Review Transfer 2010-0030 (Law No. 13, 2010.04)

land that may be deemed directly related to the business

The land appears to be engaged in wholesale business of construction materials on the ground and this can be deemed to be similar to the business under the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act, which lists the scope of the land used for the business, and since the annual income ratio of the value of the land is at least 10/100, it shall apply

2010Gudan13718 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

LAA

The Director of the Pacific District Office

June 24, 2011

September 16, 2011

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 490,026,170 against the Plaintiff on January 4, 2010 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 4, 1983, the Plaintiff acquired the land of this case on March 13, 2009 and transferred the land of this case on March 13, 2009.

B. The Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax on May 25, 2009, without regard to the transfer of the instant land as land for non-business use, filed a voluntary report of KRW 313,844,820 by applying the special long-term holding deduction and the general tax rate of 35%, and paid KRW 282,460,343 by deducting the amount of preliminary return deduction from KRW 31,384,482.

C. The Defendant deemed the instant land as land for non-business use and denied the special long-term holding deduction, and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 490,026,170 on January 4, 2010 by applying the heavy tax rate of 60% (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Main argument

According to the provisions of Article 104-3 (1) 4 (c) of the Income Tax Act, Article 168-11 (1) 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and Article 83-4 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act, the block, stone, earth and sand, brick, and brick.

The land used for the wholesale and retail business of concrete products, potteries, non-ferrous metal, plastic pipes, steel and plastic landscape (in the case of agricultural products, fishery products and livestock products, limited to the case where the market under the Distribution Industry Development Act and any other similar place is operated) and the ratio of the annual amount of income to the value of the land is over the ratio prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance is not the land for non-business. The land in this case is the land listed in the above provisions or even if it does not fall under the land listed in the above provisions, it is reasonable to interpret the above provisions as an example in light of the legislative intent of the heavy taxation system for non-business land, the principle of equality under the Constitution, and the principle of tax equality. Therefore, the land in this case without any reason to see otherwise from the land listed in the above provisions is also the land for non-business use.

(2) Preliminary assertion

Even if the instant land does not fall under the land stipulated in Article 168-11(1)12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and Article 83-4(14) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, since the remaining 570.2 square meters of the instant land, excluding 18 square meters of business place, among the instant land, constitutes “land for storage, etc.” as stipulated in Article 168-11(1)7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the Defendant’s disposition of this case on the premise that the entire

(b) relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Interpretation of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes

(A) Major relevant laws and regulations

Article 104-3 (1) 4 of the Income Tax Act excludes from private land for which special deduction for long-term holding is denied, and which is subject to heavy tax rate of 60%, and land for which property tax is not levied or exempted pursuant to the provisions of the Local Tax Act or related Acts, "land which is subject to separate aggregate taxation or separate taxation for taxation under the provisions of Article 182 (1) 2 and 3 of the Local Tax Act" or "land which is prescribed by Presidential Decree as being directly related to residence or business in consideration of the current use of land", and Article 168-1 (1) 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "land which is prescribed by Presidential Decree as having considerable reasons to recognize that it is directly related to residence or business in consideration of the current use of land, etc.", and Article 168-1 (1) 1 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the ratio of land for landscaping and reconstruction purposes prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance to the value of land for storage or management of land."

(B) Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act 1/168-11(1)7

The principle of no taxation without law is a requirement for taxation, or a requirement for non-taxation or tax exemption, and the interpretation of tax laws shall be interpreted as the text of the law unless there are special circumstances, and it shall not be widely interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds.

However, Article 168-1 (1) 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which provides for land excluded from non-business land, provides that "land of storage, open storage, storage, etc. installed and used separately for the storage and management of goods" includes a building permit or a building report under the Building Act, and land annexed to a building for warehouse constructed without any permission or report. If a building for warehouse is installed separately for the storage and management of goods and land is used for the storage and management of goods, the land is excluded from non-business land as a matter of course. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the land of storage, open storage, storage, etc. excluded from non-business land is necessarily a premise that the land of storage, temporary storage, etc. is located, regardless of whether there is a building on the ground, and the land of storage, temporary storage, etc. installed and used separately for the storage and management of goods is excluded from the land for non-business use.

(C) Article 168-11 subparag. 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Meanwhile, Article 168-11 subparag. 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act excludes “other land similar to subparagraphs 1 through 13 and prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance as land directly related to the business, considering the current use of the land and implementation of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes,” but it has not yet been enacted by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance. However, on the ground that the Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance was not enacted, it cannot be interpreted that there is a block of the length to be excluded from non-business land pursuant to Article 168-11 subparag. 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. Thus, except the phrase “land prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance”, the phrase “other land similar to the land stipulated by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, which is deemed directly related to the business of subparagraphs 1 through 13, it should be interpreted that it is excluded from the non-business land if it falls under “other land deemed directly related to the business of subparagraph 4 (a) of the same Article.

