National Tax Service Review and Transfer 2011-0085 (Law No. 1106.30)

It is difficult to recognize that a person has been residing or has been self-employed in land for at least eight years.

In light of the fact that the document prepared and submitted to a third party to manage the land at the time of the investigation and that most of the details of credit card use are outside the land location, etc., it is difficult to recognize that the land was resided in the land location or that it was engaged in the field cultivation for not less than eight years or cultivated by the labor force by more than half of farming

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2011Guhap864 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

ThisAAA

Head of Jeju Tax Office

May 2, 2012

June 13, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On December 1, 2010, the Defendant revoked the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 against the Plaintiff (the date of the disposition entered in the complaint, '200. 7 December 2010' seems to be a clerical error).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 20, 1999, the Plaintiff acquired and owned 1,980 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) of the O-dong 00,000 square meters (hereinafter “O-dong 1,980 square meters”) and transferred it to DoD on March 18, 2010.

B. On May 26, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction of capital gains tax of 000 won with the Defendant, who resided in the Defendant, and directly cultivated the instant land for at least eight years, and the Defendant rejected the application, and on December 1, 2010, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of capital gains tax of 69,838,015 won for the transfer income tax of 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On March 11, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a request for judgment with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, while the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on June 2011

30. The dismissal was made.

[Grounds for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 13-6, Eul evidence 1-2, and Eul evidence 1-2, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As seen below, the Plaintiff had resided in the GangwonF’s house and cultivated the instant land as farmland for at least eight years, and the income from the transfer of the instant land constitutes subject to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax pursuant to Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010). Nevertheless, the instant disposition imposing capital gains tax on the Plaintiff on a different premise is unlawful.

(1) On December 29, 198, the Plaintiff purchased the land of 000 O-dong O-dong 000 on December 29, 198, and resided in the management room affiliated to the Yangyang-dong 00, and it was impossible to live in the smell-dong 00, and the Plaintiff lived in the above area from September 1989 to the time of transfer of the land by lending the strong FF's house located in 000 O-dong 00. Although the Gangwon-si around June 2004, the Plaintiff was to move each resident registration to O-dong 0000 on February 21, 2005, it was necessary for the Plaintiff to jointly own the land and sell the land to Y-dong 200 to Y-dong 200 and Y-dong 200 to Y-dong 20 to Y-dong 200 to Y-dong 200 to Y-dong 200 to Y-dong 20.

(2) On July 16, 2001, the Plaintiff transferred the land of 00 U.S. O. O. O. O., the Plaintiff owned, and directly cultivated the land of this case until May 2002, 450 out of the 1,000 YY, which were planted there. This III introduced the human father at the Plaintiff’s request, or aided the equipment rental and received remuneration.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to believe that the plaintiff himself/herself cultivated self-denunciation in the land in this case, or that the plaintiff was living in the area of Si/Gun/Gu where the land in this case is located, the area of Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to the above area, and the area of Si/Gun/Gu, and the area of Si/Gun/Gu, Gun/Gu, and 11, and 11, respectively, and part of the testimony of JJ, and that the whole purport of the arguments is added to the following circumstances: (a) evidence No. 2, evidence No. 5, evidence No. 1, evidence No. 5, evidence No. 1, evidence No. 5, and evidence No. 1, the remaining evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to believe that the plaintiff was living in the area of Si/Gun/Gu, and the area adjacent to the above area, or in the area of 20 mar in straight distance from the land in this case, or there is no other evidence to support that the plaintiff was living in the self-denunciation of this case for more than 2 years.

(1) The plaintiff acquired the land in this case from July 20, 199 to July 20, 2008, "the plaintiff had this case managed the whole land in this case to this III. The plaintiff could not manage the land in this case due to out-of-the-spot of business and personal transmission problems, and the plaintiff left this III. When selling trees, this III allowed the plaintiff to contact with the plaintiff and sold the trees with the permission. After this III was deceased in 2008, the land in this case was managed one month from the time to the time of the transfer of the land in this case by the plaintiff, such as Seoul, and it was stated that "the above confirmation document is prepared unilaterally by the public official in charge of the defendant's service, and it is difficult to confirm that the plaintiff's signature is not reliable, but the above statement is the same as that of the plaintiff's signature."

(2) The Plaintiff’s credit card transactions or cash transactions between 2007 and 2010 are regions other than Jeju Special Self-Governing Province. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that most of his own credit card was used by his family, and that his own credit card was used mainly by his own family, but even after the Plaintiff was issued a separate credit card, the Plaintiff’s credit card was used in the region other than Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, and that the credit card in the Plaintiff’s name was used in the male region where the Plaintiff appears to have been a legal case before the issuance of his family credit card, and that it was difficult to believe the Plaintiff’s

(3) According to the images of the photograph (Evidence B No. 3) taken on October 28, 2003 of the land of this case, it does not seem that the camping out was planted on the land of this case, and the number of self-denunciation in the boundary of the land of this case at the time when the public official in charge of the defendant's side confirms on-site inspection seems to have been planted thereafter.

(4) Around June 2004, the strongF testified in favor of the Plaintiff, but it stated that it was not consistent with the developments leading up to the transfer of the resident registration to OOdong 000, and its actual place of residence. In addition, in 2002, the construction of a house in OOdong 0000 and the registration of initial ownership was completed. This does not coincide with the Plaintiff’s assertion that the strongF transferred the resident registration to the same place around June 2004 to obtain a building permit in OOdong 0000 and the strongF’s initial testimony. Furthermore, the strongF did not clearly point out that the Plaintiff was residing in a room on the ground of OOdong 0000, and it is difficult to understand that the strongF was not accurately aware of the location map of the room.

(5) The JJ testified that the Plaintiff was favorable to the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff had been residing in Jeju Special Self-Governing Province only correctly, and that the Plaintiff had been residing in the instant land once more than 4-5 years prior to the date of 4-5 years. Furthermore, as stated at the end of the week as the middle part of the house photograph (Evidence A-5-2), the JJ stated that the JJ was the protection of the left part of the above photograph (Evidence A-5-2). Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude that the statement by the JJ alone alone was either of the Plaintiff residing in the OO 00 or directly cultivated the number of Ys on the instant land.

(6) The plaintiff, and this III argued that the plaintiff was only able to introduce the human body at the request of the plaintiff or to help the lease of the equipment, but the J testified that this III overall managed the land of this case, or that this III would have been employed by the plaintiff by giving monthly pay to this III, and the plaintiff's above assertion is difficult to believe.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.