When the gift tax came out, “My mom used my account for a while”… Court “Pay as it is”

 A man filed a lawsuit claiming that a gift tax was levied after메이저놀이터 his mother had only briefly borrowed his name for a money transaction, but the court of first instance did not accept it due to lack of evidence.

According to the legal community on the 7th, the 2nd administrative division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Chief Judge Shin Myung-hee) ruled against the plaintiff on May 25 in a lawsuit filed by Mr. A against the head of the Gwanak Tax Office to cancel the imposition of gift tax.

Mr. A’s mother, Mr. B, sold the domestic real estate he owned in April 2015, and transferred 1.7 billion won to her account. Mr. A remitted the money in yen three times from May of the same year to January of the following year and used it for real estate purchases and personal investments in Japan.

The tax authorities reported that the gift was established at the time that Mr. A remitted the money received from her mother in yen, and in June 2021 announced a gift tax of about 900 million won.

Mr. A objected and applied for a judgment to the Tax Tribunal, but the amount of her gift tax was only slightly reduced to about 880 million won.

In response, Mr. A said, ” Mr. B temporarily used his name for remittance in yen or acquisition of real estate as needed, and he used his account for remittance in yen after being informed by the bank that large remittances in the name of Mr. B were not possible.” He filed a lawsuit claiming the purpose.

However, the court did not accept all of A’s claim, saying that there was not enough evidence.

The judge said, “Mr. A virtually admitted that he was the subject of real estate acquisition in Japan during the investigation by the tax authorities.” Regarding the claim that he borrowed money from Mr. B, he also pointed out that, although he had an IOU, Mr. A had never paid the interest stated on it to Mr. B.

In addition, the claim that the bank was informed that a large amount of remittance was impossible in the name of Mr. B was also difficult to understand, and all of Mr. A’s claims were dismissed, saying that the evidence submitted was insufficient to admit it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *