2012 Heavy 3045 ( May 3, 2013)

The disposition of this case where the transfer income tax is imposed by deeming the entire proceeds of the forest of this case as the transfer value on the grounds that the plaintiff cannot be deemed to operate the forestry business.

In addition, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff continued to and repeatedly engaged in growing forest for profit-making purposes, as well as that in selling and selling the forest of this case, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff had operated the forest of this case as a separate object of sale. Thus, the disposition of this case imposing capital gains tax by deeming the entire proceeds of the forest of this case as the transfer value on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed

Article 51 of the Enforcement Decree

2013Gudan3713 Revocation of imposition of capital gains tax

LAA

Head of Sungnam Tax Office

November 1, 2013

January 10, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of the capital gains tax of 2010 on October 1, 2011 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

On November 14, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired and owned 54,068 square meters in total, among 1130-1 square meters in OO-gun O-gun, 4,940 square meters in O-Gun, 1130-2 forest land in the same Ri, 1130-3 forest land in the same Ri, 47,898 square meters in the same Ri (hereinafter “the instant forest”) from OB, and transferred OOO to CC Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CC Development”) on November 29, 201.

○ On January 31, 2011, when the Plaintiff filed a return on the tax base of capital gains from the transfer of the instant woodland with the Defendant on January 31, 201, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW OO of capital gains tax calculated by setting the transfer value of the instant woodland as an OOO of capital gains tax based on the standard market price, on the ground that “the part of income from the transfer of forest trees planted on the ground among the income from the transfer of the instant woodland falls under the business income and is not subject to capital gains tax, but unclear both the value of the instant forest and its ground trees.” On April 19, 2011, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW OO of capital gains tax calculated by taking the transfer value of the instant woodland as an OOO of the total transfer value after deducting the transfer value of the instant woodland from the total transfer value of the instant forest from the total transfer value of OOOO won after deducting the necessary expenses.

○ However, on October 1, 2011, the Defendant issued a notice of correction and notification of the KRW OO of the transfer income tax for the year 2010 on the ground that “the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as operating the forestry business” (the Plaintiff rendered a decision of refund to the global income tax OO of the global income tax reported and paid by the Plaintiff) on October 1, 201, considering the total amount of KRW OOO as the transfer value of the instant forest.

○ The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 27, 2012. On May 3, 2013, 2013, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision that the disposition of imposition of the transfer income tax on forest land of this case excluding OOOOOOOO members for the correction of the tax amount and the dismissal of the remaining appeal. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s transfer income tax on the transfer of forest land of this case 2010 remains as OOO members (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 7 evidence, Eul 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the instant forest land, the Plaintiff, the former owner of KimB, has been growing 6,00 glus and glusium 4,500 glus and glusium 12,600 glus, which were afforested in 1972 and 2001. The Plaintiff performed the afforestation development work, such as grassing, glusing, and glusation, and took measures to prohibit entry into the forest so as not to damage the forest, and on the other hand, the forest is well cultivated at the compost by prohibiting the extraction of fallen leaves, while the Plaintiff engaged in forest conservation activities, such as preventing blight and harmful insects, preventing forest fires, and preventing forest damage. As such, the Plaintiff should be deemed to have operated the growing business among forestry.

When the Plaintiff transfers the instant forest land toCC development, the instant forest land and the forest trees on its land were sold in a lump sum, and among the OOO members, the forest land price included therein is calculated based on the standard market price pursuant to Article 51(8) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24356, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter the same). The transfer price of the instant forest should be calculated based on the standard market price, and the business income from the sale of the above ground forest should be calculated based on the amount obtained by deducting the transfer price of the instant forest from the total purchase price. However, the instant disposition that the Defendant reported differently is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 19(1) of the Income Tax Act lists the income subject to business income and prescribes "income generated from forestry and fishery business" in subparagraph 1. In addition, Article 51(8) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "where calculating the amount of income from the business felling or transferring the forest trees, if the forest trees are transferred along with the forest land, income accruing from the transfer of the forest land shall not be included in calculating the amount of gross income." In light of the language and text, purport and structure, etc. of the aforementioned provisions, if the forest trees are transferred along with the forest land, it is reasonable to view that in principle, income generated from the transfer of the forest is subject to the taxation of transfer income tax following the transfer of the forest if the forest trees are transferred along with the forest land.

