National Tax Service Review and Transfer 2010-0218 ( November 12, 2010)

land for non-business use because it is difficult to recognize the fact of self-reliance;

In light of the fact that he/she works for the company for the period of holding the land and obtains a lot of business income, and that he/she does not submit all materials selling harvested material even though harvested material was produced to the extent that he/she can not dispose of only by consumption due to large scale of farmland, etc., it constitutes land for non-

2011Revocation of disposition of revocation of imposition of capital gains tax, etc.

XX Kim

Head of Pyeongtaek Tax Office

September 29, 2011

October 6, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing capital gains tax of KRW 47,676,482 on the Plaintiff on January 5, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 7, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired a 00 m2,785 m2, Si-Do-si Do-do 00 m2, on August 23, 2004, and owned the said land in 00 m24 m2, 768 m24 m2, 00 m2, 00-0 m2, 983 m2, 00 m20 m2, 00 m2, 00 m24 m2, 00 m24 m2, and 983 m2,00 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,00 m2,000 m2,00 m2,007.

B. On January 5, 2010, the Defendant: (a) calculated gains on transfer by deeming the acquisition value of the instant land as KRW 150,931,174, the conversion acquisition value of the instant land as the conversion acquisition value; and (b) applied the tax rate of 60% to the land for non-business purposes; and (c) imposed capital gains tax of KRW 179,182,730 on the land for non-business years 207.

C. On April 8, 2010, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an objection against the Defendant. On June 9, 2010, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the actual acquisition value of the instant land was KRW 339,643,00; and (b) determined to reduce KRW 47,676,482 calculated by subtracting KRW 131,506,248 from the capital gains tax amount initially imposed upon the Plaintiff’s partial acceptance of the Plaintiff’s objection at KRW 179,182,730, less the said capital gains tax amount initially imposed (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On July 30, 2010, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, but the said request was dismissed on November 12, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 7, 8, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff did not own the instant land during the retention period, the transfer income tax rate should be applied, not the heavy tax rate, but the general tax rate.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

According to Article 104-3 (1) 1 (a) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8825 of Dec. 31, 2007) and Articles 168-6 (2) and 168-8 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20618 of Feb. 22, 2008), the pertinent land for non-business use shall be the pertinent land unless the Plaintiff re-owned the instant land for at least one year from July 7, 2004 to Oct. 25, 2007 for at least one year from the three years immediately preceding the date of transfer (i.e., 1,206 days) and for at least 80/100 of the period of ownership of the said land (=1,206 days x80/100 of 206).

Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 8 and Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 5 (including various numbers), the plaintiff was born in 1973 and was registered as a member of the KimCC's member before the date of acquisition of the land in this case until the date of transfer. The plaintiff worked in the U.O.C. for the main purpose of development and research of software from 200 to 2003, the plaintiff worked in the 2007, the representative director of the plaintiff's office for 00 square meters (including 300,000,000 won, 30,000,000,000 won, 70,000,000,000 won, 70,000,000 won, 70,000,000 won, and 9,000,000 won, 7,000,000 won, and 7,000,00.

As can be seen from the above facts, even if the plaintiff had resided in the seat of the land, and had a place of work close to the seat of the land in this case, in light of the fact that the plaintiff worked in △△ Real Estate Consulting Co., Ltd. while earning business income from OOC, etc. during the holding period of the land in this case, it appears that the plaintiff's livelihood appears to have been maintained by non-agricultural means. ② The plaintiff owned a dry field of 4,900 square meters in total in the farmland ledger, and it appears that the plaintiff did not own a dry field of 4,900 square meters in the farmland ledger, and if the plaintiff had a farming house in large size, it is difficult to submit materials selling harvested to another place to the extent that the plaintiff could not deal with it only with it, and it is difficult to view that the plaintiff's new site of this case was in violation of Gap evidence No. 7-1 to 3, 2006 and that the plaintiff did not own the above land for 10 years or more, and it is also difficult to see that the plaintiff's new site of this case.

Therefore, the instant disposition that applied the heavy taxation rate of capital gains tax on the land for non-business use is lawful, considering the land of this case as land.

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.