Suwon District Court-2017-Gu Group-6827 (O. 20, 2017)

Whether Article 66 Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, newly established, is a petition-oriented legislation

Article 66 (14) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which was newly established, does not violate the principle of statutory reservation, the principle of retroactive taxation, the principle of equality, and the principle of trust protection.

Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation

Seoul High Court 2017Nu73213 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Capital Gains Tax

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

January 10, 2018

January 24, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's reasoning is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for amendments as set forth in paragraph (2) below. Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Revised parts

○ 4 pages 4 are as follows.

However, it is not desirable to suppress such preferential measures against the principle of tax equality as much as possible, and to expand the scope of the financial resources of the State or local governments. Therefore, in particular, if it is necessary to achieve the policy goals, the requirements of the person receiving the benefit of tax exemption should be strict and exceptionally permitted within the extremely limited scope.

From 4th to 18th parallels are as follows:

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act explicitly limits the land prescribed by Presidential Decree among "land cultivated by the residents prescribed by Presidential Decree for not less than eight years," which is the land directly cultivated by such methods as prescribed by Presidential Decree, and delegates individual exemption to the extent of such limit. Considering the legislative purpose of the above provision for protection of and support for agriculture and the limited scope of preferential measures for tax reduction and exemption from capital gains tax under the above provision, it can be predicted that the provision that is exempted from capital gains tax under Presidential Decree shall be limited only to cases where the necessity of land policies is met for not less than eight consecutive years. The key issue of this case is that if the total amount of salaries is 37 million won or more, it is excluded from the period of cultivation. ① It is reasonable to determine that the above provision of this case is not sufficient to meet the requirements for tax exemption for 8 years or more, and it appears to be the purport of Article 69 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, ② it appears that the person who ordinarily engages in the cultivation or cultivation of farmland for not less than 2 years is 3 years or more than 7 years of cultivation.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.