The early 2012 middle 3768

The previous farmland is subject to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax for substitute farmland.

It is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s husband and wife did not engage in any other occupation except for agriculture, and the Plaintiff’s husband and wife did not engage in any other occupation in the substitute farmland.

Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act for Substitute Land for Farmland

2013Guhap398 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

KimA

Head of the District Tax Office

June 28, 2013

August 30, 2013

1. On May 22, 2012, the Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax OOOO as against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, from July 3, 2001 to 200, was the owner of 3,306 square meters and 720 m20 m2 (hereinafter “previous farmland”), and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer of each of the above lands in the BB B B due to the acquisition of land for public use on April 24, 2008. After the Plaintiff’s 200 m20 m200 m20 m20 m3, 67 m29 m28 m3,389 m2, 200 m20 m20 m20 m3,000 m3,000 m2,000 m20 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m3,000 m2,00 m2,000 m3,000 m2,000 m2,01.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff, along with her husband, performed farming work in the previous farmland, and cultivated the actual landscape or ornamental seedlings and trees in the substitute farmland for not less than three years, it constitutes the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the substitute farmland for farmland. The instant disposition made on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Article 70(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 67 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provide for the protection of self-employed farmers and the promotion of agriculture by allowing and guaranteeing free substitution of farmland. According to the above provision, a tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of capital gains tax shall be reduced or exempted for income accruing from the substitution of farmland directly cultivated by a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree in such a manner as prescribed by Presidential Decree due to necessity for cultivation (Article 70(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act). In this context, the term “self-Cultivating” means that a resident engages in the cultivation of crops or perennial plants in his own farmland, or who cultivates or cultivates 1/2 or more of them with his own labor (Article 67(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act), and “where a person who resided in the seat of farmland for not less than three years and has continuously resided in the new farmland for not less than three years and has resided in the new farmland area for not less than three years and has continuously acquired the new farmland in the new farmland area for not less than three years (3 years).

(2) Facts of recognition

According to the above evidence, the following facts may be acknowledged according to Gap evidence 7-1 to 28, Gap evidence Nos. 8 through 10 (including the relevant numbers), and witness 0D's testimony.

① The Plaintiff, along with her husband KimCC, engaged only in multiple farming forms, such as lifelong rice farming, dry field farming, tree farming, etc., and did not engage in any business other than agriculture, nor did he/she live in a workplace.

② On June 18, 2001, from around April 10, 2009 to around April 10, 2009, the Plaintiff couple resided in the above OO Ri, which is the seat of the previous farmland, and resided in rice, rice, dried tree growing, etc. in the previous farmland (a rice direct payments from around 2002 to around 2007 shall be received in the name of KimCC). The KimCC planted various types of trees, such as 2,500 juries around 663, etc. in neighboring areas (a part of the former farmland was transferred to large farmland). On April 2009, the previous farmland was expropriated and moved to OOdong apartment, and purchased large-scale farmland located in the above OOdong with the help of 0D, which is a fraud, and then stove and stove, landscape, ornamental tree growing, stove and stove trees, etc.

③ From January 2008 to January 201, 2012, KimCC purchased fertilizers, etc. in its own name from OFF to December 201. From April 2008 to December 2009, the details of the work of planting and managing seedlings and trees in the substitute farmland were arranged to be in the work log, and the Plaintiff performed the work of refining plants, fertilizer cycle, miscellaneous plants, etc. in the substitute farmland.

④ There is no tree sold or taken out in the substitute farmland until now. Considering the photographs submitted by the Plaintiff, a considerable number of seedlings and trees are planted in substitute farmland, and inside containers located in substitute farmland can be seen as the farming equipment is stored.

⑤ In the name of OOOOO 688-1 to EEE Farm, “YD is operating a tree retail business of approximately 800 square meters and sells seedlings as well as large trees. In 0D’s relative doing the signboard business, two signboards containing the above trade name were created by 0D, but the KimCC stated one of them to 0D as being attached to a container located on the large farmland and affixed the said container.” (6) The KimCC purchased farmland located on the OOO at the time of purchasing the large farmland together with the farmland located on the OOO at the time of purchasing the large farmland. (3) At this point, the Plaintiff and YA had been set up in this year.

(3) As to whether the Plaintiff was directly cultivated in the previous farmland, "direct cultivation under Article 67 (2) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act" and "direct cultivation" mean that a resident is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his own farmland or cultivating or cultivating them with his own labor not less than half of the farming work. "on the occasion" as provided in Article 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Act, it is reasonable for a farmer to cultivate crops or cultivate perennial plants with not less than half of his own labor power. In this case, according to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have been engaged in cultivating rice with her husband for not less than 3 years in previous farmland, and even if her husband KimCC received subsidies for rice, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have engaged in cultivating rice for not less than half of her own labor force in previous farmland, and even if her husband KimCC received subsidies for rice, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have engaged in cultivating rice regularly.

(4) As to whether substitute farmland constitutes farmland cultivated by the Plaintiff

In light of the following circumstances known in the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the substitute farmland constitutes the land that the plaintiff cultivated directly.

(1) According to subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Farmland Act, farmland refers to rice paddy, paddy field, orchard, and other land actually used as farmland cultivation land or perennial plants regardless of the legal land category. The land category of the substitute farmland is all or paddy field.

② In fact, the Plaintiff has cultivated seedlings, etc. on her husband’s roads and substitute farmland.

③ WhiteD was engaged in the sale of seedlings and others in the land separate from the substitute farmland. As a matter of course, the Plaintiff’s husband and wife had tried to grow trees on the substitute farmland and had a signboard for public relations on containers located on the substitute farmland in order to promote one’s own business.

④ The Plaintiff’s husband and wife shall not have engaged in any occupation other than agriculture.

(5) No landscape gardening which has been carried out in substitute farmland has been available until now.

(5) Ultimately, since the previous farmland constitutes "the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on substitute farmland", the instant disposition taken by the Defendant on a different premise is unlawful."

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the reasons and it is so decided as per Disposition.