Cho-2015-Divisions-5349 ( October 27, 2016)

It is not confirmed that the form of self-satis

It is difficult to view the shape of agricultural products, which is removed from a building and put in rubber only on the one hand, and is not managed at a corner of land.

The reduction or exemption of transfer income tax for self-Cultivating farmland under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and the reduction or exemption of transfer income tax for self-Cultivating farmland under Article 66 of the

2016Guhap21672 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

literatureA

BB Director of the Tax Office

November 11, 2016

November 25, 2016

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 capital gains tax for the Plaintiff in August 6, 2015 shall be revoked by 103,233, and the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax for the Plaintiff in 2013.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 30, 1997, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”). On December 6, 2013, the Plaintiff sold the instant land to FFF Co., Ltd. and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 17, 2013.

B. On February 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a return on capital gains tax by reducing the tax amount to be voluntarily paid pursuant to 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 is a self-owned farmland for at least eight years.”

C. As a result of on-site inspection, the Defendant denied the tax amount reduced or exempted by deeming that the Plaintiff did not cultivate the instant land for at least eight (8) years, and on August 6, 2015, the Defendant corrected and notified the capital gains tax for the year 2013 and the capital gains tax for the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On October 22, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. On January 27, 2016, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to re-examine whether to directly cultivate for at least eight years and to correct the tax base and tax amount according to the results thereof.

E. From February 16, 2016 to February 24, 2016, the Defendant rendered a field investigation and decided that the instant disposition is appropriate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1 (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

The Plaintiff, from the date of acquiring the instant land on June 30, 1997 to December 17, 2013, which was the date of the transfer of the instant land, has been infinitely cultivated the instant land without any temporary cultivation during the middle period, but for at least eight years, it was unlawful to make the instant disposition on a different premise.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that a tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of capital gains tax shall be reduced or exempted on income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by Presidential Decree, among land cultivated by a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree residing in the seat of farmland for at least eight years by means prescribed by Presidential Decree. The burden of proof for such reduction or exemption requirements is the person liable to pay 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 the whole purport of pleadings to the health stand, the evidence as seen earlier, and evidence as evidence Nos. 6 through 11, 13, and evidence Nos. 2 through 7 as to the instant case, the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land for not less than eight years, or that the instant land was farmland at the time of the transfer date, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is lawful, and therefore,

① According to the facts that the Plaintiff cultivated directly on the instant land from 1999 and 2003 to 2008, there is no dispute between the parties, or there is evidence Nos. 13-3, evidence Nos. 13-7 through 12, evidence Nos. 13-3, and evidence Nos. 2-7 through 13, and evidence Nos. 2-7 through 13, the Plaintiff’s land at the time appears to have been parked on Apr. 26, 200 as to whether it was cultivated in 200, health expenses, and evidence Nos. 13-4, 200 and 2-4, and it appears to have been removed from the above land No. 201 to 208 (No. 3, 2013). Meanwhile, according to the above evidence No. 201, it appears to have been removed from the above land No. 21455, Mar. 21, 2014.

② Meanwhile, even based on the distance interview (No. 3) taken on the portal site (DAUM, NAV) around February 2010, around June 2010, and around January 2013, the land of this case does not appear only in the shape of a building, building material, waste, miscellaneous material, or miscellaneous material, but also in the shape of a crop.

③ The confirmation document submitted by the Plaintiff is merely a third party’s confirmation letter to the effect that the Plaintiff’s cultivation is abstractly confirmed, and it is difficult to believe the content thereof, unless specific evidence related to the period actually cultivated by the Plaintiff is supported.

④ The Plaintiff submitted the usage of credit cards (Evidence A No. 11) to purchase seeds, fertilizers, etc. necessary for cultivation. However, the Plaintiff cultivated crops in a garden with a size similar to the land of this case in front of the dwelling place. It is insufficient to recognize that the above purchase goods were used for cultivating the land of this case on the sole basis of the usage of the credit cards.

⑤ Also, it was supplied to a nearby restaurant operated by a relative with respect to the place of use of harvested vegetables, etc. from the land of this case, and no evidence related thereto was submitted.

6) The ParkJ, the representative of FFF, the first Defendant’s investigator who purchased the instant land, stated that there was any rubber and building for the purpose of cutting down the instant land, but there was no agricultural crops on the site at the time of the acquisition of the instant land, and then reversed the statement that there was no crops thereafter. The credibility of the statement is insufficient, and the seller stated that the special terms and conditions on the sales contract between the Plaintiff and FFF on December 6, 2013 between the Plaintiff and the FFF on the sale and purchase of the instant land stipulate that “the seller shall clean and order all of the above-mentioned things (container boxes, sled fish, etc.) to clean up,” and there is no special agreement related to agricultural products.

3. Conclusion

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