2011 Heavy 2143

If there is no objective evidence, a disposition that does not recognize it as acquisition value is legitimate;

The acquisition value of the instant land asserted by the Plaintiff is merely the assertion that the Plaintiff paid the purchase price by means of a check, etc., and it is difficult to confirm whether the purchase price was actually paid, and it is not proven as objective evidence.

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act

2012Gudan1899 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

IsaA

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

December 23, 2013

February 17, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of the transfer income tax for the portion belonging to the year 2008 against the Plaintiff on March 1, 201 and the disposition of imposition of the transfer income tax for the portion belonging to the year 2009 is revoked, respectively, exceeding the OOOO in the disposition of imposition of the transfer income tax for the portion belonging to the year 209.

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. On July 25, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired and owned an OO-dong 272 767 square meters (hereinafter "the land of this case") and transferred it to BB Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "BB Comprehensive Construction") on May 14, 2008. The Plaintiff also acquired and owned O-si O-dong 270-11, 386 square meters (hereinafter "the land of this case") on June 11, 2002, and transferred it to BB Comprehensive Construction on January 22, 2009.

C. As a result of the general investigation of capital gains tax against the plaintiff from September 2, 2009 to September 23, 2009, the defendant filed an excessive report on the acquisition value of the land No. 1 and the land No. 2 of this case (hereinafter collectively referred to as "each of the land of this case"), and necessary expenses were underreported, and each of the land of this case constitutes non-business land under Article 104-3 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply) and applied heavy tax rate. D. Accordingly, on November 26, 2009, the defendant notified the acquisition value of the land No. 1 of this case as OO, necessary expenses as OOO, OOO, OO, 60% transfer income tax for each of the land of this case as 200O and 2000O of this case as transfer income tax for each of the land of this case.

E. Meanwhile, as a result of re-audit of the transfer value of each of the above lands in the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax on Nonparty ParkCC, which has sold the land of this case unregistered to the Plaintiff, the Defendant confirmed that the acquisition value of the land of this case is OOO and the acquisition value of the land of this case No. 2 is OOO, and on March 1, 2011, the transfer income tax for the Plaintiff for the year 2008 as of November 26, 2009 was increased to OOO(OOOOA) (in comparison with the disposition of November 26, 2009), the transfer income tax for the year 209 was reduced to OOO(OOO) (in comparison with the disposition of this case as of November 26, 2009), each of which was imposed and collected by OOOO(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition disposition of this case"), and there was no dispute over the facts, evidence No. 2-1, 2-4, 4-15 evidence No. 2-1, 25-1-2-2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The acquisition value of the instant land No. 1 is equivalent to OO (OOOA in lieu of a term loan + OOOOOA + OOOOAA + OOOOAA in case of purchase price for land in OO-gun + OOA in case of OOA + OOOA in case of purchase price for land in O-gun + OOA in case of a company bank and a national bank). The acquisition value of the instant land No. 2 is OOA in case of the acquisition value of the instant land (i.e., OOOA in case of ParkCC’s custody + OOOA in case of a cashier’s checks issued by the national bank under the name of a stable + OOA). Accordingly, the instant disposition by the Defendant on a different premise is unlawful (point 1).

2) Since the Plaintiff resided in the vicinity after acquiring each of the instant lands, and cultivated crops, such as wave and non-business, etc. by itself, each of the instant lands does not constitute non-business land under Article 104-3 of the Income Tax Act, but the instant disposition that applied the tax rate of 60% on the non-business land with respect to the transfer income of each of the instant lands is unlawful (Dispute 2).

B. Determination on key issues 1

In light of the overall purport of the pleadings, Gap evidence No. 5 and Eul evidence No. 1 and No. 4, it is recognized that the actual acquisition price of each of the instant land sold to the plaintiff is OO Won and the actual acquisition price of the instant land No. 2 is OO Won. The following circumstances are as follows: ① The difference between the plaintiff and GabCC's purchase price and the above OO's sales price is unreasonable; ② the plaintiff did not submit any direct evidence that the plaintiff paid the above OO's purchase price to the plaintiff at the time of the purchase price (the plaintiff was discarded to avoid tax investigation into the actual purchase price of the land); ② the plaintiff's assertion on the purchase price of the instant land No. 1, 3, and 4, O2, O2, O2, O2, O2, O2, 1, and 1,000, O2, and 1,000,000 won.

C. Determination on the issues 2

1) Relevant statutes

The Income Tax Act provides that the tax rate of 60/10 of the tax base of transfer income shall apply to the land for which the owner does not reside in the seat of the farmland or which is not cultivated by himself under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree (Article 104 and Article 104-3 (1) 1 (a) of the Income Tax Act), and the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 21301 of Feb. 4, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall be 20 years or more from the date of the transfer, 10 years or more from the date of the transfer, 20 years or more from the date of the transfer, 3 years or more from the date of the transfer, 20 years or more from the date of the transfer, 20/100 or more of the farmland which is owned by the head of the Si/Gun/Gu (see the provisions of Article 168-6 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act).

