Early High Court Decision 2015Du5037 ( December 23, 2015)

It is difficult to see that previous farmland was cultivated directly for three years or more in light of business income.

In light of the fact that the applicant filed a comprehensive income tax return with the amount of revenue of 00 million won after having registered his/her business for the purpose of running a housing construction and sales business in 000, etc., he/she shall be deemed not to have cultivated the previous farmland for at least three years and shall be deemed not to have been directly cultivated, and the disposition imposing capital gains tax shall not be

Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Substitute Land and Farmland)

Suwon District Court 2016Gudan6911 Revocation of Disposition of Revoking Transfer Income Tax

Farmland is transferred to KRW 133,280,000 in Suwon-si on January 14, 201, and thereafter February 14, 2011.

An application for reduction or exemption of substitute farmland under Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act shall be made, and D/D December 14, 201

The answer 476m2 (hereinafter “the instant substitute farmland”) acquired as substitute farmland in Eup/Myeon cri 85m2 (hereinafter “the instant substitute farmland”).

B. However, the Defendant’s position to preserve the rice income, etc. from the substitute farmland of this case from 2012 to 2013.

It appears that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the said substitute farmland on the ground that the Plaintiff received a balone payment.

H. On May 11, 2015, the transfer income tax on the farmland of this case reverted to the Plaintiff in 2011

14,033,750 won (including additional tax) was corrected and notified.

C. The Plaintiff filed a tax appeal on October 1, 2015, but was dismissed on December 23, 2015.

【Handing” No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff has a variety of agricultural machinery, such as horse-free season, blight and harmful insects control equipment, trucks, management equipment, power-driven equipment, etc.

Since it has been owned and managed by each type, it shall be directly owned until now after acquisition of the substitute farmland in this case.

Since land is cultivated, it is a requirement for reduction of capital gains tax due to farmland substitute land.

B. Determination

Article 67 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act refers to "direct farming" in the farmland owned by a resident.

Persons who are engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants at all times or at least 1/2 of farming operations;

The term “a cultivation or cultivation by the labor force of a flag” means a cultivation or cultivation by the labor force of a flag here.

“The cultivation or cultivation with its own labor not less than half of the farming work” is the provision above.

It should be strictly interpreted as a means of tax evasion in that it can be abused as a means of tax evasion.

C. In addition, the burden of proving that the ‘direct farming' as a requirement for such reduction or exemption of the transfer income tax is true.

A taxpayer who asserts capital gains tax reduction or exemption (Supreme Court Decision 94Nu996 delivered on October 21, 1994).

Song*

Head of Suwon Tax Office

December 1, 2016

on January 20, 2010

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The disposition of correction and imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 14,033,750 (including additional tax) reverted to the Plaintiff on May 11, 2015 by the former Cheong-gu Defendant on May 11, 2015 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff acquired on May 3, 1997, Suwon-si Abbdong 201-8, 202-7 two parcels (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff"), which were acquired on May 3, 199

see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

The purpose of the whole pleadings is to write down on the sprink, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 5, and witness sponsing testimony.

The following circumstances, namely, the Plaintiff’s name “ggggggs construction” on July 30, 2010:

A business registration is made and has been conducted until now, and hh on July 31, 198.

The name of the rice council was registered as a business operator, and the grain business was operated until December 31, 199, and August 2014.

8. When running a leasing business by October 25, 2014 after filing a business registration under the trade name of "ii building".

The amount of global income tax reported for the year 201 shall be KRW 1.3220,000,000, and the amount of income shall be KRW 11,3520,000.

the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the farmland of this case by auction, and the Plaintiff’s acquisition of such farmland by auction

Stakk’s continued receipt of rice direct payments on earth and farmland, and a witness’s gambling room.

Island of this case, even after the land of this case goes beyond ownership on 2007 to the due-line.

Until spring spring 2012, since the plaintiff did not enter the city even after the plaintiff was awarded a successful bid, the plaintiff was not the plaintiff.

The work for farming and fishing has been conducted, and the work for farming and fishing has been paid, even thereafter, for fishing and fishing.

The substantial part of the cultivation of the substitute farmland of this case, such as conducting the work of cutting down rice after cutting down, cutting down, drilling, etc.

B. The plaintiff appears to have been conducting a gambling, and even if the plaintiff asserts, as the plaintiff claims.

Even if some grass, air, fertilizer cycle, etc. were extracted from the substitute farmland of this case

It shall be deemed that not less than 1/2 of the farming work has been cultivated with his own labor;

in light of the fact that Gap's evidence 2 to 16 (including paper numbers) and the strawing of the witness

At least 1/2 of the farming work after the Plaintiff acquired the farmland of the substitute land of this case only with the testimony of nearby

It is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the labor force was cultivated by inserting it, and it is not sufficient to recognize it otherwise.

There is no o.

3. Conclusion

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