Cho-2015-China-4109 (22)

8 The requirement for the self-regulation is not satisfied

It is difficult to deem that capital gains tax reduction or exemption requirements have been met because it does not fall under the requirement of 8 years.

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

2016Gudan1071 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

OO

O Head of tax office

oly 11, 2017

December 27, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On December 1, 2014, the Defendant revoked the imposition of the capital gains tax of 20OO for the Plaintiff on December 1, 2014.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff acquired the title trust of 19O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O., 6,155 square meters prior to OO(5,341 square meters prior to OO of the same Ri, 34 square meters prior to OO, and 780 square meters prior to OO of the same Ri), 4,228 square meters prior to OO.O.O.O.O.O., 3,726 square meters prior to 190O.O.O., 3,726 square meters prior to O.O., the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of OO/O(3,406 square meters prior to OO prior to 320 square meters prior to OO, and transferred the same land to 200O.O.O.A. AB, and 200 square meters prior to OBO(hereinafter referred to as “the instant final judgment”).

B. The Plaintiff filed a preliminary return on capital gains tax by applying the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on self-Cultivating land under Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same) to the Defendant.

C. As a result of the investigation of capital gains tax on the Plaintiff, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff did not re-enter the instant land for at least eight years, and imposed OOO on the Plaintiff of 20O.O.O.O.O. on the 23th of the same month, and that the said disposition reached the Plaintiff.

D. The plaintiff filed an objection to 20O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O., but the 20O.O.O.O. tax Tribunal dismissed the 200O.O.O.O., and the 200O.O.O.O.O. decision was made. Accordingly, the defendant re-calculated the amount of tax to reduce the capital gains tax imposed on the 20O.O.O. plaintiff as the 20O.O.O.O.'s disposition (hereinafter above 20O.O.O. disposition).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 21 through 26, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, on the resident registration basis, transferred 19O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O to OO on the part of 20OO.O.O.O.O.O.O., but directly cultivated the instant land from 19O.O.O.O. to O.O.O.O.O., which is the time of transfer, by directly cultivating the instant land. Therefore, the requirements for re-development and re-development were completed for 8 years prior to 20O.O.O.O.O., even if they are not so, it was re-established and re-developed during the period from 200O.O.O.O.O. to 20O.O.O.O.O.O.O., etc., with the resident registration at the above O.O., and thus, it was unlawful in the instant disposition by the Defendant even if it satisfies the requirements for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax prescribed in Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Therefore, according to Eul evidence Nos. 3, the plaintiff was transferred from 19O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O, OO.O.O.O.O, the neighboring part of the land of this case to 20O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O. again transferred to 200O.O.O.O.O. again transferred to 200O.O.O.O.O.O. again, but transferred to 20O.O.O.O.O.O.O., 200O.O.O., O.O.O., O. transfer to O.O.O. that was transferred to O.

First, with respect to whether the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land by moving-in from 19O.O.O.O.O.O. to 19O.O.O.O., the date of the move-in of the instant land to O.O.O., the nearby O.O.O., the following facts are difficult to be recognized: health class; Gap evidence No. 4 to 6 (a certificate of the person asserting that the Plaintiff was a neighboring resident of the instant land); Gap evidence No. 7 (a certificate of the fact that the Plaintiff supplied livestock excreta on May 28, 1997 and June 5, 199); Gap evidence No. 8 (a certificate of the fact that the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff money from O.S. to the National Treasury in 2006 and 207 pursuant to the regional direct payment system on resident registration; Gap evidence No. 9 (a certificate of telephone fee No. 10, Oct. 26, 1996) to Nov. 1, 1996, Gap No.17

Next, according to the 20O.O.O.O.O.O. to 20O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O., for which the Plaintiff had been transferred to the above OO under the resident registration, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the period was 20O.O.O.O. after the 20O.O.O.O., on which the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with BB, etc. for the land of this case, the period was 200O.O.O., on which the Plaintiff had entered into a sales contract with BB, etc., and it is only recognized that BB was paid from the date of entering into the sales contract to the above OO.O.O.

Therefore, even if the plaintiff re-speaked and re-speaked, the period is 19O.O.O.O.O. to 20O.O.O.O.O.O., which did not meet the requirement for self-speaking for 7 years and 8 years. Accordingly, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.