early 201J 3483 ( December 08, 2011)

A public official shall not be deemed to be a farmer because he/she is concurrently engaged in business.

However, in light of earned income and rent income, etc., it cannot be deemed that there is a justifiable reason that it is not a farming child but a non-performance of obligation to pay gift tax, on the ground that it is difficult to deem that a public official was engaged in farming and was concurrently engaged in the same business.

2012Guhap2611 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

CHAPTER A

Head of Central Tax Office

October 10, 2012

October 24, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing gift tax of KRW 000 (including additional tax) against the Plaintiff on July 1, 2011 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 27, 2007, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of donation on December 24, 2007, as to the 000 OO-dong 2,883 square meters (hereinafter “the farmland in this case”).

B. After that, the Plaintiff, as a farming child, received the farmland in this case from DoD, as a self-employed farmer, applied for reduction of or exemption from gift tax pursuant to Articles 71 and 133 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9272, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the ground that the Plaintiff received the farmland in this case from DoD, as a self-employed farmer, and the Defendant made a decision on reduction of or exemption from gift tax

C. However, the Defendant issued on July 1, 201 after checking the field for the post-management of farmland donated to farming children, and added KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for the gift tax accrued in 207, on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff, while working as a public official, was engaged in agriculture; and (b) the Plaintiff is not a farming child; and (c) the Plaintiff is not a farming child (hereinafter “instant

D. On September 29, 201, the Plaintiff filed a request for an inquiry with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on December 8, 2011.

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 11, and Eul evidence 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) On September 20, 1989, the Plaintiff was appointed as a public official from the date of donation of the farmland in this case, and served as a public official in AAA, and both the Plaintiff’s domicile and the Plaintiff’s youth training center are located at a distance of about 700 meters - 800 meters from the farmland in this case, so it was possible for the Plaintiff to grow in the farmland in this case for a certain period before or after the Plaintiff’s attendance. Since the five-day work system was completely implemented from July 2005, it was possible to grow in the farmland in this case not only Sundays but also Saturdays as well as Saturdays as a public official from the date of donation of the farmland in this case. Moreover, since MaD had already been 7 years old as of the date of donation of the farmland in this case, it was impossible to cultivate the farmland in this case, and since it did not fall under the premise that the Plaintiff could not be subject to restrictions on the production of trees in this case, it did not fall under the instant farmland, and since it did not fall under the said one-year work.

(2) During the period of time, employees in charge of Yangyang had conducted on-site verification of the farmland in this case, and judged that the Plaintiff’s application for reduction of gift tax was legitimate, and the Defendant rendered a decision on reduction of gift tax. However, the Defendant’s imposition of gift tax reduced or exempted by reversal of the original decision on reduction of gift tax was too harsh that the Defendant would transfer to the Plaintiff all responsibility for the original decision on reduction of and exemption from gift tax, and thus, the imposition of additional

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s first argument

(1) Contents of statutes and relevant legal principles

Article 71 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that if a resident who directly cultivates farmland while living in the seat of the farmland, etc. and directly cultivates such farmland, he/she shall be given tax reduction or exemption equivalent to 10/100 of the gift tax on the value of the farmland, etc. until December 31, 2011. Article 71 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20620, Feb. 22, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "the head of the Si/Gun/Gu shall be granted tax reduction or exemption to his/her lineal descendant prescribed by Presidential Decree who directly cultivates such farmland." Article 71 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "the head of the Si/Gun/Gu shall be granted tax reduction or exemption to the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, and that the head of the Si/Gun/Gu shall be granted tax reduction or exemption to the head of the Si/Gun/Gu."

(2) As to whether the Plaintiff constitutes a farming child under Article 71(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act

