The taxpayer has the burden of proving that the land subject to reduction and exemption of self-arable farmland is farmland as of the date of transfer and that self-defense has the burden of proof.

The burden of proving that the land subject to reduction of and exemption from the self-arable farmland is farmland as of the date of transfer and that the taxpayer asserts reduction of and exemption from the transfer income tax.

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

2017Gudan6221 Revocation of Disposition rejecting capital gains tax rectification

AA

@@세무서장

December 2019

on January 26, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Defendant’s revocation of a disposition rejecting to rectify capital gains tax for the year 2012, which belonged to Plaintiff on August 29, 2016.

section 3.

1. Details of the disposition;

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 13, 200, the Plaintiff acquired the same 7,377 square meters of forest land in ○○-dong, ○○○-dong, 000 and 160 square meters of forest land in 07-1, and 58-4 forest land in 0,385 square meters of forest land in 08-4 (hereinafter “instant three lots”). The instant land was expropriated in the Korea Land and Housing Corporation on April 16, 2012.

B. In applying Article 77 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act on June 13, 2012, the Plaintiff reported and paid ○○○, ○○○, and ○○○○○ in the transfer income tax for the year 2012, but re-calculated the acquisition value by converting it into the business authorization date at the time of the business authorization authorization, and applying Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11614, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter “former Restriction of Special Taxation Act”) to the effect that ○○, ○○, and ○○○ in the transfer income tax for self-farmland under Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation

C. The Defendant accepted a claim for correction against the acquisition value through on-site verification, etc. of the instant land, but rejected the claim for correction against the Plaintiff on August 29, 200 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not prove the fact that the Plaintiff was self-employed for not less than eight years (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on November 2, 2000, but was dismissed on March 9, 2000.

Facts without any dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff developed the instant land as forest land and cultivated directly for not less than eight years, the transfer income tax shall be reduced or exempted pursuant to Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

According to Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66(1) and (13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24368, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act"), a resident shall directly cultivate the relevant farmland while residing in a Si/Gun/Gu where the relevant farmland is located, a Si/Gun/Gu located within a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to the relevant farmland, or an area within 20 km in a straight line from the relevant farmland for at least eight years in order to be exempted from capital gains tax. "Direct cultivation" means that a resident is engaged in cultivating or cultivating crops or perennial plants on his/her own farmland or growing or growing them with his/her own labor. In such cases, the meaning of "one-2 or more own labor force" should be interpreted as a literature, and even if he/she concurrently engages in other occupation, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes an indirect cultivation.

Meanwhile, according to the provisions of Article 66(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 27(1) and (2)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, land subject to reduction or exemption of self-arable farmland shall be farmland as of the date of transfer, and such farmland refers to land actually used for cultivation regardless of its land category in the public cadastral book as a whole and answer. Furthermore, the burden of proving that the land subject to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax is "farmland" and "self-arable land" lies

2) Whether the plaintiff was self-employed for at least eight years

In full view of the following circumstances, as to whether the Plaintiff cultivated the instant land directly for at least eight years in accordance with the aforementioned legal doctrine, it is insufficient to recognize that the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 9 (including the serial numbers attached to them) have cultivated the instant land directly for at least eight years, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

① The entire area of the instant land is equal to 9,922 square meters, etc. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff, who did not have any farming experience, directly engaged in the said land.

② As one of the evidence that the Plaintiff himself/herself was aware of, the Plaintiff submitted the confirmation letter (No. 9-1) of the ○○○○○○○○’s preparation. However, the ○○○ consistently stated in this court that he/she was receiving wages from the Plaintiff after he/she was deadly dead.

3. Conclusion

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