Article 168-11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which is delegated to the President by stipulating that the land has considerable reasons and is prescribed by the Presidential Decree, lists the land excluded from the non-business land under subparagraphs 1 through 13 under paragraph (1). However, in subparagraph 14, it again delegates the land excluded from the non-business land to the Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance by stipulating that "the land is deemed directly related to the business, taking into account the current status of the land similar to the land under subparagraphs 1 through 13, the implementation of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, etc." and delegates the scope of the land excluded from the non-business land under subparagraph 14 to the Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance. However, considering the fact that the delegated land does not have the provisions concerning such land, and it is deemed impossible for the Ministry of Strategy and Finance to list all cases falling under the legislative technological meaning as above, it constitutes "other land which is deemed to be directly related to the business of taxpayers in consideration of the current status of the land similar to those under subparagraphs 1 through 13 and the Income Tax Act, and the Enforcement Rule, if it does not violate the Income Tax Act.

(2) Fact finding

In this case, the following facts do not conflict between the parties, or are recognized by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the entries and images of Gap evidence 5-1 to 4, Eul evidence 3-5, and Eul evidence 3-5.

(A) On October 4, 1983, the Plaintiff acquired on 148,750,000 O-O 350 o-O 148,750,000 o-O 350,000 o-dong and Incheon Northern-gu, and on February 22, 1994, transferred the instant land on March 13, 200 after being divided into co-owned property.

(B) The instant land was subject to comprehensive real estate holding tax for the period of 2005 - 2008 as a general aggregate land subject to property tax, and is located on the side of the 8th line in Incheon City as a quasi-residential area under a land use planning confirmation document.

(C) From April 1996, the Plaintiff leased the instant land to DDR Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “DDR”), and the lease period for DDRs is April 20, 1996; the Plaintiff’s report of value-added tax related to lease revenue is as listed below; the annual income amount of DDRs, the user of the instant land, is 175.2% in 2005; 16.6% in 2006; 11.1% in 2007; 149.1% in 2008; and 15.3% in 209 in relation to the value of the instant land.

(D) The Defendant’s confirmation of the instant land is as follows.

1) On May 13, 2009, DDR moved its place of business to 00-00, Incheon Gyeyangyang OO 00-00 and continues to conduct the same business. On the instant land, 7 foot buildings are newly constructed (approval for use of a building on December 08, 2009).

2) At the time of the transfer of the instant land, the following ground plans are as follows (18 square meters in office, the remainder 570.2 square meters in office, and the fixed amount of Dhap representative director’s working capital is as follows: (a) on July 20, 2009, the place of business located in Gyeyang-gu Incheon OO-dong 000-0 from April 20, 1996 to April 25, 2009, when engaging in wholesale/combined, and hybrid business, the area equivalent to a maximum of 80 percent of the total area of 180 square meters (58.2 square meters in office) in the relevant place of business is confirmed.”

《원고의 부동산 양도 당시의 부동산 이용 상황 평면도》

3) A container office used as an office did not impose property tax on an unregistered temporary building.

4) Examining the photographs submitted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s photographs are affixed with the “combined board. Round. Round. Round. Mod. Mod. Mod. Mod. Mod. Mod. Mod.

