National Tax Service Review and Transfer 2012-01 ( October 22, 2012)

It is difficult to recognize that the land has been contaminated for not less than eight years.

In light of the fact that a livestock industry and dairy industry is engaged in the livestock industry and a dairy farming industry at the time of a tax investigation, it is difficult to recognize that a land has been self-employed for not less than eight years in light of the fact that a certificate was prepared to cultivate livestock feed for stock farming in the transferred land and the objective data on the selling places

2013Gudan1496 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Jeon AAA

Head of Suwon Tax Office

May 15, 2013

June 12, 2013

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 KRW 000 on April 2, 2012 against the Plaintiff on April 2, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 9, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred the instant land to KimB for a price of KRW 000; and (b) on December 10, 2010, upon filing a preliminary return on the tax base of capital gains tax regarding the transfer of the instant land on the ground that the instant land was farmland directly cultivated by the Plaintiff for at least eight years; and (c) filed an application for capital gains tax reduction or exemption on the ground that the instant land was farmland directly cultivated by the Plaintiff for at least eight years.

B. On April 2, 2012, the Defendant did not accept the Plaintiff’s above application for reduction and exemption on the ground that the instant land does not constitute farmland cultivated directly for at least eight years as a feed farm for livestock farming, and decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the transfer income tax for the year 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On July 10, 2012, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, caused a request for examination to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the request for examination on October 22, 2012.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsured Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3, and Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 2, respectively.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Despite the fact that the plaintiff had cultivated the land directly for not less than eight years, the defendant made the disposition of this case on different premise, and the disposition of this case against the plaintiff is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the land in this case does not constitute farmland cultivated directly by the plaintiff for eight years or more, as a feed-producing area for livestock farming, in which Gap evidence 15, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 4, and Eul evidence 5-1, and Eul evidence 5-2 can look at the overall purport of the pleadings.

① From December 1, 1994, the Plaintiff continued to engage in livestock farming and dairy farming in the name of “OOO” from 000 to 000, which is adjacent to the instant land.

② In order to conduct a tax investigation on November 30, 201, the Plaintiff prepared a written confirmation from a tax official stating that “I, at the same time, confirm that I would cultivate maizes and receive house at the same time before about 25 years prior to purchase and supply them to my livestock and sell them at the beginning.”

③ In light of the fact that the Plaintiff is not fully able to submit objective data on the selling places or using places of the instant land, such as drillings and unscriptives, which the Plaintiff directly cultivated on the instant land, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land for not less than eight years, including drillings and scriptives, as asserted by the Plaintiff.

2) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Sallon;

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.