early 2010 Heavy2117 ( October 16, 2015)

Since the feasibility of forest trees is not recognized, the transfer of forest trees is subject to transfer income tax.

It is reasonable to view that the forest trees are not transferred in the course of operating the forestry as a business, but only those fixtures are transferred as a constituent part of the land following the transfer of forest land. Therefore, the disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for correction by calculating the transfer income tax based on the total transfer value of forest land

Article 19(1) of the former Income Tax Act; Article 94(1) of the former Income Tax Act;

Article 51 (8) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

2011Guhap133 Revocation of Disposition rejecting an application for rectification of capital gains tax

HongA

○ Head of tax office

May 26, 201

June 30, 201

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's refusal to apply for rectification of capital gains tax against the plaintiff on February 13, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 28, 2007, the Plaintiff transferred 27,273/27,274 shares in the forest of this case to KRW 500 million, KRW 4,959 shares in the forest of this case in KRW 30 million, KRW 27,273,612 shares in KRW 27,273 of the forest of this case in KRW 121-1,273 (hereinafter “the forest of this case”), around November 30, 2007, around November 30, 2007, KRW 27,273,612 shares in the forest of this case in KRW 40 million, and KRW 27,273,438,4350,000,000 among the forest of this case in KRW 450,000,000,000.

B. On October 31, 2007, the Plaintiff reported and paid capital gains tax amounting to KRW 228,254,669 based on the actual transaction value as KRW 1,650,00,00, and the acquisition value as KRW 589,641,508, which is converted acquisition value.

C. On December 2, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction by asserting that income from the transfer of forest land among income from the transfer of forest land in this case is capital gains, and income from the transfer of forest land is in excess of KRW 208,887,50, and that income from the transfer of forest was paid in excess of KRW 208,887,50 of capital gains tax under Article 51(8) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, but the Defendant rejected the request on February 18, 2009.

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 8, 2009, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on July 29, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 12 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

At the time of transferring the forest land of this case, the Plaintiff entered the forest land of this case into the total amount of the forest land of this case without having separately stipulated the value of the forest trees in the transfer contract at the time of transferring the forest land of this case (hereinafter “the forest trees of this case”). The forest trees of this case were afforested for not less than 30 years by consisting of the forest trees of this case, etc., and the Plaintiff’s growing of the forest trees of this case constitutes a growing business among the forestry of this case under the Korean Standard Industrial Classification and the income acquired by the Plaintiff by transferring the forest trees of this case constitutes business income. Therefore, the part of the income accruing from the transfer of the forest land of this case among the above transfer income is subject to transfer income, and the part arising from the transfer of the forest trees should be subject to separate taxation as business income, but

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) According to Articles 19(1)1 and 94(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same), income accrued from forestry constitutes income subject to global income tax, and income accrued therefrom unless land is transferred in real estate sales business, etc. In this regard, Article 51(8) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that where calculating the income amount of business cutting down or transferring the forest trees, where the forest trees are transferred along with the forest land, income accrued from the transfer of the forest land shall not be included in calculating the total income amount. The contents of the relevant provisions and the "business" in ordinary is continuously and repeatedly conducted in an independent position for profit-making purposes, and thus, it is reasonable to recognize the transfer of the forest land as income subject to global income tax by considering Article 18(1)4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act as a comprehensive taxation.

2) According to the evidence evidence Nos. 3 and 4 in the instant case, each sales contract for the forest of this case prepared between the Plaintiff and a corporation AA does not contain any content as to trees on its ground. According to the above circumstances, the above contracting party cannot be deemed to have taken the forest of this case as a separate object of transaction. Moreover, even according to the statement Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the forest of this case was made on May 20, 1978. The Plaintiff’s disposal of the forest of this case was limited to the fact that the forest of this case was afforested as fuel forests around 1962, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff directly tried to manage and separate trees, or registered the forest business, or that the forest of this case was made with the method of registration or request for correction as to the forest of this case. In full view of the above circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the forest of this case was the entire forest of this case, not the forest of this case that the Plaintiff was transferred as a forest of this case.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as there is no ground.