Review Transfer 2013-0134 (Law No. 16, 2013)

The disposition by adding up the value of the transfer of issues, the amount of which is unclear as agricultural products;

It is reasonable to include the money in the transfer value of the key land because the land is transferred and the money is received in return for the part constituting the land.

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act

2013Gudan24931 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

KimA

Head of Central Tax Office

June 11, 2014

July 23, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition of the capital gains tax on the Plaintiff on April 1, 2013 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 28, 2006, the Plaintiff acquired 1/2 shares (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff shares”) out of 1/2 shares of OOOO 5,655 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “OOO 5,65 square meters”) in OOO 28, 2006, but transferred it to AAA Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “AAAA, etc.”) on September 10, 207.

B. On September 27, 2007, the Plaintiff reported and paid the transfer value of the Plaintiff’s shares among the instant land to the Defendant, which is calculated by using the OO and the acquisition value as the OO members.

C. On April 1, 2013, the Defendant recognized the transfer price of the Plaintiff’s shares among the instant land as an OO, and subsequently corrected and notified the Plaintiff on April 1, 2013, after deducting the amount already paid from OO (including additional taxes) of the capital gains tax calculated accordingly.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff, along with KimB, purchased the instant land to OOO (OO) and cultivated crops in part of the land jointly with KimB. A part of the land (Am2,600 square meters) was requested by the Plaintiff to ParkCC to cultivate cerebral ginseng. The Plaintiff paid OO won in total with the cost of purchasing cerebral ginseng seeds and other expenses.

2) The Plaintiff transferred the land to the non-party company without accepting the above-mentioned brain ginseng, and received the OOO won as compensation for agricultural crops, such as OO, and brain ginseng.

3) The above OOO members are compensations for crops, not subject to the transfer income tax, and even if they are included in the transfer proceeds, OO members should be deducted from the expenses incurred in growing brain ginseng as necessary expenses.

(b) Fact of recognition;

In full view of the aforementioned evidence, the following facts may be acknowledged in light of the following facts, in light of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 7, 9, 13, 14, 15, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 7, and the overall purport of the testimony and arguments of ParkCC by witnesses:

1) On December 26, 2006, the Plaintiff and KimB entered into a contract with ParkCC to purchase the instant land from OOB, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of 1/2 shares on December 28, 2006.

2) From this Court, ParkCC testified to the effect that “the Plaintiff and KimB received both the purchase price of the instant land from both the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff as a passbook, and that the Plaintiff received OO won in total from the Plaintiff, including brain ginseng expenses, management expenses, and pents, and subsequently received OO won from the Plaintiff and KimB as the additional land price.” However, the details of ParkCC’s accounts in the Agricultural Cooperatives did not clearly reveal any other details of transactions between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff. However, in December 2006, ParkCC did not clearly indicate, but rather transferred OO won to the Plaintiff. In December 26, 2006, the details of transfer from the Plaintiff and KimB, the ownership transfer registration of the instant land, which was completed on several occasions from the Plaintiff, appeared.

3) The Plaintiff sold the Plaintiff’s share in the instant land to the Nonparty Company and between the Nonparty Company and the Nonparty Company.

The following three contracts were drawn up:

C. Determination

In full view of various circumstances that can be seen as the above facts, namely, the Plaintiff asserted that the OO members received from the non-party company were compensation for agricultural crops, such as brain ginseng, etc., but the contract made between the Plaintiff and the non-party company does not coincide with the terms of "building stone purchase cost, reclamation cost, relocation expenses", "OO members paid to ParkCC", and the usage of the OO members did not clearly state the expenses or management expenses of the OO members received from the Plaintiff, and unlike the testimony that there was no other transaction, the Plaintiff and the non-party company did not state the details of receipt and payment of money several times between the Plaintiff and the non-party company. In full view of these circumstances, the Plaintiff and the non-party company made a distinction and preparation of the contract for the land and superficies even if it received at will under an agreement with the Plaintiff as the actual OO members and received at will, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to recognize the compensation for agricultural crops such as OO members received from the non-party company as necessary expenses, and it cannot be viewed as capital expenses paid from the O.

Therefore, there is no error in the defendant's disposition of this case from the same purport.

3. Conclusion

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