2) The issues and determination of the instant case

The key issue of this case is whether or not the Plaintiff has cultivated or cultivated each of the lands of this case with its own labor, namely, whether or not the Plaintiff has cultivated or cultivated 1/2 or more of the farming or perennial plants at all times during the period stipulated in the above Acts and subordinate statutes.

Each entry of evidence Nos. 16-1, 2, and B Nos. 17-17 through 19 shall include the whole purport of the pleadings as follows:

" O 박CC은 2009. 9. 14. 남양주세무서의 조사 과정에서원고가 노령으로 허리도 아프고 본인이 경작할 수 있는 상황이 아니고 동네 사람들에게 파, 열무, 대파 등을 지어 먹으라고 하고 일부만 농작물을 받아간 사실이 있다'고 진술하였는바, 박CC은 이 사건 각 토지의 길 건너편에 있는 DD부동산을 2002.경부터 2008.경까지 운영하여 이 사건 각 토지의 경작 상황을 잘 알 수 있었을 것이므로, 박CC의 위 진술은 신빙성이 높은 것으로 보인다.", " 〇 원고는 2009. 9. 15. 남양주세무서에서의 조사 과정에서노후 대비와 자식들에게 물려줄 생각으로 이 사건 각 토지를 취득하였다. 이 사건 각 토지에 사실 일부 파를 심었으나 몇 년간 방치되어 수확하지 않았으므로 자경한 것으로 말씀드리기가 미안하나 제가 심은 것은 사실이고 저 몰래 동네 사람들이 채소나 파 등을 심었으나 제가 임대를 준 사실은 없으며 저와 할아버지가 경작한 사실은 틀림없다'는 취지로 진술 하여, 원고가 이 사건 각 토지를 경작 목적으로 취득하지 않은 사실 및 상당한 기간 동안 이 사건 각 토지를 직접 경작하지 않은 사실을 인정하였다.", 〇 원고가 OO시 OO대로37번길 70, 104동 1403호에서 거주하다가 2005. 7. 28. 이사한 OO시 OO1로16OO길 17 소재 주거지와 이 사건 각 토지와의 거리는 약 13.57km이고, 자동차로 이동하는 소요시간이 약 21분 정도인데, 70세 전후의 고령 여성인 원고가 농작물을 재배하기 위하여 필요한 비료나 농약 및 농기구 등을 소지하고 이 사건 각 토지로 왕복하기는 용이하지 않았을 것으로 보인다.

〇 이 사건 각 토지의 면적은 합계 1,153㎡이므로 농기계 및 상당량의 비료나 농약을 사용하지 않고서는 채소를 재배하기 어려울 것으로 보이는데, 원고가 농기계를 구입 또는 임차하였다거나 원고 명의로 비료나 농약을 구입하였음을 뒷받침할 만한 자료가 없을 뿐만 아니라 이 사건 각 토지에서 재배한 농작물의 판매에 관한 객관적인 자료도 보이지 않는다.

〇 2007. 4. 2. 최초로 작성된 이 사건 각 토지에 관한 농지원부상 원고가 이 사건 각 토지를 자경하는 것으로 기재되어 있으나, 농지원부는 자경 여부에 관한 구체적 확인 없이 신청인의 신청 및 진술에 의하여 발급될 수도 있어, 위 농지원부의 기재는 원고가 「소득세법」 시행령 제168조의6 소정의 기간 동안 이 사건 각 토지를 자경하였다는 점에 대한 직접적인 자료로 삼기 어렵다. 또한 국토지리정보원에서 2006. 5.경 촬영한 항공사진상 이 사건 각 토지가 밭으로 개간되어 있는 것으로 보이긴 하나, 이 사건 각 토지의 인근 주민들이 위 각 토지에서 채소를 경작하였다는 위 박CC 및 원고의 진술에 비추어 볼 때 위 항공사진만으로는 원고가 위 법령 소정의 기간 동안 이 사건 각 토지를 자경했다고 보기 어렵다.

〇 원고가 매년 이 사건 각 토지에서 대파 등을 경작하는 것을 목격하였다는 취지의 신EE 작성의 확인서 빛 이 법원 2011구단1052호 사건에서의 증언(갑 제7호증의 1, 2)은, 원고가 이 사건 각 토지에서 재배하였다는 농작물의 판매처, 판매수량 및 수입액 등을 알 수 있는 객관적인 자료가 없는 점과 아울러 신EE이 원고로부터 이 사건 각 토지의 매매와 관련한 컨설팅 비용으로 OOOO원을 받고 이 사건 각 토지의 양도소득세 신고도 대행해 주는 등 원고와 친밀한 관계인 점을 감안할 때 쉽게 믿기 어렵다. 또한 신FF 등 작성의 각 자경농 사실확인서(갑 제7호증의 3)는, 원고 측에서 작성하여 출력한 동일한 내용의 확인서에 서명날인만 받은 것으로 진술의 구체성이 떨어질 뿐만 아니라 작성자들이 원고의 지인인 점 등을 고려할 때 그 신빙성이 낮다.

In full view of the above circumstances, it is recognized that the Plaintiff did not own each of the instant lands during the period stipulated in subparagraph 1 of Article 168-6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the instant disposition that applied the tax rate of 60% by deeming each of the instant lands as land for non-business use is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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