Examination Transfer 2012-0127 (2012.09.19)

The original disposition party that denies the self-defluence of the substitute farmland for three years among the requirements for reduction of capital gains tax on substitute farmland for farmland.

According to the statement of local confirmation of the disposition agency, it cannot be deemed that the claimant has cultivated the substitute farmland for not less than three consecutive years in light of the fact that the neighboring residents stated that the substitute farmland was left abandoned in the site for a few years.

Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2013Gudan113 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

IsaA

BB Director of the Tax Office

July 19, 2013

August 9, 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 the capital gains tax of 2009 against the Plaintiff on April 1, 2012 is revoked.

1. Assessment and circumstances (the whole purport of the taxation)

A. On March 31, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred the 447 square meters prior to the date of OO-dong 293 O-dong 293 (hereinafter “transfer farmland”) to the Korea National Housing Corporation through the consultation procedure for public works. On May 6, 2008, the Plaintiff acquired the 521 square meters prior to O-dong 521 square meters prior to O-dong 521 (hereinafter “O-dong 548 square meters), and planted the string seedlings, etc. on the same date. B. On May 29, 2009, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax following the transfer of the transfer farmland of this case to the Korea National Housing Corporation.

C. On April 1, 2012, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing OOOO on the transfer of the said transferred farmland on the ground that the Plaintiff did not do not do so for more than three years in the substitute farmland of this case.

2. Determination

A. In order to have the capital gains tax reduced or exempted by farmland substitute land, it must be cultivated for at least three years [see, e.g., Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9924, Jan. 1, 2010); Article 67(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2145, Apr. 21, 2009).

B. The Plaintiff asserts that, after acquiring the instant substitute farmland on May 26, 2008, the Plaintiff directly cultivated spawn trees, and spawn seedlings for not less than three years.

However, according to each image of the instant substitute farmland around June 201 and October 201, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff continues to cultivate by managing trees planted in the instant substitute farmland in each of the above periods. In addition, in addition to the fact that the current state of substitute farmland was investigated into the site of (B) around January 2012, the Plaintiff submitted 5 through 9, and 11 through 19, and witness ParkCC for more than three years from May 26, 2008, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff continued to grow directly in the substitute farmland of this case.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's assertion is difficult to accept, and the claim of this case is dismissed.