In addition, whether income generated from the transfer of forest trees constitutes business income shall be determined according to ordinary social norms by taking into account whether activities for growing forest trees for the purpose of profit-making, the substance, scale, period, mode, etc. of business activities are continuous and repeated. Furthermore, even if forest trees were transferred along with forest land, there was no growing activity to produce forest trees or there was no other growing activity to create forest, unless feasibility is recognized, all income generated from the transfer of forest trees is subject to capital gains tax unless there are special circumstances that deem that forest trees were traded separately from forest land. Whether forest trees are traded separately from forest land should be determined objectively by taking into account the transaction purpose of the parties, the details of the contract, evaluation of the value of forest trees, and the actual circumstances of transactions in neighboring forest land, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du15715, Sept. 12, 2013).

이 사건의 경우, 위에서 든 증거들과 갑 3호증, 갑 4호증의 1, 2, 3, 갑 5호증, 갑 6호증의 1, 2의 각 기재 또는 영상에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉, ○ 원고는 이 사건 임야를 취득하여 양도할 때까지의 기간 동안 주택신축 판매업, 숙박업을 영위하여 왔을 뿐, 임목을 벌채하거나 양도하는 사업을 영위하기 위하여 사업자등록을 한 사실이 없고, 원고로부터 이 사건 임야를 취득한 CC개발은 부동산개발 및 부동산매매업을 영위할 목적으로 설립된 회사인 점, ○ 원고가 이 사건 임야를 CC개발에게 매도하면서 작성한 매매계약서에는 특약사항으로 "매매대금에는 수목, 입목 가격이 포함됨"이라고 기재되어 있으나, 그 임목의 종류나 수량이 명시되어 있지 않고, 원고의 주장에 의하더라도, 매매 당시 임목의 가액을 구체적으로 산정하지는 않았다는 것으로서, 임목의 재산적 가치가 별도로 가액을 산정하여야 할 만큼 크지 않았던 것으로 보이며, 임목이 등기되거나 명인방법을 갖추지 않은 경우 특별한 사정이 없는 한 토지에 부합하여 소유권이 매수인에게 이전되는 것이라는 점 등에 비추어, 위 특약사항의 기재내용은 이 사건 임야를 매도하면서 그 지상의 임목을 이 사건 임야와 별도의 매매목적물로 약정한다는 의미라기보다는, 이 사건 임야와 그에 부합된 지상의 임목을 함께 매도한다는 정도의 의미로 볼 여지가 많은 점, ○ 원고는 이 사건 임야를 양도할 당시 그 지상에 원고의 전소유자인 김BB가 1972년에 조림한 낙엽송 6,000그루와 리기다소나무 4,500그루 및 2001년에 조림한 잣나무 12,600그루가 있었다고 주장하나, 피고 담당공무원의 세무조사 당시 김BB는 "이 사건 임야를 원고에게 양도하기 전인지 후인지는 모르겠으나, 산불로 인하여 임목이 상당 부분 소실되었고, 그 후 지방자치단체의 지원으로 임목을 식재하여 비용이 거의 들지 않았으며, 리기다소나무는 경제적 가치가 있다고 생각되지 않는다. 2001년에 조림하였다는 잣나무 12,600그루는 조림되어 있는지 여부를 잘 모른다."고 진술하였고, CC개발의 이사인 최○○는 "이 사건 임야 중 약 10,000평 정도가 10여 년 전 산불로 소실되어 현재는 잡목만 있고, 나머지 6,000평에는 리기다소나무가 식재되어 있어 특별히 임목에 대하여 평가를 할 정도로 경제적 가치가 있다고 생각되지 않으며, 이 사건 임야를 매수할 당시 주변 토지 시세에 따라 매매대금을 산정하여 매입한 것이고, 임목의 가액은 크게 고려하지 않았다."고 진술한 점, ○ 만약 원고가 이 사건 임야에서 실제로 육림활동을 하거나 임목을 벌채하여 판매한 바 있었다면, 그에 소요된 각종 비용 지출이나 거래내역 등에 관한 객관적인 입증자료를 제출할 수 있을 것으로 보이는데, 전심절차나 이 사건 소송에서 그러한 자료가 제출된 바 없는 점 등을 종합하면, ▷ 원고가 영리를 목적으로 임목을 생산하기 위하여 이 사건 임야에서 나무를 심고, 가꾸고, 보호하는 산업활동인 육림업을 계속적・반복적으로 하였다고 보기 어려울 뿐만 아니라, 원고와 CC개발이 이 사건 임야를 매매함에 있어 그 지상의 임목을 별도의 매매목적물로 하였다고 볼 수도 없다. 따라서 원고가 임업사업을 영위한 것으로 볼 수 없다는 이유로 이 사건 임야의 대금 OOOO원 전부를 양도가액으로 보고 양도소득세를 부과한 이 사건 처분은 적법하고, 원고의 주장은 이유 없다.

3. Conclusion

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