early 2010 Heavy2906 (201.03.09)

Since it seems that a third party was cultivated at the time of expropriation of farmland, exclusion from reduction is legitimate.

In full view of the fact that a third party mainly cultivated farmland and submitted a written confirmation, and that the third party applied for and received compensation for agricultural loss at the time of expropriation of farmland, etc., the third party appears to have cultivated farmland at the time of the transfer of farmland, and thus, the disposition that excluded the transfer income tax reduction

2011Guhap67777 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AA

Head of Ansan Tax Office

October 13, 2011

November 10, 201

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 162, 409, and 020 imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff in February 8, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 15, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired the instant farmland from the Korea Water Resources Corporation (hereinafter “the instant farmland”) on the redemption and acquisition on September 15, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired 000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,00.

B. On December 29, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a preliminary return on capital gains tax following the transfer of the farmland of this case, applying Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which is the provision on the reduction of capital gains tax for the farmland of this case.

C. On February 8, 2010, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant farmland; (b) denied the above application for reduction and exemption; (c) subsequently, the Defendant corrected and notified the capital gains tax, such as the place of filing a claim by applying 60% of the heavy tax rate for the transfer of non-business land (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 27, 2010, but the appeal was dismissed on March 9, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 5-1, 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff transferred the farmland to the Plaintiff while directly cultivating the instant farmland, it constitutes an exemption from capital gains tax pursuant to the substitute farmland for self-arable land. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff did not do so otherwise is unlawful.

(b) relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 70 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 921 of Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) and Article 67 (1), (2) and (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22037 of Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same) require that the plaintiff be a person who directly cultivated the farmland for 10/100 or more of the capital gains tax on the transfer income generated from substitute land for 3 years or more. Thus, the "direct cultivation" of this case is not required to be a person who resided in the former farmland for 3 years or more, and it is difficult for the plaintiff to prove that there was lack of evidence to prove that the plaintiff, at the time of the above transfer of farmland, had been engaged in cultivating or growing the crops or perennial plants with 1/2 or more of the farming capacity of the plaintiff at the time of the above transfer of 3G, and there is no other reason to acknowledge that the plaintiff's farmland as evidence.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.