갑 제2호증 내지 갑 제4호증， 갑 제9호증의 1. 2 을 제2호증 을 제3호증의 각 기 재， 갑 제13호증의 영상， 증인 지RR의 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면 ① 원고 는 1994. 8. 2. AA시 OO동 269에 전입하여 거주하고 있고 장DD은 1973. 4. 20. 경기 시흥군 AA면 OO리 269(이후 행정구역이 AA시 OO동 269로 변경되었다)에 전입하여 거주하고 있으며， 이 사건 농지는 원고와 장DD의 주소지 인근에 위치하고 있는 사실，② 원고는 1989. 9. 20. AA시 공무원으로 임용되어 2006. 12. 1.부터 AA시 청소년수련관의 초대 관장으로 재직하고 있는데， 이 사건 농지는 AA시청과 AA시 청소년수련관의 소재지 인근에 위치하고 있는 사실，③ 원고는 1997. 3. 26. AA농업협동조합에 조합원으로 가입한 사실，④ 동안양세무서에서 근무하였던 지RR 등은 원고의 증여세 감면신청에 따라 이 사건 농지에 대한 현지확인조사를 하였는데， 지RR 등이 작성한 현지확인복명서에는 이 사건 농지에는 3년 - 4년 정도의 대추나무， 매 실나무 등이 식재되어 있고， 원고는 장DD의 외아들로서 AA시 공무원으로 임용된 이후에도 주말 등을 이용하여 틈틈이 부모의 농사를 도와주었다고 기재되어 있는 사실，⑤ 원고 명의의 농지원부에는 원고가 이 사건 농지를 과수재배를 위하여 자경하고 있다고 기재되어 있는 사실，⑥ 이 사건 농지의 소재지 농지위원이었던 김SS과 통장인 이TT은 원고가 어려서부터 부모의 농사를 도왔고， 현재도 부모를 봉양하면서 이 사건 농지를 직접 경작하고 있다는 취지의 사실확인서를 작성， 제출한 사실을 인정할 수 있다. 그러나 갑 제2호증， 갑 제3호증， 갑 제5호증， 갑 제6호증， 을 제5호증， 을 제8호증， 을 제9호증의 각 기재와 증인 지RR의 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들，ㄱ. 원고가 관장으로 재직하고 있는 AA시 청소년수련관은 2002. 문화복지타운추진단이 구성되면서 AA시 청소년수련관의 건립과 관련된 사업이 개시 되어 2003. 예산확보， 2004. 부지매입， 2005. 2. 기공식을 거쳐 2006. 12.경 개관하였고， 원고는 공무원으로 재직하면서 근로소득을 얻는 이외에 1996. 2. 26.부터 AA시 OO동 000 소재 상가건물을 임대하여 2007. 000원， 2008. 000원， 2009. 000원 정도의 임대수입을 올리는 등 AA시 청소년수련관이 개관되기 까지의 사업추진현황，공무원으로서의 원고의 근무경력， 원고의 근로소득과 임대수입 등에 비추어 보면 원고가 직접 영농에 종사하면서 공무원을 겸업한 것으로 보기는 어려운점，ㄴ. 원고 명의의 농지원부는 이 사건 농지의 증여일 이후인 2009. 10. 8. 최초로 작성되었고，한편 원고는 2008.부터 2010.까지 AA농업협동조합으로부터 비료를 무상으로 지원받았으며， 2009. 4. 4.부터 2011. 4. 9.까지 AA농업협동조합으로부터 000원 상당의 농자재를 구매하는 등 원고와 AA농업협동조합 사이의 거래는 이 사건 농지의 증여일 이후에 이루어진 점，ㄷ. 원고와 장DD이 이 사건 농지에 대추나무， 매실나무 등의 유실수를 언제 식재하였는 지와 원고가 이 사건 농지에서 어느 정도의 시간과 노력을 들여 어떤 작업을 하였는지를 확인할 수 있는 구체적이고 객관적인 자료가 부족한 점，ㄹ. 지RR 등은 현지확인조사 당시 원고와 장DD을 직접 만나지 않은 채 인근 주민들에 대한 탐문조사를 바탕으로 원고가 영농자녀에 해당한다고 판단 한 점，동안양세무서 소속 전QQ 등은 2011. 1. 14. 영농자녀 증여농지 감면 사후 관리를 위하여 이 사건 농지에 대한 현장확인을 하였는데，전QQ 등이 작성한 현장확인복명서에는 '원고가 이 사건 농지를 경작하고 있을 것'이라는 김SS의 추측성 진술이 기재되어 있는 점 등을 종합하면， 앞에서 인정한 사실만으로는 원고가 이 사건 농지에서 증여일부터 소급하여 3년 이상 계속하여 직접 영농에 종사하고 있었다는 점을 인정하기에 부족하고， 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

(3) Sub-determination

Therefore, the plaintiff's first argument is without merit.

D. Judgment on the second argument by the Plaintiff

Under the tax law, in order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a return, and tax payment, as prescribed by individual tax law, the taxpayer’s intentional or negligent negligence is not considered, while it is not unreasonable for the taxpayer to be unaware of his/her obligations, and where there are justifiable grounds for not being able to prove his/her failure to perform his/her obligations, such as where there are circumstances that justify the taxpayer or it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to expect the performance of his/her obligations, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu15404, Aug. 22, 1997). In this case, health expenses and RaR, etc. are based on an insufficient local investigation to determine that the application for reduction or exemption of gift taxes is legitimate, and the Plaintiff received an application for reduction or exemption of gift taxes by failing to meet the requirements prescribed by Article 71 of the former Act on Special Cases concerning Taxation, and even if considering the Plaintiff’s claims for exemption or exemption of gift taxes, the Plaintiff’s failure to perform his/her obligations cannot be justified.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.