토지가 양도 당시 농지였다거나 일시적 휴경상태임을 인정할 수 없음[국승]
Early High Court Decision 201Du5102 ( October 16, 2012)
It shall not be recognized that land was farmland at the time of transfer or is temporary suspension;
In light of the fact that land was leased for a period of time to a company operating a waste resources wholesale business, used as a site for buildings or a site for waste materials, such as height materials, and that it was reported as miscellaneous land at the time of the report of comprehensive real estate holding tax, and that it was used as farmland, it is insufficient to recognize that it was farmland at the time of transfer or as a temporary state of suspension.
2012Gudan1003 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax
United StatesA 5 persons
the director of the tax office of Western
January 29, 2013
February 19, 2013
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The part of the disposition imposing capital gains tax on the plaintiff on September 1, 2011 as set forth in attached Table B(1) of the attached Table(1), which the defendant issued against the plaintiff, exceeds the tax amount set forth in attached Table
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On July 7, 1983, the Plaintiff UA completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of donation with respect to the same 147 square meters as the 000-2 297 square meters, such as the 000-2 Odong, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon.
"나. 원고들과 유BB， 유CC， 유DD는 2003. 12. 25. 인천 서구 OO동 000 답 939 ㎡， 인천 서구 OO동 000 전 1，189㎡， 같은 동 000-1 전 3，176㎡{이하 위 각 토지를 '이 사건 각 토지'라 하고， 개별 토지는 지번만으로 특정한다}을 망 유EE으로부터 공동으로 상속받았다(이하 망 유EE의 공동상속인을원고들 등'이라 한다).", 다. 원고들 등은 2010. 5. 3. 한국토지주택공사에게 OO통 630 토지를， 2010. 5. 10.
The registration of transfer of right has been completed to the Urban Development Corporation due to the acquisition of consultation on each public site for the remaining land.
D. On July 2010, the Plaintiffs, etc. reported transfer income tax on each of the instant land, and declared an expected transfer income tax reduction or exemption by filing an application for reduction or exemption of transfer income tax on the ground that it is a transfer of farmland in this case for eight years.
E. However, at the regular audit of the distribution tax office in 201, it was pointed out that each of the instant lands was not farmland at the time of transfer, and on September 1, 201, the Defendant rendered a corrective disposition imposing the Plaintiffs the same amount (including the special rural development tax) as that of the attached list No. 1 as the transfer income tax for the year 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) on the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs are dissatisfied with this, and the Plaintiffs filed a request with the Tax Tribunal on November 4, 201, but were dismissed on February 16, 2012.
[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, evidence 11 (including provisional lot number) and Eul evidence 1, 2, and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Appropriateness of the disposition;
A. The plaintiff's assertion
Each of the instant lands is farmland at the time of transfer in light of the fact that the current state at the time of appraisal as farmland is written as farmland in the farmland ledger, and when the appraisal is conducted after being assigned to the public works in 2009, the transaction price for consultation is determined based on the farmland, etc., and some of them are used as the actual miscellaneous land, which was used as the farmland at the time of transfer, but this was in a state of temporary absence due to neglect of management, regardless of the intent of the plaintiffs.
(b) Related statutes;
It is as shown in the attached Form.
C. Determination
1) The principle of strict interpretation derived from the principle of no taxation without law is applicable not only to cases meeting the taxation requirements, but also to cases meeting the requirements for non-taxation and tax reduction and exemption, and extending or analogically interpreting the requirements for non-taxation or tax exemption and exemption as favorable to taxpayers without any justifiable reason may result in a violation of the principle of no taxation, which is the basic ideology of the tax law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19163, May 25, 2006). Since the fact that farmland has been self-concepted, the party asserting it was responsible for proving it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1893, Jul. 13, 1993). Land not actually cultivated as of the date of transfer cannot be deemed as farmland as of the date of transfer, unless it is used as farmland by the landowner’s own or by another party, or temporarily in a state of absence or absence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du1394, Jun. 29, 2014).
2) According to the evidence 0.0 to 8, and 10.1, each of the instant lands was recorded as farmland on January 205, and 0.0 to 0.1, 207, 07, 200, 30, 000, 000 and 10.0.0, 00,000,000 were used for 1 to 0.0,000,000,000,000,000 were 0.0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000: 0.1 to 0.6,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00.0.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.