Examination Transfer 2012-0145 (21. 2012.09)

If the fact of self-sufficiency is not confirmed, it shall not be subject to reduction or exemption of substitute farmland.

In light of the fact that it is difficult to deem that there was a "special circumstance" for a village resident to immediately commence farming after acquiring substitute farmland, such as growing substitute farmland without growing substitute farmland, even after two years have elapsed since the previous farmland transfer date, it is difficult to deem that the requirements for reduction or exemption for substitute farmland have been satisfied.

Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2013Gudan1052 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

literatureA

BB Director of the Tax Office

July 5, 2013

August 9, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s imposition of the capital gains tax of 2009 against the Plaintiff on January 3, 2012 is revoked.

1. Disposition and circumstances of the instant case (where there is no dispute, one, and two, and the purport of the entire pleadings);

" 가. 원고는 2002. 11. 13. 취득한 OO시 OO면 O리 310의 1 답 2，903㎡， 같은 리 310의 2 전 140㎡(이하 종전 농지)를 공익사업이 진행됨에 따라 2009. 6. 18. 한국토지주택공사에 협의절차를 거쳐 양도하였다. 그 후 원고는 2011. 3. 30. OO시 OO면 OO리 37의 1 전 2，242㎡ 등 4필지(이하 대토농지)를 취득하였다.", 나. 원고는 2011. 4. 11. 종전 농지의 양도에 따른 양도소득세에 대해 이 사건 대토 농지의 경작으로 양도소득세가 감면된다고 신고하였다.

On January 3, 2012, the Defendant imposed capital gains tax OOO on the transfer of previous farmland on the ground that the Plaintiff did not directly commence farming in the substitute farmland within two years after the transfer of the previous farmland, and on January 3, 2012, the Plaintiff did not fall under the reduction and exemption.

2. Determination

A. In a case where the previous farmland is purchased by consultation or expropriated due to public works, in order to have the capital gains tax reduced or exempted through the farmland substitute land, it must be manufactured upon the acquisition of substitute farmland within two years from the date of purchase by consultation or expropriation (see, e.g., Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9924, Jan. 1, 2010); Article 67(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21914, Dec. 30, 2009).

B. The plaintiff's assertion

Since November 201, 201, the cultivation began in the substitute farmland, and this is based on the characteristics that the substitute trees cultivated in the previous farmland can grow well by being moved to the around November, there is justifiable reason even if the cultivation began in the substitute farmland after two years from the transfer of the previous farmland.

C. Determination

In light of the fact that, considering the active development rate, it is determined from February to April, 201 as a tree planting period (in fact inquiry into the Forest Administration), and that the Plaintiff acquired the instant substitute farmland on March 30, 201 and immediately could immediately be transferred from the time of the acquisition, etc., it is difficult to view that there is a justifiable reason for the Plaintiff to start farming on the substitute farmland for which the period from June 18, 2009 when the Plaintiff transferred the previous farmland came to November 2, 201.

The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to meet the requirements for reduction and exemption due to farmland substitute land.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted, and the claim of this case is dismissed.