early 2011west 1921 (No. 22, 2011)

Transfer

Dismissal

Considering the details of earned income of a claimant and the frequency of entry into and departure from Korea, it is difficult to recognize that the land at issue has been cultivated directly for at least eight years.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act / Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

The appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of disposition;

A. On February 15, 2001, the petitioner transferred the OOOO-O 1,066 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “influence land”) acquired on October 6, 2009 to 300 million won, and filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on one’s own land for not less than eight years under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

B. On February 8, 2011, the disposition authority issued a notice of correction and notification of capital gains tax of KRW 68,449,530 to the claimant for the year 2009, by deeming that the claimant has not cultivated the land directly.

C. On May 9, 2011, the appellant appealed for a trial.

2. Opinions of the claimant and disposition agency;

A. The claimant's assertion

The claimant acquired the issues of land located in the natural green belt and development restriction zone for the purpose of cultivation not speculation but for the purpose of cultivation in 2001, and the local farmer's dry field was directly cultivated by the claimant, and the claimant was at the present place of residence located 7 km away from 2004 for the child education in 2004. The claimant is the shareholder and executive of the OOOOOO, and has earned income. However, this is paid as compensation for miscellaneous activities, such as cleaning and heart oil, etc. in the name of the claimant in January 2009. In order to arrange the students of the Chinese school located in China, the applicant made business registration several times a year in order to arrange the students of the Chinese school, but there was no business feasibility (the reported amount of income in 209) and the applicant was closed on October 2, 2009, and the applicant did not have difficulty in driving the machinery and farming, and even if the applicant did not have difficulty in maintaining the farmland and the farmland ledger, the disposition of reduction and exemption should be revoked.

(b) Opinions of disposition agencies;

The claimant is confirmed to have been in charge of the business as an investment officer (25%) of East OOO, a dynamic chain company, and continuously generated income in 198 through 2009, and overseas departure (4 days per year average of 5 times per year) over 46 times during the period of possession of the land at issue. 600,000 won per year was paid to a series of farming corporations for entrustment of farming, such as dry field, dry field, electric wave, etc., and it is difficult for the claimant to view that he directly cultivated the land at issue for at least eight years, due to the fact that he/she had been in charge of studying mediation since 200.

3. Hearing and determination

(a) Points in dispute;

Whether the claimant has cultivated the disputed land directly for at least eight years;

(b) Related statutes;

(1) The tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of the transfer income tax shall be reduced for the income accruing from the transfer of the land prescribed by the Presidential Decree among the land which is subject to the taxation of agricultural income tax (including the objects of non-taxation, reduction and exemption, and small collection) and is cultivated directly by the resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree residing in the location of the farmland (general title omitted) for not less than eight years (8 years).

(2) The term “resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree who resides in the location of farmland” in the main sentence of Article 69(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act refers to a person who has cultivated while residing in any of the following areas (including the area corresponding to the relevant area at the time of commencement of cultivation, but does not fall under it due to reorganization of administrative area) for at least eight years:

1. An area within a Si/Gun/Gu (referring to an autonomous Gu; hereafter the same shall apply in this paragraph) where farmland is located;

2. An area within a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to an area referred to in subparagraph 1.

3. An area within 20 kilometers in a straight line from the farmland concerned.

(4) The term "land prescribed by Presidential Decree" in the main sentence of Article 69 (1) of the Act means the farmland that has been cultivated by himself for not less than eight years from the time of acquisition to the time of transfer, excluding any of the following subparagraphs:

(5) The farmland subject to paragraph (4) shall be based on the farmland as of the date of transfer under Article 162 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act: Provided, That where a purchaser is under the change of form and quality, construction commencement, etc. in accordance with the terms and conditions of a sales contract prior to the date of transfer, it shall be based on the farmland as of the date of the sales contract, where the relevant farmland has been designated as a land scheduled for replotting other than farmland before the date of disposition of replotting, and where it has become impossible to cultivate

(13) For the purpose of Article 69 (1) of the Act, the term “direct cultivation” means that a resident is engaged in cultivating the crops or growing perennial plants on his own farmland at all times, or cultivating or cultivating 1/2 or more of the farming works with his own labor.