(3) Specific determination

먼저 원고의 주위적 주장에 관하여 보건대, 소득세법 시행규칙 제83조의4 제14 항은 소득세법 시행령 제168조의11 제1항 제12호에서 "기획재정부령이 정하는 토지" 라 함은 블록・석물・토관・벽돌・콘크리트제품・옹기・철근・비철금속・플라스틱파이프・골재・조 경작물・화훼・분재・농산물・수산물・축산물의 도매업 및 소매업용(농산물・수산물 및 축산물 의 경우에는 「유통산업발전법」 에 따른 시장과 그 밖에 이와 유사한 장소에서 운영하는 경우에 한한다) 토지를 말한다고 규정하고 있고 이에 대하여 원고의 주위적 주장은 이 사건 토지가 위 규정에서 열거된 토지에 해당하거나, 설령 문언 상 위 규정에서 열거된 토지에 해당하지 않는다고 하더라도 위 규정은 예시적인 것이고 위 규정에서 열거된 토지와 달리 볼 이유가 없는 이 사건 토지도 그에 해당한다고 보아야 한다는 것 인데, 이 뒷부분의 주장은 "위 12호와 유사한 토지로서 토지의 이용상황, 관계법령의 이행여부 등을 감안하여 사업과 직접 관련이 있다고 인정할 만한 토지이므로 비사업용 토지에서 제외된다"는 주장에 다름 아니다. 위 인정사실에 의하면, DD합판은 이 사건 토지에서 목재, 합판, 석고보드, 하드보드 도매업을 영위한 것으로 보이고 소득세법 시행규칙 제83조의4 제14항에서 열거하고 있는 "블록 ・ 석물 ・ 토관 ・ 벽돌 ・ 콘크리트제품 ・ 옹기 ・ 철근 ・ 비철금속 ・ 플라스틱파이프 ・ 골재 ・ 조경작물 ・ 화훼 ・ 분재 ・ 농산물 ・ 수산물 ・ 축산물의 도매업 및 소매업 용 토지"에 해당되는지 여부를 판단함에 있어 엽종의 분류는 통계법에 따라 통계청장 이 고시하는 한국표준산업분류에 따라야 할 것으로 보이는바(소득세법 시행령 제168조 의11 제7항 참조), 위 고시에 의하면, '분류코드 46611 원목 및 건축 관련 목재품 도매 업'은 원목, 건축용 목재 공작물, 가공 목재제품, 재생목재 등을 도매하는 산업활동을 말하고, 그 예로 나무판재 도매, 나무각재 도매, 목재건구 도매, 합판 도매를 들고 있고, '분류코드 46612 골재, 벽돌 및 시멘트 도매업'은 석회 및 각종 시멘트, 골재 등을 도매하는 산업활동을 말하고 비내화용 혼합물 도매도 포함되며, 그 예로 플라스터 도매, 혼합모르타르 도매, 쇄석 도매, 석회 도매, 기와 도매, 내화 및 비내화 벽돌 도매, 콘크리트 제품 도매, 레미콘 도매를 들고 있으며, '분류코드 46699 그 외 기타 건축자 재 도매업'은 방음용, 단열용 재료, 석고보드, 루핑지, 타일, 위생용 및 내화용 요업 제 품 등의 건축자재를 도매하는 산업활동이 포함되고, 그 예로 건축용 타일 도매, 바닥 내장재 도매, 금속제 난간 도매, 스티로폴 도매, 욕조, 세면대, 변기 도매, 칸막이 도매, 조립식 건물세트 도매, 대리석(인조 포함) 도매를 들고 있다. 그렇다면 DD합판이 영 위한 목재, 합판, 석고보드, 하드보드 도매업 중 목재, 합판, 하드보드 도매업은 "원목 및 건축관련 목재품 도매업"에 포함되고, 석고보드 도매업은 "그외 기타 건축자재 도매 업"에 포함되는 것으로 보이고, 소득세법 시행규칙 제83조의4 제14항에서 열거하고 있는 "골재"나 "석물" 등의 도매업에 포함되지는 않는 것으로 보인다. 다만, DD합판의 위와 같은 영업은 건축자재 도매업으로서 소득세법 시행규칙 제83조의4 제14항에서 열거하고 있는 영업과 유사한 것으로 볼 수 있는 점, 위 규정에 열거하고 있는 위 도매업 및 소매업의 경우 소득세법 시행령 제168조의11 제1항 제12호, 소득세법 시행규칙 제83조의4 제15항 제5호에 의하여 토지의 가액에 대한 1년간의 수입금액의 비율이 100분의 10 이상이면 소득세법 시행령 제168조의11 제1항 제12호의 요건을 만족하여 해당 토지는 비사업용 토지에서 제외되는데, 이 사건 토지의 경우 토지의 가액에 대한 1년간의 수입금액의 비율이 양도일 직전 5년간 매년 100분의 10을 훨씬 상회하여 100 분의 100을 넘고 있는 점을 종합하면, 이 사건 토지는 소득세법 시행령 제168조의11 제1항12호에 유사한 것으로 토지의 이용상황, 관계법령의 이행여부 등을 감안하여 사업과 직접 관련이 있다고 인정할 만한 토지 즉 같은 항 제14호에 해당하여, 소득세법 제104조의3 제1항 제4호 다목에 따라 비사업용 토지에서 제외되는 것으로 봄이 타당하다. 결국 이 사건 토지는 비사업용 토지에서 제외되므로, 이와 다른 전제에 서서 장기보유특별공제를 부인하고 중과세율 60%를 적용한 피고의 이 사건 부과처분은 위법하고, 원고의 주위적 주장은 이유 있다.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the ground of the reasons.