The disposition denying the return of capital gains tax reduction or exemption and the special deduction for long-term holding because the farmland was not cultivated directly for not less than 8 years.

As a result of a field investigation on farmland, it cannot be recognized that farmland was cultivated directly for not less than 8 years, and the disposition denying the return of reduction or exemption of capital gains tax and the special deduction for long-term holding is legitimate because it constitutes land

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act: Reduction or exemption of transfer income tax on self-farmland

2015Nu5158 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

OO

XX Head of tax office

oly 2015.106

o October 20, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

the Gu Office's place of service and place of service

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 on June 10, 2013 against the plaintiff on June 10, 2013.

1. Details of the disposition;

The court's explanation on this part is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance 1. Thus, this part is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The purport of the plaintiff's assertion

1) Since the Plaintiff resided in the location of farmland after having received a donation from Austria, his father, and had been directly cultivated the farmland of this case with his family, such as grandparents, parents, etc., who lived together with the Plaintiff’s family members, and thus, the income from the transfer of the farmland of this case, which is one of his own farmland, should be reduced or exempted pursuant to Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11614, Jan. 1, 2013

2) Even if the farmland in this case does not constitute a self-arable farmland, the Plaintiff’s co-Cultivating the farmland in this case for not less than eight years, and subsequently, donated the farmland in this case to the Plaintiff on April 9, 1985, and thus, the farmland in this case constitutes a business land pursuant to Article 168-14(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and thus, the special deduction amount for long-term possession should be deducted in calculating capital gains.

B. Determination

1) Whether the Plaintiff directly cultivated the farmland of this case

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 the income accrued from the transfer of land prescribed by Presidential Decree among the land directly cultivated by a resident residing in the seat of farmland for at least eight years."

Article 6 (12) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act was amended by Presidential Decree No. 19507 on June 12, 2006, and Article 66 (12) of the same Act is newly established, and "direct farming" in Article 69 (1) of the Act means that residents are engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on their own land at least 1/2 of the farming work or cultivating or growing them with their own labor. Article 10 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree provides that "the amended provisions of Article 6 (12) of the same Act shall apply from the transfer after this Decree enters into force." Article 66 (12) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "The provisions of Article 16 (12) of the same Act shall apply from 0-1, 2, 2, 3, 4, and 8 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act shall apply to the farmland of this case from 0-2, 1985 to 10-2, 100-1,200,20.

In light of the above facts, even if the plaintiff cultivated the farmland of this case with his family, such as grandparents and parents, even if he resided in the farmland of this case for not less than 8 years, he cannot be seen as engaging in "direct cultivation", i.e., cultivation of crops or perennial plants, or cultivation or cultivation of not less than 1/2 of farming work with his own labor. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

2) Whether special deduction for long-term holding should be deducted

As the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act was amended by Presidential Decree No. 21301 on February 4, 2009, Article 168-14 (3) 1-2 was newly established, and the above provision stipulates that "the land which a lineal ascendant or his spouse has resided in the land location for not less than eight years and directly cultivated by him/her, and the relevant lineal ascendant or his/her spouse shall not be deemed land for non-business use."

However, according to Gap evidence Nos. 10-1, 2, and 11-1 through 4, the plaintiff can not accept the fact that the plaintiff acquired the farmland of this case and other land on April 9, 1985 by means of guarantee and confirmation pursuant to the procedures prescribed by the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3562). Thus, it is difficult to accept the fact that the plaintiff acquired the farmland of this case on March 20, 1973 or on November 21, 1973, on the premise that the transfer and exchange of the farmland of this case was made on September 22, 1973, because it is difficult to recognize the fact that the plaintiff acquired the farmland of this case on the premise that the transfer and exchange of the farmland of this case was made on the premise that the transfer and exchange of the farmland of this case was made on the premise that the transfer and purchase of the farmland of this case was made on the 9th day before the date of acquisition of the farmland of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.