C. Facts and determination

(1)The contents appearing in the taxation data of the disposition authority are as follows:

(A) The claimant (1959 students, women) is currently residing with one or more young children, and is residing in the OOO OO OO O OO O OO OO OO OOOdong during the period of September 7, 200 through February 20, 204.

(B) The claimant is a director of OOO 614-1, a manufacturer of OOO 614-1, who owns 2,500 shares of 10,000 shares of 10,000 shares (5,00 shares per share). The amount of earned income is as follows. The claimant called OOO OO OO at the disposition agency, who is in charge of the business and is in charge of the business to leave OO OO OO O, and the claimant is in charge of the director oO O O, who is in call with the claimant, and there is no time for the company to take part in translation or business affairs.

Revenue amount of the applicant’s annual earned income.

(unit:,000 won)

The amount of income for the year's earned income for the year's earned income shall be 19810, 16020421, 35019924, 06020531, 41020016, 51520630, 612018, 33020750, 43020218, 8020848, 24020319, 1200943,200943,2000

(C) On January 23, 2009, the petitioner had been engaged in the study arrangement business abroad (29 million won in business revenue in 2009) with the trade name "OOOOO-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO" from January 1, 2001 to 56 times.

(d) The real estate transactions and the current status of the applicant are as follows:

From among the possession on December 18, 1985, 1985.7.7.26, 1985, OO-O-O201㎡ on December 1, 2006, 203, OOO-O2000 O-O2500, Gyeonggi-do 2000 O-2500000000000, Seoul O20000000,00000,0000,000 within 2000,0000,0000,000,000: (a) 200,000,000,000,000; (b) 20,0000,000,0000,000,000; (c) 20,0000,000,0000; and (d) 20,000,000;

(2) 청구인은 쟁점토지를 8년 이상 직접경작하였음을 주장하며 쟁점토지의 농지원부, 농자재 구입영수증(OOOOO OOO OO동에 소재한 주식회사 OOOOO에서 2008.4.20. 배추·열무·시금치 씨앗 144,000원, 2008.4.15. 퇴비 105,000원, 2008.4.13. 복합비료 136,000원, 2009년 1월～9월 OO농협에서 그래뉼요소 54,8000원 구입), OOO영농조합법인의 위탁영농 경작확인서(OOO OOO OO동에 소재한 OOO영농조합법인 대표강OO가 농기계를 이용하여 논갈이, 파종,비닐씌우기 작업을 하였고, 청구인이 퇴비, 잡초제거, 수확 등을 하였음),OOO영농조합법인 대표 강OO의 위탁 영농 경작확인서(쟁점토지의연간 위탁비용 60만원), 강OO 및 농지관리위원 등 3인의 확인서, 재산세 물건별 세액계산서 등을 제시하였다.

(3) The claimant did not work full time at the OOOO, but did not work for cleaning, employees, the president’s own meal, and the president’s personal heart and office supplies purchase, etc. However, the petitioner visited the local relatives of China about an average of 5 times a year and 4 days a year, and got out of Korea more than 1. However, the petitioner visited the local relatives of China, and transferred to the president of OOOOOOO, he did not go to cultivate the key land of 300 square meters where the president registered the business in the name of the claimant and started the business. The certificate of farming cultivation prepared by the OOOO, the representative of OOOO farming corporation, was not issued on the consignment of the farmer itself, and the total amount of the fee receipts for the use of machinery was not entrusted and paid.

(4) The claimant was 25% shareholder of OOOO in the major land holding period (25% from February 15, 2001 to October 6, 2009) and the claimant responded that he continued to have earned income since 1998 and that the claimant is in charge of directors and has been in charge of translation and business, etc. from January 1, 2001 to the 56th day, and the applicant was registered as an study brokerage business operator in 2009, so it is difficult to recognize that the claimant directly cultivated the key land.

Therefore, it is judged that the disposition imposing capital gains tax on the applicant is not erroneous because the disposition agency excluded the application for reduction of self-farmland.

4. Conclusion

This case shall be decided as ordered in accordance with Articles 81 and 65 (1) 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, because the petition for a trial has no merit as a result of the trial.