Review Transfer 2009-0160 (Law No. 23, 2009)

Appropriateness of the assertion that land for non-business use is not land due to its own village

It is difficult to see that the farmland ledger was prepared on the date of land transfer and the other documents submitted alone were re-developed.

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 23,743,650 on the Plaintiff on February 2, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 16, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired and owned a 6,406 square meters of all eight parcels, including the ABB Eup BB-gun, Incheon, BB-Gun, and 738-5, and transferred the 660 square meters of all the above land to ChoCC on September 27, 2007 and reported the transfer income tax on January 31, 2008, the Plaintiff voluntarily paid KRW 117,000,000, acquisition value of KRW 50,000,000, and the tax base of KRW 32,60,000,000, by applying the general tax rate for private land among the above land.

B. The Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff did not reside in the location of the instant land for a certain period; and (b) deemed that the instant land was not cultivated directly, and determined as non-business land under Article 104-3(1) of the Income Tax Act; and (c) imposed a disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 23,743,650 on the Plaintiff in February 2, 2009 (hereinafter “non-business disposition”).

[Reasons for Stabilization] Facts without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1

2. The plaintiff's assertion

From April 17, 2004, the Plaintiff resided in Incheon BBB Eup**99-1 Na 101, 2006, and has been residing in Incheon BBGun BB Eup from January 5, 2006 to 345 BB house operation 301.

The Plaintiff cultivated the Go-gu horse directly from the instant land and donated Go-gu 300 km to the Social Welfare Foundation BB military food banks.

Therefore, the disposition of this case by deeming the land of this case as the land for non-business use is unlawful because the plaintiff's residence did not recognize the fact of direct cultivation.

3. Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Determination

In this long-term issue, we examine whether the Plaintiff re-establisheds or re-satisfed with respect to the instant land.

In case of transfer of non-business land under Article 104-3 of the Income Tax Act, the rate of capital gains tax shall be high. Whether it falls under the non-business land for which the tax authority has to prove it generally because it falls under the trial of taxation requirements. However, since the Income Tax Act widely prescribes non-business land, the relevant requirements function as grounds for reduction compared to the non-business land. In the case of farmland, the criteria for whether it falls under the non-business land are the non-business land are the non-business land. It is difficult to prove that the taxpayer can easily prove it as the matters belonging to the taxpayer's territory, and it is difficult for the tax authority to prove that the taxpayer is "non-resident and non-resident's non-resident's non-resident's non-resident's non-resident's non-resident's non-resident's non-resident's non-resident's non-resident's non-resident's non-resident's non-resident.

Although the plaintiff cultivated spawals on the land of this case, the farmland ledger was also prepared on September 12, 2007, which was pressured on the transfer date of the land of this case, and the entry of Gap evidence No. 9 alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff's re-village and self-spawals were self-spawals. Thus, the plaintiff's re-village and self-spawals cannot be recognized. Thus, without recognizing the plaintiff's re-village and self-spawals, the disposition of this case was

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.