Busan District Court-2016-Gu Partnership-23913 (2017.04.06)

Whether land incorporated into a residential area falls under self-sufficiency and non-business land;

Since three years have passed since farmland was incorporated into a residential area, it constitutes farmland excluded from self-sufficiency reduction and exemption under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and two years have passed after incorporation into a residential area, it can be viewed as land for business, but it does not meet the standard requirements for the period of non-business land.

Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

2017Nu21432 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax, etc.

KimA

BB Director of the Tax Office

June 14, 2017

July 12, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The capital gains tax of July 1, 2016 rendered by the defendant against the plaintiff on July 1, 2016

310,698,030 won shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reason why this Court is used in relation to the instant case is the "amount of transfer income" of No. 8 of the first instance judgment.

The part that failed to properly calculate the transfer income amount is that "(the plaintiff is not allowed to impose additional tax on negligent tax returns even if the plaintiff made an erroneous determination of the tax amount calculated by multiplying the tax rate of capital gains by the tax rate of capital gains." However, the plaintiff argues that the transfer of the land in this case is not subject to the special tax for long-term holding, although the transfer of the land in this case is not subject to the special tax for long-term holding, it is clear that the plaintiff calculated the tax amount by deducting the amount equivalent to the special tax for long-term holding from the transfer margin from the tax base by the method of multiplying the tax rate calculated as such by the tax rate." Thus, the plaintiff's assertion in this part is identical to the reasons for the judgment in the first instance except that the transfer of the land in this case is "the tax amount

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.