Whether the Plaintiff has excavated the land of this case

It was not proved that the Plaintiff was engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants for at least one year and five months during the period of possession after inheritance of the instant land, or was engaged in cultivating or growing at least one half of the farming works with his own labor.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

The revocation of the disposition of revocation of imposition of capital gains tax shall be the District Court 2013Gudan567

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

July 6, 2015

August 19, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 7, 2001, the plaintiff's spouse, non-party 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") acquired the land of 1,834m2 (hereinafter referred to as "the land in this case") from the sale and purchase, and owned it on December 14, 2007.

B. On December 14, 2007, the Plaintiff owned the above land by inheritance on December 14, 2007 due to the death of the Deceased and transferred it to another on May 26, 201, and thereafter, on the transfer margin of the above land, the Plaintiff and the Deceased owned the above land for at least eight years, and thus, based on such reasoning, made a preliminary return on the tax base of capital gains on the premise that the entire capital gains falls under the reduction or exemption under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

C. On December 1, 2013, the Defendant, upon the request for pre-assessment review, excluded the application of capital gains tax reduction or exemption on the ground that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant land after inheritance for at least eight years (in total with the net cultivation period), and corrected and notified capital gains tax of 35,594,618 (including additional tax) for the year 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on March 4, 2014, but on March 2014

5.12. The decision was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

After acquiring the instant land on May 7, 2001, the deceased’s spouse, who was the deceased’s spouse, died before the death. After succeeding the said land on December 14, 2007 due to the death of the deceased, the Plaintiff cultivated directly, did not lease the said land to others, and transferred the said land to others on May 26, 201. Accordingly, the Plaintiff should be deemed to meet the requirements for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax on the instant land, but the Defendant’s disposition on the other premise is unlawful.

B. Determination

Under the principle of no taxation without law, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law, barring special circumstances, regardless of whether they are taxable or non-taxable requirements or tax reduction or exemption requirements, and shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds. In particular, it accords with the principle of fair taxation to strictly interpret the provisions that can be clearly viewed as preferential provisions among the requirements for reduction or exemption requirements (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du20116, Dec. 13, 201).

In addition, even if the fact that the land has been cultivated as farmland is recognized, it is not presumed that the owner is not a self-major fact, and the fact that the land has been cultivated as farmland must be proved by the transferor (Plaintiff) who asserts such fact (Supreme Court Decision 92Nu11893 delivered on July 13, 1993).

(see, e.g., Decision)

As to the deceased, there is no particular dispute between the parties as to whether the deceased's self-defense during the period (from May 6, 2001 to December 14, 2007) during which the deceased owned the land of this case, and as to whether the plaintiff was self-defensed for at least one year and five months during the period during which the plaintiff owned the land of this case.

The meaning of "direct cultivation", which is the requirement for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, shall not be deemed to include cases in which another person is employed and cultivated under his/her responsibility and account. They are engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants at all times or at least 1/2 of farming work.

It should be limited to the case of cultivation or cultivation with labor force.

However, each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 6, as shown in the plaintiff's argument, is difficult to accept it as it is, in light of the following circumstances, in view of each of the evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and witness EE's testimony, and the evidence Nos. 4-1 and 2, are insufficient to admit the plaintiff's assertion. There is no other evidence to support the plaintiff's assertion (i.e.,, the plaintiff, not the plaintiff after the death of the deceased, but the deceased DD was mainly cultivated and managed the land of this case, and the plaintiff appears to have been entrusted management.)

① The Deceased was frightener in cooperation with the frighten net DD1) in the form of a frighten and a seed. The Deceased was frighter in the land at a level of 20,000 square meters, and the net DD was frighter in the land at a level of 10,000 square meters. Meanwhile, the network DD was not only on one’s own land, but also on another’s land.

② The recipient of subsidies for rice subsidies related to the instant land was the Deceased’s birth before the Deceased, and was DNA from 2008 to 2010 after the Deceased’s death.

③ EE, the head of the self-employed 2 village, has prepared a written confirmation to the tax official in charge of the tax investigation around August 2013, 2013, that “The land of this case is confirmed to have been cultivated by the deceased while he was cultivated directly by the deceased until the deceased died.”

④ After October 2013, EE has re-written a written confirmation to the effect that “E” was a false statement, and that “E is the deceased and the Plaintiff, who are the land owner, confirm their own farmland.” Meanwhile, EE has been present at this court on July 6, 2015 in this case as a witness, and that “DD will bring about arguments or gathers on the land in this case.” Therefore, the public official in charge of tax investigation has verified this part. However, the actual manager will confirm this part. However, there are many cases where many senior citizens live in the farm, and these cases are used or entrusted with agricultural machinery. In such a case, it should be viewed as a self-contest. However, in this case, EE testified to the effect that the Plaintiff is not a witness to work.”

Ultimately, according to the EE’s confirmation and testimony, the Plaintiff appears to have been entrusted with another person (DD) and engaged in the agricultural business under his responsibility and account. As long as the Plaintiff did not actually input his own labor, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff was engaged in a “direct farming” which is a requirement for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax. Unlike others, the Plaintiff did not prove that the Plaintiff was engaged in the cultivation of crops or the perennial plant cultivation for more than one year and five months during the period during which the Plaintiff owned the land after inheritance, or that he was engaged in the cultivation or perennial plant cultivation with his own labor. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition denying the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax against the Plaintiff cannot be deemed unlawful.

3. Conclusion

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