It is difficult to recognize that a person has cultivated more than 1/2 of farming works with his own labor;

It is difficult to recognize that a farmer was cultivated with his own labor more than 1/2 of the farming works in light of the fact that he did not submit any data on how he had cultivated a rice farm in the transferred farmland but did not directly perform any farming activities, and that most of the farming works appears to have been carried out by the resident of the farmland

2011Gudan8379 Disposition rejecting a request for capital gains tax rectification

United StatesA

Director of the District Office

October 25, 2011

November 22, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

On June 7, 2010, the defendant revoked a disposition rejecting a request for revision of capital gains tax against the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 16, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired (i.e., each share of the Plaintiff and KimB) the farmland of this case jointly with KimB, the spouse of Gangseo-gu Seoul OOOOO 00-0 2,314 square meters (hereinafter “the farmland of this case”). On December 30, 2008, the Plaintiff owned 1/2 shares of the farmland of this case from KimB due to division of property, and transferred the farmland of this case to SH on January 20, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred it to 2,121,320,000 won.

B. On February 23, 2009, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 146,895,000 to the Defendant following the transfer of the farmland in this case.

C. On November 19, 2009, the Plaintiff acquired KRW 484,900,000, and filed a request for revision of capital gains tax on the substitute farmland under Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9921, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same), on the ground that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the farmland for three years or more, on the ground that the Plaintiff refused the said request for correction (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Each of the types of private theories, Gap's evidence 7, 10, Eul's evidence 1 and 10 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, while directly cultivating the farmland of this case for not less than three years, directly cultivated the farmland of this case after transferring the farmland of this case. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff satisfies the requirements for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax due to farmland substitute land, the disposition of this case reported differently is unlawful.

(b) relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On April 16, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired the instant farmland jointly with KimB (the share 1/2 of GeB was transferred on December 30, 2008 on the grounds of division of property while the agreement was married) and owned it, and transferred the instant farmland to EP in KRW 2,121,320,000 on January 20, 209.

(2) On November 19, 2009, the Plaintiff acquired the farmland of this case on November 19, 2009, within one year after transferring the farmland of this case, and the farmland of this case is more than one half of the area of the farmland of this case.

(3) From March 17, 2003 to May 1, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a resident registration of the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government OOdong 000 DDDD apartment 103 Dong 610, 2. From May 2, 2005 to January 9, 2007, the Plaintiff registered each of the subparagraphs 100 OOdong 000 EEEM 0009 Dong 0009, 3. From January 10, 2007 to July 3, 2007, Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government OOdong 000-0G Gu 203 after July 3, 2007.

(4) From 2005 to 2008, KimB, the husband of the Plaintiff, had income of KRW 30 million each year.

(5) On May 11, 2007, the Plaintiff joined the Gangnam Agricultural Cooperative as a member (105 units of investment, 5,000 won per unit), and received rice direct payments in 2007 and 2008. On January 20, 2009, the Plaintiff received additional compensation for agricultural products other than the instant farmland payment.

[Ground of recognition] The above evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4 through 9 (including each number), witness FF, witness testimony of the United StatesJ, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 67(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21984, Jan. 7, 2010), in order to meet the requirements for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax due to the acquisition of substitute farmland, (i) residents shall directly cultivate the farmland while living in the previous location for at least three years, and (ii) after acquiring other farmland (in the case of expropriation under the Public Works Act, 2 years) within one year (in the case of expropriation under the Public Works Act, 2 years) from the date of transfer of the previous farmland, the Plaintiff is required to directly cultivate the farmland in the new location for at least 1/2 of the previous farmland area or 1/3 of the previous farmland value, and (iii) the Plaintiff appears to have been able to recognize the Plaintiff’s direct cultivation of the farmland in the above case with her own farmland for at least 1/2 of the previous farmland or with 1/2 or more of the previous farmland value.

3. Conclusion

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