Review Transfer 2013-0213 (2014.03.04)

The disposition denying the reduction or exemption of self-arable farmland for not less than eight years on the transfer income of the land of this case is legitimate.

The land of this case cannot be deemed farmland as of the date of transfer, and it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff directly cultivated the land of this case for not less than eight years, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

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

2014Guhap152 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Park AA

XX Head of tax office

September 16, 2014

October 24, 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 disposition of imposition of capital gains tax for the year 2012 against the Plaintiff on September 1, 2013 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 4, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to the NewB to the OOO on the following: (a) O-Myeon O 668-20 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”); (b) the Plaintiff transferred the instant land from 668-5 square meters to 3,322 square meters at the same time, which completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 31, 1991, to the OOO. The Plaintiff applied the farmland reduction or exemption requirements to the Defendant around eight (8) years before October 2, 2012; (c) the Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the transfer of the instant land; and (d) the instant land was not farmland at the time of transfer; and (d) the Defendant exempted the Plaintiff from the special taxation on transfer income tax by deeming that the instant land constituted a special taxation on transfer income tax reduction or exemption for at least eight (8) years; and (e) the Plaintiff constituted a special taxation on transfer income tax for non-business; and (e) the Defendant exempted the Plaintiff from the special taxation for non-business.

C. On November 29, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed, and filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for the revocation of the said disposition to the effect that it is unreasonable to deny the reduction of farmland and the special deduction for long-term holding on one’s own for at least eight years. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted the farmland reduction and exemption part, but presented his/her opinion to rectify the special deduction for long-term holding. The Commissioner of the National Tax Service examined only the application of the above reduction and exemption requirements and made a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for review on March 4,

D. The Defendant denied the reduction or exemption of farmland on March 11, 2014 for at least eight years, but recognized the special long-term holding deduction, and passed a resolution to reduce or correct the capital gains tax for the year 2012 as an OOO or an additional OO or an additional tax, respectively, and notified the Plaintiff at that time (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”),” (based on recognition), “The imposition of OO or an additional tax for the capital gains tax for the year 2012, which is the remainder after reduction or correction, among the imposition of the principal tax for the capital gains tax for the year 2013,” “The imposition of O or an O or an additional tax for the capital gains tax for the year 2013,” “No dispute is raised,” “No dispute is raised, evidence No. 1, evidence No. 1-2, evidence No. 6-4, evidence No. 7, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

“The Plaintiff, from July 31, 1991 to 199, directly carried out rice farmers in the instant land from July 31, 1991, and from 2003 to 2007, did not cut down farming houses from 2007 to 2011, but cultivated bean by completely restoring 2012. Therefore, at the time of transfer, the instant land was transferred to be cultivated for more than eight years by the Plaintiff, and the instant land was directly cultivated for more than eight years. Therefore, the instant land constitutes “self-owned farmland for more than eight years subject to reduction of capital gains tax,” and the instant disposition against which capital gains tax was imposed is unlawful.” (b) related statutes and regulations.

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11614, Jan. 1, 2013) provides that the amount of tax equivalent to 100/100 of capital gains tax shall be reduced on the income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by Presidential Decree, among land cultivated directly by a resident living in the seat of farmland for not less than eight years by means prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 66(4) and (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24368, Feb. 15, 2013) provides that “land prescribed by Presidential Decree” under Article 69(1) of the same Act shall be farmland as of the date of transfer of farmland cultivated by him/her for eight years or more from the time of acquisition until the time of transfer. The burden of proof on the requirements for reduction or exemption is against a person liable to pay capital gains tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94NuO.).

As shown in the Plaintiff’s assertion, Gap evidence Nos. 11, Gap evidence Nos. 13-1, 14, and 15 were cultivated. The Gap evidence Nos. 11, 13-1, 14-15 were harvested in a small amount. The Gap's testimony on the land of this case, which was examined whether the development activities on the land of this case were possible, were planted as a letter of risk guarantee for the plaintiff, EE selling bean and buyer, and newBB. The plaintiff sold 40 km, and the plaintiff was informed that the non-brept 1 was drinking in the military. The plaintiff was cultivated in the state of the pe, the bendma, the anti-pathtoma, and the anti-pathy. The statement on the land of this case was harvested in a small amount. It is difficult to recognize that the above land was not only the statement on the land of this case but also the following facts in light of the circumstances, but also there was no evidence to support Gap's present video No. 2131.

Rather, the following circumstances are acknowledged by adding up the overall purport of arguments to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 2-1, 3-4 of Eul evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and 3 of Eul evidence Nos. 4-1, 3-2 and 3 of Eul evidence Nos. 1, i.e., (i) if the airline is operated on April 28, 2012, some of the land in this case remains grass, but the remainder of soil remains, and (ii) from 2008 to 2011, where the state at the time was dredged, the new B applied for permission of development of the land in this case to the defendant around July 18, 2012, the Plaintiff did not know that it was difficult to use the land in this case from 201 to 201.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3) Even if the instant land was farmland as of the date of transfer, we examine whether the Plaintiff directly cultivated it for at least eight years.

Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, Gap evidence Nos. 7-1, 2, 8-2, and Gap evidence Nos. 9-1, 9-1 through 18 are as follows: ① The plaintiff applied for subsidies for rice income in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, and 208 and 2011 that the time when the plaintiff purchased fertilizers in 2008 and 2011 stated that he was unable to cultivate due to dredging soil; ② In light of the fact that it is difficult to believe that the plaintiff owned various farmland other than the land in this case and it is not clear whether the purchase price of crops harvested from the land in this case, or it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff directly cultivated the land in this case for at least eight years, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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