The early 2012 middle 2715

No tax reduction or exemption for a period of eight years shall be recognized by deeming the applicant's earned income, etc.

The fact that the details of the earned income of the claimant and the actual place of residence can not be seen as a domicile on the resident registration, and therefore the claimant cannot be viewed as having self-employed for at least eight

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

Guate District Court Decision 2013Gudan220

IsaA

Head of the Pakistan Tax Office

May 19, 2014

June 30, 2014

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax OOO on September 1, 201 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff obtained a certificate of repayment issued by the former Minister of Agriculture and Forestry pursuant to Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer of Distribution Farmland Ownership (hereinafter “instant land”) with respect to the same place as 00 OO 88-1 247 m2,000 m271 m2 (hereinafter “the instant land”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of repayment on April 17, 1963. After which the Plaintiff owned the instant land, he/she transferred the ownership to OO on June 22, 2010, and reported the transfer income tax on the key land transfer to OO on the premise that he/she was self-employed for at least eight years in total, and applied the reduction and exemption provisions of transfer income tax on the self-employed land pursuant to Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act on August 20, 2010.

B. As a result of the on-site verification investigation on the land at issue, the Defendant did not directly cultivate the land at issue for at least eight years, and excluded the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on self-arable land pursuant to Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act. On November 21, 2011, the Defendant issued a notice of correction and notification of OO of capital gains tax for 2010 to the applicant.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff's father purchase of the real estate of this case from OO and redemption from May 1954

The plaintiff died on November 17, 1961, when he paid money in lieu of money, and the plaintiff died in this case.

Since real estate was inherited and cultivated directly for not less than 8 years until July 3, 1970, capital gains tax should be reduced or exempted pursuant to Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act. Therefore, the instant disposition made on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) Under the principle of no taxation without law, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law, barring special circumstances, and shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds. In particular, the strict interpretation of the provision that can be seen as a clearly preferential provision among the requirements for reduction and exemption accords with the principle of fair taxation (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du11372, Aug. 20, 2009).

Meanwhile, Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010) provides that the amount of tax equivalent to 100/100 of capital gains tax on the income accruing from the transfer of the land prescribed by the Presidential Decree, which is cultivated directly by the resident residing in the location of the land for not less than eight years, shall be reduced or exempted. Article 66(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the person who has resided in the area within Si/Gun/Gu and Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to the location of the farmland, and Article 69(4) provides that the person who has cultivated the farmland he/she cultivated for not less than eight years from the time of acquisition to the time of transfer, and Article 11 of the same Act provides that "in calculating the period cultivated under the above provision of paragraph (4), the period acquired by the decedent and cultivated by the decedent, etc." shall be deemed the period for which his/her heir cultivated.

Comprehensively taking account of the contents of the above provisions, the cultivation period of self-employed farmland exempt from capital gains tax.

In calculating inheritance, except in the case of inheritance, the transferor shall calculate only the cultivation period after the acquisition of the relevant land, and as long as the cultivation period at the time of possession by another person is not included in the acquisition of the relevant land, only the self-defense period shall be calculated after the acquisition of the transferor, insofar as the cause of acquisition is not inheritance (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu2480, Aug. 26, 1994

2) Examining the instant case in light of the aforementioned provisions and legal principles, as seen earlier,

As long as the cause of acquiring real estate of this case is not inheritance but "the completion of repayment on April 17, 1963," in calculating the cultivation period of farmland under the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, only the period after the Plaintiff, a transferor, acquired the real estate of this case, shall be calculated. According to the above evidence and the statements in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 above, when the Plaintiff acquired the real estate of this case, the period is less than eight years even if the Plaintiff resided near the location of the real estate of this case from April 17, 1963 and until the Seoul moving into Seoul, even if the period is less than eight years, it does not constitute capital gains tax reduction requirements under the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act. Therefore, the Plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition is justifiable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

partnership.