The burden of proof on the requirements for reduction or exemption is the plaintiff who is the taxpayer claiming exemption of capital gains tax.

The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was engaged in cultivating crops on the farmland in this case for not less than eight years or engaged in cultivating not less than 1/2 of the farming work with the Plaintiff’s labor force, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise

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

2016Guhap22507 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AA

The Director of the PPP Tax Office

on September 016, 2019

October 14, 2016

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 265,265,54, additional tax of KRW 21,154,958 against the Plaintiff on November 12, 2015 shall be revoked. The imposition of local income tax of KRW 28,642,050 against the Plaintiff on November 12, 2015 by the Director General of the www Busan Busan Metropolitan City. The imposition of local income tax of KRW 28,642,050 against the Plaintiff is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 30, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired at a voluntary auction the farmland of 2,947 square meters (hereinafter “the farmland of this case”) prior to 1541, Busan e rr, 1541, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the farmland of this case to Tt and yyy on February 4, 2015 with respect to 1/3 of the shares of each of the farmland of this case on December 4, 2014.

B. On February 6, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for capital gains tax reduction or exemption under Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter “former Restriction of Special Taxation Act”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s farmland rent for at least eight (8) years was self-employed.”

C. After conducting on-site verification and on-site investigation, the director of the tax office qq denied the tax amount reduced or exempted by deeming that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant farmland, and on November 12, 2015, he issued a notice of correction and notification of capital gains tax of KRW 286,420,510 (i.e., capital gains tax of KRW 265,265,554 + additional tax of KRW 21,54,958) and local income tax of KRW 28,642,050 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 11, 2016, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on May 16, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 10, Eul evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff directly cultivated the farmland of this case for not less than eight years, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) Article 69(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26070, Feb. 3, 2015; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act”) provides that a tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of capital gains tax shall be reduced on income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by Presidential Decree among land cultivated directly by a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree who resides in the seat of farmland for at least eight years.

Article 66 (13) provides that "Direct cultivation by the method prescribed by Presidential Decree" means that a resident is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his/her own farmland at all times or is engaged in cultivating or cultivating more than half of farming works with his/her own labor.

The legislative intent of the above provision on reduction and exemption is to reduce the tax burden following the transfer of farmland as part of the land farming policy, and the meaning of the "regular work" and "one-half or more self-working force" should be interpreted as the expression (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8423, Sept. 30, 2010). Thus, as long as a direct farming is engaged in a direct farming, even if a person concurrently engages in another occupation, he/she shall be deemed as a self-driving even if he/she concurrently engages in another occupation. However, it shall not be deemed that it is only an indirect operation while he/she engages in another occupation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du8444, Oct. 11, 202). A person who is engaged in part for reasons, such as having other occupation, not a full-time employee in agriculture, shall be deemed directly cultivated only in cases where the labor force ratio of "self-employed" is more than

On the other hand, the burden of proof for such reduction or exemption requirements is against the Plaintiff who is a taxpayer claiming exemption of capital gains tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du7074, Nov. 22, 2002).

2) In light of the above legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by adding up the purpose of the entire pleadings to health stand, evidence as seen earlier, evidence as well as evidence Nos. 5, and evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6 as to the instant case, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was engaged in the cultivation of crops in the instant farmland for not less than eight years, or with the cultivation of not less than 1/2 of the farming work with the Plaintiff’s labor force, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’

A) From August 1, 1984, the Plaintiff resided together with her husband’s sss in the instant farmland and the instant farmland and 18km (one hour and 30 minutes required by public transportation) in the instant house from www 227-199. In the course of the Defendant’s investigation, the Plaintiff stated that the farmland of this case was awarded a successful bid for the purpose of manufacturing the design design products of her husband’s vessel, and that he was a rice farmer, and that detailed use of farmland was known by her husband. In addition, the Plaintiff cultivated the human body. In addition, when the work directly performed by her is used as a typhoon, she dried rice, inspected the state of ordinary elements, and her meal was considered to have been an essential point.

B) From February 6, 1988, the Plaintiff’s husband’s ssss operated a business entity engaged in the business of manufacturing the goods of the ship, the face-to-kin-kin-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-

C) Materials, such as farmland ledger, documents evidencing the payment of user fees for agricultural machinery, details of subsidies for direct payments for preservation of rice income, etc., certificates of association members, details of sales by trader, etc., submitted by the Plaintiff.

Since it is a document that can be issued even if the crops are not cultivated by labor force, it is difficult to view it as a direct evidence of self-defense.

D) It is difficult to believe that the written confirmation of the farmland cultivation written by o, o, and o, signed by the farmer of the farmland in the vicinity of the farmland in this case, and the written confirmation of the farmland cultivation written by o, o, and o, in light of the aforementioned circumstances.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.