When The Latest Deed Tax Notice Meets The Tax Certificate Of Land Value-Added Tax.

Article 1 of the notice issued by the State Administration of Taxation on the declaration of deed tax returns stipulates that "in accordance with the pfer of land and house ownership under the effective legal documents of the people's court and the Arbitration Commission, the taxpayer can not obtain the invoice for the sale of real estate. He may carry out the declaration of the tax payment by the people's court in the execution of the original and relevant materials, and the tax authority shall accept it."

Then, if the taxpayer can not obtain the real estate sales invoice, there is no tax certificate of land value-added tax, but the original document of the people's court's enforcement ruling or the execution ruling of the people's court is not the execution ruling made by the judgment, but is the tax authority "should be accepted" as if the case is an executive ruling made according to the mediation mediation agreement between the two parties?

In September 24, 2015, the first intermediate people's Court of B city made a two trial decision on the dispute between the DH and the appellant (the defendant of the original trial) and the Local Taxation Bureau of H District of B city.

The appellant DH company appealed to the court in response to the request that the H city land tax bureau of B City perform its statutory duties and refuse to accept the first instance administrative judgment of the people's Court of H District of B city.

The case is now terminated.

The court of first instance found out the following facts: in order to deal with the ownership alteration registration of the houses involved, DH filed the application for registration of housing ownership in the city of B, the housing ownership certificate and the executive ruling of the first intermediate people's Court of the city of H in December 29, 2014 and December 30, respectively, on the second tax office of the Local Taxation Bureau, and applied for the payment of the deed tax.

Among them, B city first intermediate people's court execution ruling stated: in the process of implementation, DH company and a company reached a settlement agreement in January 7, 2014, agreed to assess the value of the above housing 6403043 yuan to repay debts, according to the relevant provisions, the property is owned by DH company.

H after examining the application materials submitted by DH, the Local Taxation Bureau concluded that the DH company had not submitted the certificate of tax payment for the land value-added tax, and orally informed that it had to submit the certificate of tax payment for the land value-added tax first.

DH believes that the H local tax bureau fails to perform its statutory duties and then raises administrative proceedings, requiring the H local tax bureau to handle the relevant procedures for the payment of the deed tax.

In April 29, 2015, the court of first instance ruled that in the case, the H district land tax bureau decided that the application of DH company did not belong to the exceptions of the 134 notification No. second and the third Notice No. 124, and in accordance with the above provisions, the company was required to submit the certificate of tax payment for the land value-added tax first, performing the corresponding duties, and it was not inappropriate.

Notice No. 44 is about the court's decision to carry out the relevant tax related issues concerning the pfer of real estate ownership, which is applicable to the case that the people's court requests the tax authorities to assist in the execution of the civil judgment which has already been legally effective.

In this case, DH company and a company reached a settlement agreement in the implementation process, agreed to repay the debt with the assessed value of the house involved.

The first intermediate people's Court of B city made the enforcement ruling accordingly.

This ruling does not fall within the scope of application of Notice No. 44, so our institute does not support DH's claim.

In summary, the court of first instance rejected the claim of DH company in accordance with the law.

DH refused to accept the judgment and appealed to our hospital.

The court examined the first instance dossier and asked all the parties concerned. After examination and verification, they agreed with the original court's opinion on the authentication of the evidence.

The confirmed valid evidence can be used as the basis for determining the facts of the case.

The facts identified by the court are consistent with the facts identified in the first instance, and the court will confirm it.

According to our hospital, H has a statutory duty to levy taxes on the pfer of housing ownership within its jurisdiction.

In this case, the DH company obtained the house involved in the court's execution process by reaching a settlement agreement with the debtor.

。

When handling the pfer of the house, the relevant taxes shall be paid according to the regulations.

Notices No. 134, notifications No. 124 and notifications No. 44 are the specific provisions of the Local Taxation Bureau of B Municipality on the management of land value-added tax and the pfer of tax related issues of real estate ownership by the court in accordance with the requirements of the integrated management of real estate tax of the State Administration of taxation.

H as a local tax authority, the Local Taxation Bureau, in accordance with the requirements of the integrated management of real estate tax of the State Administration of Taxation, according to the provisions of the laws, regulations and the above-mentioned normative documents, examines the application of the DH company. It considers that it does not belong to the case of the tax certificate issued by the relevant normative documents without the need to issue the land value-added tax.

The reason why the DH company sued for the decree of H local tax bureau to pay the relevant procedures for the company's deed tax is not valid. The court of first instance ruled that its claim was correct and the court should maintain it.

The reasons for DH's appeal are insufficient.

The appeal is not supported by our court.

Accordingly, a final judgment is made in accordance with the law: the appeal is rejected and the original judgment is upheld.

This case mainly refers to the submission of declaration materials when the land tax and the pfer of housing ownership are pferred.

Unlike the case of the previous Yantai, the case of Yantai is the dispute over the sale invoice of real estate after the auction of housing, and the controversy in this case is that under what circumstances, it is possible to apply for tax declaration without the tax certificate of land value-added tax.

The focus is also the difference between the court compulsory auction, the pfer of real estate ownership by court decision and the execution ruling made by the court in accordance with the two sides' settlement agreement.

According to the normative document of B City, when the people's court requests the tax authorities to assist in the execution of the legally effective civil judgment for tax payment procedures,

An identity certificate, a civil judgment that has already been legally effective, and a notice of assistance to be issued by the people's court may be applied for the declaration and payment of the real estate tax.

The tax authorities shall not issue a tax certificate for land value added tax on a court compulsory auction or a court decision for the pfer of real estate ownership.

The case was finally identified: B city land tax bureau on the court's decision to implement the pfer of real estate ownership.

The provisions of the questions apply to the case that the people's court requests the tax authorities to assist in the execution of the legally effective civil judgment for tax payment procedures.

If a reconciliation agreement is reached between the two parties in the execution process and the debt value of the assessed value of the house is agreed upon, the execution ruling issued by the court shall not belong to the scope of the tax certificate of land value-added tax which can not be issued.

The administrative action in this case occurred in December 29, 2014 and December 30th, and the second instance of administrative litigation was final judgment made in September 24, 2015.

Now, if there is a similar controversy now, how should we deal with it?

The notice issued by the State Administration of Taxation on the declaration of deed tax declaration on September 25, 2015 (promulgated by the State Administration of Taxation No. sixty-seventh in 2015) stipulates that there are two cases that can not provide the purchase invoice when handling the declaration of tax payment. First, according to the effective legal documents of the people's court and the Arbitration Commission, the pfer of land and house ownership is carried out. If taxpayers fail to obtain the invoice of real estate sales, they can hold the tax declaration of the original and relevant materials of the people's court, and the tax authorities should accept it.

Two, when the taxpayer who purchases the new commercial housing applies for the declaration of deed tax, because the real estate development enterprise that sells the newly built commercial housing has already cancelled the tax registration or is listed as an abnormal household by the tax authority and so on, the taxpayer can not obtain the sales real property invoice, the tax authority should accept the case after verification of the relevant circumstances.

Because the relevant legal documents in the first case of the notice are not the instruments produced by the tax authorities, but the judicial documents produced by the people's courts, and are not common in the daily tax collection and management, tax officials and taxpayers are relatively unfamiliar, and some misunderstandings are likely to arise. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the relevant issues.