Early High Court Decision 2010J3088 ( September 16, 2010)

Tax reduction or exemption for the gift tax on the farmland donated to the farming offspring shall be applied for;

It is reasonable to exclude the application of reduction or exemption in cases where a farming child receives a donation of farmland and fails to apply for reduction or exemption of gift tax by the deadline for the declaration of tax base of gift tax because it conforms to the principle of tax equity to strictly interpret the requirements of reduction or exemption.

2011Revocation of revocation of disposition imposing gift tax, etc.

이◆◆

○ Head of tax office

August 16, 2011

October 18, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The Defendant’s imposition of gift tax of KRW 132,856,480 against the Plaintiff on July 9, 2010 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2008. 8. 27. 원고의 부 이■■으로부터 △△시 ▣▣면 ▼▼리 361-1 답 990, 같은리 361-3 답 148, 같은 리 361-4 답 3,407(이하 총칭하여 '이 사건 농지'라 한다)를 증여받고, 2008. 9. 8. 증여를 원인으로 소유권이전등기를 마쳤으나,조세특례제한법(2008.12.26.법률 제9272호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제71조 가 정한 영농자녀가 증여받은 농지에 대한 증여세 감면신청은 하지 아니하였다.

B. On July 9, 2010, the Defendant imposed gift tax of KRW 132,856,480 on the farmland of this case on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 16, 2010, but was dismissed on November 11, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1 to 3, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 to 2-2, Eul evidence 4-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 71 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides for the purpose of protecting agricultural succession through tax reduction and exemption, thereby making a donation to the Plaintiff of the farmland of this case, which was cultivated by the Plaintiff’s additional lifelong cultivation, constitutes a donation that conforms to the above provision on reduction and exemption, but the Defendant rendered the disposition of this case merely because the Plaintiff did not apply for reduction and exemption of gift tax without guiding the Plaintiff, who was on the basis of the principle of reduction and exemption to the Plaintiff. This should be revoked by an illegal and unjust disposition that does not comply with the purport of the above provision.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

C. Determination

In light of the principle of no taxation without law, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations is to be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law, barring any special circumstance, and it is not permitted to expand or analogically interpret without any justifiable reason, and in particular, it accords with the principle of fair taxation to strictly interpret the provisions that can be seen as the provision of preferential treatment among the requirements for reduction and exemption. Article 71(7) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that farming children who wish to be exempted from gift tax shall file an application for reduction and exemption as prescribed by the Presidential Decree by the end of three months from the end of the month to which the date of donation belongs (within three months from the end of the month to which the date of donation belongs), and the provision of reduction and exemption shall not apply in cases where they did not file an application for reduction and exemption by the deadline for filing a return. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff received the farmland in this case and did not file an application for reduction and exemption by the deadline for filing a gift tax base. Thus, the Plaintiff’s application of the provision of reduction and exemption is excluded.

3. Conclusion

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