early 201J 2339 ( October 04, 2012)

It is difficult to recognize that land falls under farmland as of the date of transfer as a self-owned land for not less than eight years.

In light of the fact that there is no data on income evidence from sale of the original of the farmland ledger, self-certification or harvest, and there was no evidence on income from sale of crops or seedlings, and that there was no farmland cultivation or growing of trees in the transferred land as a result of a field investigation by the tax authorities, and that planted seedlings were left unattended, it is difficult to recognize that they fall under farmland as of the date of transfer as farmland for

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2012Guhap1314 Revocation of Disposition rejecting an application for rectification of capital gains tax

LAA

Deputy Director of the Tax Office

September 6, 2012

September 27, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on January 11, 201 against the plaintiff is revoked (in light of the description of the evidence No. 1, and " February 24, 2011" appears to be a clerical error).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 9, 2010, the Plaintiff acquired 3,190 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) prior to 000 OOri in Yangju-si, and transferred 00 won to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, and filed a tax base report on capital gains tax on March 31, 2010 by applying 20% reduction and exemption for land for public works.

B. On October 6, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction to the effect that 100% reduction or exemption on self-arable farmland under Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter the same) was applied, but the Defendant rejected the instant disposition rejecting the request for correction on the ground that the instant land was confirmed to be not farmland at the time of transfer, on January 11, 2011.

C. On June 16, 201, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition, and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on January 4, 2012.

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-satisced facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 5 to 8, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including household numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff acquired the land of this case from June 29, 1965 to Seocheon-si 197.

9. Since the land in this case was cultivated directly for not less than 8 years until 20.20, the land in this case constitutes the land cultivated directly by the plaintiff for not less than 8 years, and assistance to the third village after the plaintiff moved to Busan City.

The instant land was farmland at the time of transfer inasmuch as Korea-Japan leased the instant land to D, which was intended to plant seedlings, etc. on or around April 2005, and intended to plant seedlings, etc. on or around the instant land, but Korea-do had been in the management of seedlings, etc. in which Korea-do had been assisted by the help of the third village from the time when it was naturally cut. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s refusal of the Plaintiff’s request for correction of capital gains tax by deeming that the instant land is not farmland is illegal.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 69 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "any income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by Presidential Decree among land directly cultivated by a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree who resides in the seat of which is eight or more years shall be exempted from capital gains tax, and Article 66 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22037, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply)" means any farmland for which one or more years have cultivated from the time of its acquisition to the time of its transfer, and Article 69 (5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "The land for which it is difficult for the plaintiff to verify whether it falls under the farmland under the provisions of Article 162 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and for which the former Enforcement Rule of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 151, Apr. 20, 2010) provides for the land category of the former farmland to be used for more than six years.

① In light of the fact that the Plaintiff was born on September 2, 1950 and did not reach the age of 16 as of June 29, 1965, and that the area of the instant land was up to 3,190 square meters, and that the Plaintiff performed military service from May 29, 1973 to April 1975, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff cultivated the instant land, as alleged, from June 29, 1965 to December 20, 197, and it was sufficiently possible for the Plaintiff, alone, to cultivate the instant land.

② There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff cultivated the instant land with the help of Busan City after the Plaintiff moved to Busan City. Rather, the Plaintiff had been working for the FGGG Business Co., Ltd. from 1981 to 2008, while earning considerable income.

③ As a result of the Defendant’s on-site investigation conducted after the Plaintiff’s claim for correction of the transfer income tax of this case, approximately 182 square meters out of the instant land was only used for the cultivation of crops in the past, and did not cultivate crops or grow trees in the instant land, and the seedlings planted were left neglected without being managed.

④ There is no charge for the sale of the instant land, including income evidence, etc., of the original farmland ledger issued or issued by the head of a Si/Gu/Eup/Myeon, or of the sale of crops or seedlings harvested from the instant land.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.