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

2014Gudan31418 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Capital Gains Tax

OO

XX Head of tax office

2015.05.29

2015.06.26

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The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 000 on June 20, 2013 against the Plaintiff was revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 9, 1985, the Plaintiff acquired and owned OOO 2,321 (hereinafter “the instant farmland”) on an OO-Myeon O-si O-si, and transferred KRW 000 to AAA regularly Co., Ltd. on January 6, 2011, and filed a preliminary return of transfer income tax for the year 201 on February 14, 201, on the ground that the instant farmland constitutes self-arable farmland for at least eight years.

B. On June 20, 2013, after conducting a field investigation on the farmland of this case, the Defendant denied the report of reduction and exemption of capital gains tax and special deduction for long-term holding on the ground that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the farmland of this case for at least eight years, and issued the instant disposition to correct and notify the transfer income tax of 000 won (including additional tax) for the year 201.

C. On December 12, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an objection and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on May 13, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 5

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Since the Plaintiff had resided in the location of the farmland of this case since acquiring the farmland of this case on April 9, 1985 and actually cultivated the farmland of this case, it constitutes an exemption from capital gains tax on self-arable farmland pursuant to Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and thus, the special deduction for long-term holding should be applied.

2) The Plaintiff received the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of OBroter trading, which is a tide tank, but actually received the donation. Since the acquisition of the instant land by OB since 1948, the said OB was self-fashed, and thus, the sum of the cultivation periods of the immediately preceding decedent and the predecessor prior to the former decedent would be for more than eight years.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of capital gains tax shall be reduced or exempted on income accruing from the transfer of land directly cultivated by a resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree who resides in the seat of such land for not less than eight years, and Article 66(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree who resides in the seat of such land" means a person who has cultivated while residing in the area of Si/Gun/Gu in which the farmland is located, or in the area of Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto, or in the area within

Meanwhile, Articles 95(1) and 104-3(1)1 of the Income Tax Act provide that the owner of farmland shall be excluded from special deduction for long-term holding, while defining farmland which is not located in the location of farmland or which is not cultivated by himself/herself for a period prescribed by Presidential Decree during the period for which the owner owns the land. According to Articles 168-6 and 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, farmland excluded from non-business land refers to farmland, the owner of which is registered as a resident in the area of the Si/Gun/Gu or the area within the Si/Gun adjacent thereto, or the area within the Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto, or the farmland, the owner of which is registered as a resident and whose de facto resident is within a 20-day straight line from the farmland, for a period exceeding 20/100 of the ownership period,

In addition, as seen above, the person liable for tax payment shall bear the burden of proof on the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances to the effect that the person who resides in the location of the farmland and directly cultivates the farmland.

From April 1, 1985 to October 6, 201, the plaintiff acquired the farmland of this case, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the plaintiff was located in the place of residence with the OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, while considering the overall purport of evidence No. 5-2, No. 2, No. 4, No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, and each of the statements and arguments stated in the evidence No. 5-2, No. 1994 to 1, 201, it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff again purchased the farmland of this case for a period exceeding 5-year from the 5-year period to 5-year period to 5-year, No. 5-year period to 8-year period to 1, 201, No. 5-year period to 1, No. 5-year period to 4, No.

2) The Plaintiff’s assertion in this part, based on the following facts, is difficult to acknowledge that the Plaintiff received a gift not to sell or purchase the farmland of this case, unlike the entry on the registry, from OB, which is a protocol, or directly cultivated by OB, unlike the entry of No. 10-1, No. 2, and No. 11-1, No. 11-4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Furthermore, according to Article 66(11) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the Plaintiff’s assertion in this part, based on the premise that the Plaintiff may add up the cultivated period in the case

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.