Examination Transfer 2007-0219 (Law No. 8.30, 2008)

Whether the farmland was farmland in the state of temporary absence at the time of transfer

Since it is determined that the lessee has leased 2 greenhouses and their front and rears on the land and used them for the solid business, it cannot be viewed as farmland in the state of temporary closure as of the date of transfer.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 53,508,3601 against the Plaintiff on August 1, 2007 is revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 2, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred the land in the separate sheet acquired on January 19, 1979 to the Korea Land Corporation (acquisition through consultation for public land). On February 28, 2007, the Plaintiff reported the capital gains tax base and claimed that the said land constitutes farmland for at least eight years under Article 69-8 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and filed an application for reduction of capital gains tax on KRW 89,785,170 with the Defendant.

B. The Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax on August 1, 2007 by deeming that the land listed in the separate sheet was not farmland at the time of the above transfer date, but corrected and notified KRW 91,428,240 of capital gains tax in 2006 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an objection, and the Defendant, on November 2, 2007, deemed the land on November 2, 2007 as farmland for at least eight (8) years and corrected the said transfer income tax to KRW 68,055,560.

D. The Plaintiff filed a request for review with the National Tax Service again, and the National Tax Service determined that the land in the state of temporary closure as at the time of the transfer date falls under one of its own farmland for at least eight (8) years, among the land on February 4, 281 listed in the [Attachment List], the transfer income tax was reduced to KRW 53,508,360.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1-1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, from January 19, 1979, installed a plastic house on the key land and cultivated crops, and around June 12, 200, leased approximately KRW 198 square meters to Nonparty LA, and the Plaintiff continued to grow crops. However, the part on which the Plaintiff occupied the leased area in excess of the leased area at the time the land was transferred to the Korea Land Corporation. However, the Plaintiff occupied the leased area without permission in excess of the leased area at the time the land was transferred to the Korea Land Corporation. However, this part without permission was deemed to have been farmland as of the date of transfer because it was a temporary temporary holiday. Therefore, the part on the disposition imposing capital gains tax on the Defendant’s land at issue, which was 601.6 square meters (the part on which the Defendant excluded the area of 883 square meters, which is the area recognized as the temporary holiday, from the area of 883 square meters, which the Defendant recognized as the area of the land at issue, is unlawful, and thus, is subject to capital gains tax reduction or exemption.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) First, we examine the area leased by the largestA from the Plaintiff out of the controversial land.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 5 and Eul evidence Nos. 3-2, the following facts are acknowledged. ① On May 2, 2007, the key land at issue was a large plastic house 2 Dong (187.85m2 + 143.65m2) and one warehouse (93.8m2). On May 2, 2007, there was farmland in a resting area (281.4m2). On the rear of a plastic house, there was a lot of vehicles (281m2.4m2). On the front of a plastic house, there was a fence to support the waste he stored in the front of a plastic house. ② The National Tax Service’s decision on the instant disposition (transfer 2007-0219m2) by the National Tax Service on May 2, 2008, the maximum AA leased a plastic house to the National Tax Service’s staff member and a plastic house located in the front of a plastic house.

In light of the above facts and the fact that it is necessary for the maximum AA to carry on the water-based business, other than a vinyl house, to carry on the water-based business, the site for loading and unloading the solid water to the vehicle is also necessary, the fence of the plastic Marsh, 199, appears to have been installed before a considerable period of time, and it seems difficult to install such fence without the Plaintiff’s consent, which is the owner of the land at issue, and the telephone number of the largest AA entered in the decision of the National Tax Service in the decision of the National Tax Service corresponds to the actual phone number of the largestA. In light of the fact that from June 12, 2000, the maximum AA was used for the water-based business by leasing two plastic greenhouses and their front horses on the land at issue, and by using them for the water-based business. Accordingly, this part cannot

2) Of the issues in question, one warehouse (93.8 square meters) remains if the part leased by the LA and the part recognized as a closed land by the decision of the National Tax Service is excluded. However, as for the fact that it constitutes farmland subject to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax at the time of transfer, a taxpayer who claims reduction or exemption must prove that it constitutes farmland at the time of transfer, and there is no evidence to prove that the above warehouse site was farmland at the time of transfer.

3) Therefore, there is no part to recognize that the land at issue was farmland at the time of the transfer, if the Defendant excluded the part of 281.4 square meters which the Defendant recognized as a temporary holiday, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.