Whether capital gains tax is reduced or exempted in cases of idle land under the Land Excess Profit Tax Act.

In the case of idle land as of the date of transfer, capital gains tax reduction and exemption are excluded.

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. 2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition of the instant case;

갑제1 내지 9호증, 갑제10호증의 1내지 3의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고는 1990. 4. 23. 그의 소유이던 경기 ㅇㅇ군 ㅇㅇ읍 ㅇㅇ리 ㅇㅇ 전 1,666평방미터를 국민주택건설 등록업자인 소외 조ㅇㅇ, 문ㅇㅇ에게 금483,806,000원에 매도하고 같은해 7. 10. 그 대금을 모두 지급받은 다음, 조세감면규제법 제62조 제1항(1991. 12. 27. 법률 제4451호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 법 제62조 제1항이라고 한다)에 의하여 감면되는 금액을 공제한 양도소득세에 대하여 같은해 8. 25. 자산양도소득예정신고 및 자진납부를 하였으나, 피고는 조세감면규제법 제66조의 3(1989. 12. 30. 법률 제4165호로 신설되어 1990. 12. 31. 법률 제4285호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 법 제 66조의 3이라고 한다) 및 조세감면규제법 시행규칙 제20조의 6(1990. 4. 10. 재무부령 제1822호로 신설되어 1991. 3. 13. 재무부령 제1850호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 규칙 제20조의 6이라고 한다)에 따라 위 양도일 현재 토지초과이득세법 제8조 제1항 제5호 가목 소정의 농지에 해당하는 위 토지의 양도에 대하여는 양도소득세의 감면규정인 법 제62조 제1항이 적용되지 아니한다고 하면서 1991. 5. 18. 원고에 대하여 기준시가에 의하여 산출한 세액에서 원고가 자진납부한 금액을 공제한 청구취지 기재 금액의 양도소득세 및 방위세를 부과고지(이하 이사건 부과처분이라고 한다)한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

2. Whether the disposition of this case is lawful;

Article 66-3 of the Act provides that Article 62 (1) of the Act shall not apply to the land which is subject to the land excess profit tax under the provisions of the Land Excess profit Tax Act. Accordingly, the determination of whether it falls under the land corresponding thereto shall be based on the provisions of the Land Excess Gains Tax Act. Therefore, the determination of whether it falls under the idle land, etc. which is subject to the land excess profit tax under Article 8 of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act shall be based on the actual status as of the end of the taxable period of the land excess profit tax. However, Article 20-6 of the Rule provides that the determination shall be based on the date of transfer, which is the invalid rule in violation of the determination under Article 66-3 of the Act by the mother corporation, and therefore, Article 20-6 of the above Rule provides that the disposition of taxation against the plaintiff shall be unlawful.

The phrase "land which is subject to taxation of land excess profit tax under the provisions of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act" in Article 66-3 of the Act refers to the idle land, etc. as stipulated in Articles 8 and 9 of the Land Excess Gains Tax Act, but it cannot be said that the time of determination as to whether such provision constitutes idle land, etc. under the same Articles. Thus, the determination as to whether Article 20-6 of the Rule constitutes land subject to taxation of land excess profit tax under Article 66-3 of the Act shall be based on whether such land falls under idle land, etc. under the provisions of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act as of the date of transfer, and it shall not be deemed as a violation of Article 66-3 of the Act (Article 66-3 of the Act) and it shall not be deemed as a violation of Article 66-3 of the Act, so if it is difficult to prevent the use of such idle land, etc. and to exclude the application of the provision of the above Act to the above remaining land from the date of transfer under the provisions of Article 66-2 of the Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the premise that the disposition of this case is unlawful is dismissed without merit, and the costs of this case are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.