National Tax Service Review and Transfer 2011-0065 (Law No. 22, 2011)

It is difficult to recognize that the previous land is farmland and that the previous land was directly cultivated.

According to satellite photographs, it is insufficient to recognize that part of the previous land is farmland and that it was directly cultivated of the previous land in light of the fact that it appears to have been forest land, that it was the representative director of a corporation, that it was engaged in cosmetics retail business, and that it was not submitted objective data related to the disposition of crops, etc., the disposition that excluded farmland from the reduction of farmland is legitimate.

Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2011Gudan2673 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

literatureA

Head of the Pakistan Tax Office

April 16, 2012

June 11, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2010 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2004. 3. 5. 파주시 광탄면 OO리 000 답 4，806㎡ 및 같은 리 000 답 245㎡，같은 리 000 답 565㎡의 각 1/2지분(이하 '이 사건 종전토지'라고 한다)을 취득하여 보유하다가 2007. 4. 9.자 공공용지의 협의취득을 원인으로 2007. 4. 11. 경기도에 양도하였고，위 토지에 대한 대토농지로 2007. 5. 31. 파주시 윌롱면 OO리 000 답 2，453㎡(이하 '이 사건 대토토지'라고 한다)를 취득하였다.

B. On July 2007, the Plaintiff filed an application for capital gains tax reduction or exemption with the Defendant by applying Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8387 of Apr. 27, 2007, hereinafter the same), which provides for the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the farmland substitute by filing a report on capital gains tax on the transfer of the previous land.

C. On December 1, 2010, the Defendant, as a result of on-site verification, determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the transfer income tax for the farmland substitute land for the reason that the period of possession of the instant substitute land is less than three years and the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate, and that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for reduction and exemption of transfer income tax for the farmland substitute land for the reason that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate (hereinafter “disposition

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for review on March 3, 201, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered a decision to dismiss the said request on July 22, 2011.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-satched Facts, Gap 1, 2, 3 through 6, and 10, and Eul 1 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, not only directly cultivated the previous land but also cultivated the substitute land of this case for not less than three years, and thus, income from the transfer of the previous land constitutes the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax under Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s disposition that did not recognize the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) According to Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 67(1) and (2) and (3)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20105, Jun. 26, 2007) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20105), a person who resided in the previous location of farmland for not less than three years and has resided in the new location of farmland for not less than three years and cultivated, and the area of farmland to be newly acquired is not less than half of the area of farmland to be transferred or one third of the value of the farmland to be transferred, the amount of tax equivalent to not less than 10/100 of the transfer income tax shall be reduced or exempted for the transfer income accruing from the farmland to the new location of farmland. The purpose of the provisions for reduction or exemption of transfer income tax shall be to protect his own cultivation by guaranteeing free substitution, and the object of reduction or exemption shall be one-year, and it shall be interpreted that his own land should be newly acquired and transferred for more than three years.

(2) First of all, as to whether the previous land in this case is farmland or not, and whether the plaintiff cultivated the previous land directly, and as to whether the previous land in this case is 4m2 or more, and as to whether the previous land in this case is 3m2 or more, it is hard to recognize that the plaintiff was 1m2 or 5m2 or more, and as to the previous farmland in this case, the previous land in this case were 4m2 or 3m2 or 7m2, and the previous land in this case, and the purport of the whole pleadings in 11m2 or 8m2, and, in other words, it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff was 1m2 or 5m2 or more, the previous land in this case were 4m2 or more, and the previous land in this case were 5m2 or more, and the previous land in this case were 0m2 or more, and there is no reason to recognize that the plaintiff had been 1m2 or more than 6m2 or 5m2, and there is no reason to regard that the previous land in this case.

3. Conclusion

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