logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 부동산의 소유자가 청구인 개인의 ○○인지 아니면 “기독교 대한하나님의 성회 ○○교회”인지 여부(기각)
조세심판원 조세심판 | 1990-12-05 | 국심1990중1988 | 양도
[Case Number]

National Trial 190 Heavy1988 ( December 05, 1990)

[Items]

Transfer

[Types of Decision]

Dismissal

[Summary of Decision]

The real estate is registered in the real estate registration register as "Agregrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgr's sexual intercourse, but rather registered as an individual ○○," the owner of the building management register changed from "○○○ Association," to "○○○○○○○○○," to "○○○○○," and the building was registered as a preservation of ownership by ○○, an individual, 88.6.9.9, and the real estate was substantially registered as "○○○ Association, which belongs to Ngrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgr's sexual intercourse," and the real estate owner of the real estate is regarded as the applicant for the real estate, because the real estate actually has no specific and reliable evidence (e.g., the fact that the acquisition fund and the management fee, etc. belongs to the Foundation from the time of its acquisition to the time of its transfer.

[Related Acts]

Tax Reduction and Exemption Control Act Article 67-14 Special Surtax on Land for Business of Social Welfare Corporation and Religious Corporation

【Disposition】

I dismiss the appeal.

【Reasoning】

1. Facts;

With respect to the fact that an OOOO site 200 square meters and 258.8 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “this real estate”) of a building on the ground located in the real estate registration register in the name of the claimant is acquired (76.4.12, for a building) 75.3.10 square meters, and that the building was transferred to other OOO than the claimant 89.1.9

The agency imposed 8,727,980 won and 1,745,590 won on the claimant for the 89 year of transfer income tax belonging to the 89 year of disposition;

The claimant appealed against this and filed a petition for trial on September 10, 90.5.15, 90.6.20.

2. Request;

This real estate is the owner of the building management ledger as the "OO of the OCO" and actually a church, and Article 67-14 (1) 2 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act provides that the income accrued from the transfer of land, etc. directly used for its original purpose by a corporation established for the purpose of dissemination of religion and other edification (including an unincorporated association, foundation, or other organization) shall not be subject to special surtax, so this case's disposition should be revoked.

3. Opinions of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service;

Article 67-14 (1) of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act related to this case provides that "any income accruing from the transfer of land, etc. falling under any of the following subparagraphs for the proper purpose of the corporation concerned shall be exempted from special surtax under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree" and subparagraph 2 of Article 67 provides that "land, etc. directly used for its proper purpose by a corporation established for religious dissemination or other edification (including an unincorporated association, foundation, or other organization)" but Article 67-14 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act provides that Article 5 (1) of the Addenda of the same Act provides that this case shall be applied from the first transfer after December 30, 89 to the first transfer after January 1, 90, and since there is no room for application of the above provision, this case's transfer income tax shall be exempted from the transfer of real estate for the proper purpose of the corporation concerned, this case's transfer income tax shall not be accepted without consideration, and there is no opinion that there is no different taxation of transfer income tax on the transfer of real estate owned by the copy of the register.

4. Issues

This real estate owner is not a OO of the claimant or a OO of the claimant, but a OO of the v. O.O.

5. Hearing and determination

In this case, the claimant asserts that the disposition of tax reduction and exemption should be revoked in accordance with the provisions of Article 67-14 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act and Article 55-12 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, but that provision shall apply from January 1, 90. Thus, in the case of the transfer after January 9, 89, whether the previous provision of Article 59-3 (1) 17 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4020, Dec. 26, 88) shall be determined.

On the other hand, this real estate is registered by the real estate registry as an individual OO rather than a registration by the owner of the real estate registry as the "OO of Nr. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P

Thus, the provision of Article 59-3 (1) 17 of the former Corporate Tax Act cannot be applied to the transfer of this case's real estate. Therefore, it is judged that the disposition agency is justifiable to consider the owner of this case as the claimant and impose this case's transfer income tax on the claimant.

6. Conclusion

As a result of the review of the appeal, it is recognized that the claimant's assertion is groundless, the decision is made in accordance with Article 81 and Article 65 (1) 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

arrow