The early 2014 middle 1733

The burden of proof on the fact that he resided and cultivated directly in the location of the farmland exists to the plaintiff, and it is difficult to view that he cultivated directly in light of the details of the plaintiff

The burden of proof on the fact that he resided and cultivated directly in the location of the farmland exists to the plaintiff, and it is difficult to view that he cultivated directly in light of the details of the plaintiff

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

2015Gudan565 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Maap○

○ Head of tax office

October 30, 2015

December 11, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 213,864,850 for the Plaintiff on January 31, 2014 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2012. 6. 28. ○○시 ○○읍 ○○리 ○○○-○○ 잡종지 1,838㎡ 외 4필지를 아들 윤▲▲에게 부담부증여를 한 뒤, 증여한 5필지에 관한 양도소득세 신고를 하면서 그 중 위 ○○○-○○에서 주택부지 101.48㎡를 제외한 나머지 1,736.52㎡ 및 같은 리 ○○○-△△잡종지 1,144㎡, 같은 리 ○○○-□□ 임야 2,500㎡ 합계 5,380.52㎡(이하 '이 사건 토지'라 한다)에 대하여 원고가 8년 이상 자경한 농지에 해당한다는 이유로 양도소득세 186,504,630원을 감면세액으로 하여 신고하였다.

B. On January 2, 2014, the Defendant denied the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the ground that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant land for at least eight years after conducting an on-site investigation on the instant land, and issued the instant disposition to correct and notify the transfer income tax of KRW 213,864,850 (including additional tax) for the year 2012.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on November 26, 2014.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s possession of the instant land was engaged in agriculture only for about 28 years and nine months at the same location while residing in the same area. The farmland ledger was established on December 1, 1990, the Plaintiff’s farmland ledger was installed on the instant land and continued to use electricity thereafter on February 1, 1990, the Plaintiff joined the ○○ Cooperative on December 31, 1970, the details of agricultural materials purchased from the Agricultural Cooperative from around 208 to around 2012, the Plaintiff engaged in agriculture other than the Plaintiff’s operation of reading rooms for about 6 years from around 1994 to around 200, while engaging in the two-way businesses from around 1969 to around 194, and thus, the instant land constitutes an exemption from capital gains tax on self-farmland under Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

B. Determination

Article 69 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of the transfer income tax shall be reduced for the income accruing from the transfer of land directly cultivated by a resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree who resides in the location of such land for not less than eight years, which is prescribed by the Presidential Decree. As to the fact that such income falls under the category of "a person who resides in the location of such land and directly cultivates", the taxpayer

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had cultivated the instant land directly for not less than 8 years only with the descriptions of gyptos, Gap evidence Nos. 8 through 20 (including paper numbers), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, it is difficult to view that ○○○○-△△△△△△, etc. was registered in the farmland ledger on August 24, 2009, and the overall purport of each statement and pleading of ○○○○○-△△△△△△△, etc., as follows: (a) even if the Plaintiff purchased agricultural materials from the agricultural cooperative or used agricultural electricity, it is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land; and (b) it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff used the agricultural materials for cultivating the instant land. Moreover, even if the farmland ledger was prepared on December 1, 1990, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff was registered in the farmland ledger on August 24, 2009 for the first time with respect to ○○○○○-△△○○○○○○-△△△△△△△△△○, etc., and was not registered in the farmland ledger on the said land by the date on which the Plaintiff transferred, which was combined with the property tax on the said land; and (c) based on its content, the Plaintiff’s land category and status of 1 to 94.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.