Article 6 (2) 2 of the Income Tax Act provides that "The purpose is to move a factory that has been continuously operated for not less than 2 years.The requirement of income tax reduction for "income generated from the transfer of land and buildings."
In order to reduce income tax on the "income accrued from the transfer of land and buildings" under Article 6 (2) 2 of the Income Tax Act, the requirement is that the ownership of all the transferred land and buildings and the actual operation period will continue for not less than 2 years.
Articles 6(1) and 6(2)2 of the Income Tax Act
Head of North Busan District Tax Office
Daegu High Court Decision 83Gu273 delivered on April 3, 1984
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.
Article 6 (2) of the Income Tax Act provides that "if there is any income falling under the following subparagraphs from the transfer income amount, the income tax calculated by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of paragraph (1) shall be exempted, and subparagraph 2 of the same paragraph provides that "the purpose of this paragraph is to transfer the factory which has been continuously operated for not less than 2 years". "Income accruing from the transfer of land and buildings" is "income accruing from the transfer of the factory," and these provisions stipulate that "the income tax shall be exempted from the income tax calculated by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of paragraph (1) of the same Article to the transfer of the factory in order to relocate the factory, in order to operate the factory, and to provide the transferor of the building site and building of the previous factory in order to relocate the factory, the purpose of legislation is to grant the benefit of the reduction and exemption of income tax to the transferor of the factory in order to support the relocation of the factory, and such benefit of the reduction and exemption of income tax shall be subject to the reduction and exemption of income tax for not less than 2 years continuously operated in order to prevent such abuse in real estate.
Therefore, the decision of the court below that rejected the plaintiff's claim based on the above opinion is just and there is no error of law as otherwise alleged in the appeal.
2. The second ground of appeal is examined.
On July 290, the site of the factory that the plaintiff transferred by the plaintiff, 290.7, at the time of the transfer, the building was juice sap sap factory 1, 76.18 square meters, and the roof was 70 square meters in a tent, and the building was used as a factory from February 5, 197, and it was owned by the plaintiff from that time. The building was owned for more than two years since the ownership period and operation period was all two years. Although the building was transferred to the transferee without being assessed at the time of the transfer of this case, it was one of the objects of the transfer of this case, but it was argued that there was a benefit of capital gains tax reduction or exemption on the site of the building 290.7 square meters in this case. However, this argument by the plaintiff is a new assertion that there was no objection at the court below, and thus, it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)