Seoul High-2015-84 (2016.07.07)

Farmland at the time of transfer is not subject to reduction

At the time of the transfer of the instant land, it is difficult to acknowledge that the Plaintiff cultivated mushrooms within the building on the instant land at the time of the transfer of the instant land, or there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the instant land was farmland.

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

Suwon District Court 2016Gudan2100 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Capital Gains Tax

MaO

O Head of tax office

December 09, 2016

201.01.20

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 35,487,427 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on June 15, 2015 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 28, 2011, the Plaintiff, which acquired on February 19, 1992, transferred the total amount of 3,729 square meters to BB, who is the Plaintiff’s punishment, on November 28, 2011. The Plaintiff reported on December 2, 2013, on the ground that the instant land falls under one of the self-farmland requirements for at least eight years, on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff did not report the transfer income tax on it at the time; and (b) the Plaintiff reported the full reduction of transfer income tax on the ground that the instant land falls under one of the self-farmland requirements

B. As to this, the Defendant denied the reduction or exemption of self-arable farmland as to the instant land on the ground that the instant land is not farmland at the time of transfer, among the said six parcels of land, the same 335 square meters prior to 00-0,000 and 160 square meters prior to 785-6,000 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”). On June 15, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition of this case, which decided and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer income tax of 35,487,427 (including additional tax) for the year 201.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for review with the Board of Audit and Inspection on July 7, 2016. [Grounds for recognition] written evidence No. 8 and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff newly constructed a mushroom growing case on November 18, 2009 on the instant land and had been growing mushroom from around April 2010, the instant disposition denying the reduction and exemption of self-owned farmland for the reason that the instant land does not constitute farmland at the time of its transfer is unlawful.

B. Determination

Article 69 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of transfer income tax shall be reduced for the income accruing from the transfer of land directly cultivated by the resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree who resides in the location of the farmland for not less than eight years, and as such, the taxpayer has the burden of proving that he has cultivated the farmland directly.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of each entry and pleading in Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 8 (including paper numbers), it is difficult to recognize that the registration of preservation of ownership was made on the land of this case, which was newly constructed around December 1, 2009 with respect to the general steel structure sandet No. 132 square meters of a building 132 square meters on the ground of this case, and that the registration of preservation of ownership was made on December 1, 2009, the plaintiff's punishment bbB future on the ground of 784-2 on August 10, 2006 to July 21, 2008, the plaintiff's wife was d headgg ground farm at the time of this case's cultivation, and it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff's ground of this case had no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff's ground of this case had been illegally cultivated on the 1st fiveth floor of this case's farmland within the 1st fiveth of July 2008, 2009.

3. Conclusion

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