A taxpayer's certificate shall not be readily denied the value of evidence, unless there are special circumstances, such as forced preparation against the will of the originator or lack of details.

A certificate prepared in the course of a tax investigation shall not be readily denied the value of evidence, unless there are special circumstances, such as forced preparation or lack of details against the will of the originator.

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

2018-Gu group-7925 Revocation of imposition of capital gains tax

AA

O Head of tax office

2018.05.31

.06.21

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of capital gains tax against the plaintiff on January 9, 2018 **,**,**,*** out of the KRW*,***,**** each disposition of imposition of penalty tax in excess of KRW 79,887,374 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 5, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired a 1/2 share of 00 square meters in ○○○○○○○, 068 square meters, but transferred 1/2 share of the remaining 1,682 square meters in the said land on August 11, 2015. Furthermore, on October 12, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired a 5,640 square meters in the same Ri 18 Do, 18,560 square meters in the same Ri, 18-1 346 square meters in the same Ri, 18-2 1,734 square meters in the same Ri, 18-1,734 square meters in the same Ri, and transferred the said land to the Plaintiff on July 21, 2015 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Plaintiff transferred each of the said land to the Plaintiff on July 21, 2015).

B. After that, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant land was self-refilled for at least eight years, while filing a preliminary return on capital gains tax on the transfer of the instant land, and filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax under Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same).

C. From May 15, 2017 to May 21, 2017, the Defendant issued an on-site verification of the Plaintiff’s capital gains tax, and determined that the instant land cannot be deemed to have been self-determined for at least eight years, and excluded all of the special long-term holding deduction and capital gains tax reduction and exemption alleged by the Plaintiff, and made a correction and notification to the Plaintiff on January 9, 2018 ****,*** (including additional tax).

D. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 18, 2018, against the foregoing disposition of correction and notification of capital gains tax, but the appeal was dismissed.

E. On July 13, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of correction and notification of the capital gains tax as above. During the lawsuit, the Defendant recognized that the application of the provision on capital gains tax for non-business land transfer (10%) to the transfer of the instant land was wrong, and made a disposition to rectify the transfer income tax for the year 2015 that the Plaintiff would pay to the Plaintiff around November 1, 2018 as ******** KRW (including additional tax 79,887,374 won) (including the amount remaining after the correction of reduction on November 1, 2018 of the disposition of correction and notification of capital gains tax as of January 9, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul Nos. 1, 7, 8, 10, and 11 (including additional numbers), facts with merit in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

After acquiring the instant land from 2003 to 2012, the Plaintiff cultivated directly with its own labor, “on a commercial basis for the cultivation of crops in the instant land for nine years from 2003 to 2012. As such, the Plaintiff has to apply the reduction of capital gains tax and the special deduction for long-term holding, even though it is necessary to apply the reduction of capital gains tax and the special deduction for long-term holding.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) The main sentence of Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that “The tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of capital gains tax shall be reduced or exempted on 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 farmland for not less than eight years.” However, Article 66(13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26600, Oct. 23, 2015) provides that a resident shall have been engaged in the cultivation of crops or perennial plants in his/her own farmland for not less than eight years, or has cultivated or cultivated 1/2 or more of the farming works with his/her own labor for at least eight years. The burden of proof on the direct cultivation, etc. of the transferred land for at least eight years is against a person who claims reduction or exemption of capital gains tax.

2) In light of the following facts and circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the statements in the Health Team, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 5, and the contents of the plaintiff's written confirmation as to the plaintiff's written confirmation as to this case, it is difficult to believe that each of the witness SS's testimony and evidence No. 8, Gap evidence No. 9-1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 10-1, and No. 25, which correspond to the plaintiff's assertion, is hard to recognize that the other evidence submitted by the plaintiff in this case "for 8 years or longer" was "on the cultivation of crops in the land in this case as the plaintiff's assertion" (in relation to the requirements for long-term holding special deduction, it is also insufficient to accept the plaintiff's assertion). Accordingly, it is insufficient to accept the plaintiff's assertion.

① On June 15, 2017, the Plaintiff, in the course of undergoing an investigation of capital gains tax by the Defendant, prepared a written confirmation (Evidence No. 5) directly and submitted it to the Defendant.

IAA(Plaintiff) was transferred to 2000 and tried to purchase a golf driving range in 2002 and to continue to do so. He had no circumstances, and we continued to do so. All works, such as a marg, Tracter, transferred mar, or unhued rice beer, JJ mainly attempted to do. If the JJ is bad, other persons have attempted. All equipment costs were calculated as rice. The JJ has also tried to purchase rice. At the beginning of the purchase, the other persons had been tried to sell it in full for 3 and 4 years.

I confirm that all the above statements are true.

The AA of June 15, 2017

Unless there exist special circumstances, such as: (a) if the tax authority has received a written confirmation from a person liable to pay tax to a certain fact in the course of conducting a tax investigation, it may not readily deny such written confirmation only as evidence of the fact, barring special circumstances, such as that it was forced to prepare it against the intent of the person who prepared the document; or (b) it is difficult to consider it as evidence to prove the specific fact due to lack of its content (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2560, Dec. 6, 2002). There is no evidence to deem that the said written confirmation was forced against the Plaintiff’s will. The Plaintiff’s production of the said written confirmation was omitted from the phrase “2013” to the part where the JJ ceased to be the farmer; (c) the content of the said written confirmation cannot be considered as evidence of the specific fact. However, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s submission of the said written confirmation to another person for three to four years after purchasing the instant land from the date of transfer of the land to the Plaintiff.

② According to the personal purchase agreement issued by ○○ Agricultural Cooperatives, the content of purchasing rice from 2002 to 2015 appears to appear, while the above JJ purchased rice from 2002 to 2015 did not appear.

③ Examining the details of sales by each trader of ○○ Agricultural Cooperatives, including agricultural chemicals used in cultivating the instant land, the Plaintiff’s number of purchases during the period from 2010 to 2013 shall be limited to once a year, and the purchase amount shall not exceed KRW 9,000 per year except for 2012 (the purchase amount in 2012 shall not exceed KRW 22,690). Furthermore, “the instant land” is called “the instant land,” whereas the Plaintiff’s products purchased from ○○○ Agricultural Cooperative are higher in the share of facility cost materials. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff used to purchase agricultural chemicals every year from “△△△△△△△△△ for the period from 202 to 2013 to purchase agricultural chemicals, etc.” According to the evidence evidence No. 1, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff submitted a confirmation document that the Plaintiff had prepared a request for a judgment with respect to the tax Tribunal for a period of not less than 20 years to 20 years to 203 years to 2013.

④ The Plaintiff continued to operate the above golf range since its opening on August 1, 2001. However, the Plaintiff asserts that HH actually operated the above golf range. However, from May 21, 2002 to July 26, 2006, HH resided in the ○○○-dong, and resided in the ○○○○-dong, ○○○-si, ○○○-si, ○○○○-si, ○○○-si, ○○○-si, ○○-si, ○○-si, ○○○-si, ○○○-si, ○○-si, ○○-si, ○○○-si, ○○○-si, ○○-si, ○○-si, ○○-si, ○○-si, ○○-si, ○-si, ○-si, 100 on January 9, 201 to December 1, 2016.

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.