,434
36,138,066
Amount of tax notified after deduction
0
6,074,500
48,707,140
23,835,430
36,138,060
Plaintiff’s Principal Political Tax Amount
0
6,094,290
17,961,420
3,665,240
- Finally -