Tax Tribunal 2012J 4145 ( December 18, 2012)

No claimant may be deemed to have re-established or re-developed the farmland for at least eight years;

When comprehensively considering the details of the applicant's business, the evidence submitted, etc., it is difficult to apply the reduction or exemption in the range of eight years, and the applicant's argument is dismissed due to the lack of reason.

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

2013Gudan380 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

KimA

the director of the tax office of Western

October 8, 2013

November 5, 2013

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 disposition of the capital gains tax corresponding to the year 2010 against the Plaintiff on May 21, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 1, 1998, the Plaintiff transferred the same 318 m2,147m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation on July 8, 2010, which was donated by KimB, the father, OO-dong OO-dong 316-1, 814m2 (hereinafter “the instant land”).

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for reduction of or exemption from capital gains tax on the premise that the instant land falls under farmland stipulated in Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act on the grounds that the land of this case was cultivated for not less than eight

C. On May 21, 2012, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant land; (b) rendered a disposition imposing KRW OOOO and special rural development tax for the Plaintiff on May 21, 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-1, 2, 5-1, 2, Eul 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff operated the “CC building business directly adjacent to the instant land”, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff did not own the instant land, was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66(1) and (13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provide that a resident shall directly cultivate the relevant farmland while residing in a Si/Gun/Gu (referring to an autonomous Gu; hereinafter the same shall apply) where the relevant farmland is located or in a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto, or in an area within 20km in a straight line from the relevant farmland for at least eight years. In this case, a direct cultivation refers to a resident who engages in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants in his/her own farmland or growing or growing them with his/her own labor by interpreting the meaning of his/her own labor for at least 1/2 (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8423, Sept. 30, 2010), and a person who directly claims for the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on his/her own farmland is presumed to have transferred the land to the person liable to pay capital gains tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Du9694, supra.).

2) Whether the Plaintiff was “direct farming” of the instant land

갑 6, 8, 15 내지 22, 25의 각 기재(가지번호 있는 것은 가지번호 포함)에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 원고는 이 사건 토지 인근에서 알루미늄 섀시, 철구조물 등을 제조하는 'CC건업'을 운영하고 있는 사실, 이 사건 토지에 관하여 작성된 농지원부에는 원고가 농업인으로 등재되어 있는 사실, 원고의 어머니인 이DD은 1990. 8. 11.부터 1990. 10. 5.까지 뇌종양으로 입원하여 수술과 방사선 치료를 받은 후 현재까지도 약물치료 등을 받고 있고, 아버지인 김BB은 2006. 8. 14.과 2010. 4. 5.부터 2010. 7. 12.까지 폐렴, 기관지 천식으로, 2012. 2. 23. 급성 인두염으로, 2012. 3. 16. 만성 기관지염으로 각 치료받은 사실, 원고는 윤EE, 이FF, 조GG, 김HH, 장II, 김JJ, 김KK, 김LL, 박MM 등으로부터 고춧가루를 구매하였다는 내용의 확인서를, 이장이었던 허NN으로부터 트랙터로 논갈이를 하고 모내기 작업과 탈곡 작업을 해주었다는 내용의 확인서를, CC건업의 직원인 권PP으로부터 원고가 농사를 지었다는 내용의 확인서를, 유QQ으로부터 원고의 고추를 가공하여 주었다는 내용의 확인서를, 조RR로부터 원고에게 고추모종과 배추모를 판매하였다는 내용의 확인서를, 고SS으로부터 이 사건 토지에 비닐하우스 3개동을 설치하여 주었다는 내용의 확인서를 각 받아 제출하였고, 고추농사를 위한 고추비료나 고추모종을 구입하고 받았다는 취지의 각 영수증을 제출한 사실은 인정된다.

However, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to participate in the farming industry since 200, taking into account the following facts: (a) Party 5, Party 6, Party 10, and Party 5 and Party 13’s statement (including serial number) and witness rightP and Party 6’s partial testimony (except for the portion difficult to believe in light of the following circumstances); (b) Party 1’s father, Party 2, and Party 9 were 60 years old at the time of donation of the instant land; (c) Party 2, Party 1, and Party 2, and Party 2, Party 1, and Party 2, and Party 1, Party 2, and Party 3, Party 9, Party 2, and Party 9, Party 2, Party 9, Party 2, and Party 1, Party 2, and Party 1, Party 3, and Party 9, Party 2, and Party 3, Party 1, respectively, found that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to develop the instant land from 20000 years to that.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on the Plaintiff’s direct cultivation of the instant land for at least eight years is without merit, and the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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