Examination transfer 2008-0090

Appropriateness of the assertion that a person with wage and salary income cultivated mixed crops away from his family;

Unlike the place of residence of family members located in the original distance, it is difficult to recognize that they resided in the location of land and cultivated land by social norms. Since they continuously live with wage and salary income earners, they cannot be deemed to have been engaged in cultivating crops or engaged in at least 1/2 of the farming with their own labor.

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

Article 69 (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

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 38,973,470 for the Plaintiff on April 1, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 8, 1997, the Plaintiff acquired 932 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from ○○○-dong, Incheon, 436,000,000 won, but transferred the instant land to the Korea Land Corporation on December 24, 2006.

B. On February 28, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an application for tax reduction or exemption pursuant to the provisions of Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, on the premise that he/she directly cultivated the instant land for at least eight years when filing a preliminary return on the capital gains tax for the year 2006 following the transfer of the instant land.

C. However, on April 1, 2008, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to correct and notify the Plaintiff of the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 38,973,470 for the year 2006, on the ground that the instant land cannot be deemed as farmland directly cultivated for at least eight years, and thus does not fall under the requirements for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole and part

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was registered as 434 resident in Incheon ○○-dong, Incheon ○○-dong, 434, which is the location of the land of this case, and actually resided in the above area and cultivated the land of this case directly, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition

(b) Related statutes;

Article 69 (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

C. Determination

The principle of strict interpretation derived from the principle of no taxation without law is applicable not only to the cases falling under the taxation requirements, but also to the cases falling under the requirements for non-taxation and tax reduction and exemption. As such, the expanded interpretation or analogical interpretation of the requirements for non-taxation and tax exemption and exemption as favorable to taxpayers without any justifiable reason is not permitted since it causes a result contrary to the principle of fair taxation, which is the basic ideology of the tax law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19163, May 25, 2006). The claimant of farmland is liable to prove the fact of self-taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1893, Jul.

As to the instant case, each of the evidence Nos. 5 through 9 and No. 14 is indicated as evidence that corresponds to the fact that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land for not less than eight years.

However, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff’s wife and children resided in the area of the instant land from around 1992 to ○○dong, Incheon, while living in the area of the instant land. Since from around 1997 to 197, the Plaintiff worked as a company at ○○ Steel Co.,, Ltd. located in ○○○, Gyeonggi-do, Incheon, and ○○○○○○ Co.,, Ltd. located in ○○○○○○○, located in ○○○○○, located in ○○○, located in ○○○, located in ○○○, located in ○○, Incheon, and located in ○○○, located in ○○○, located in ○○, and located in ○○, located in ○○, and ○○, located in ○○, and 7-2, and 8, which are recognized by the overall purport of the argument as follows. In full view of all circumstances, it is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land for at least eight years, and there is no reason to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s land.

Conclusion

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