2013 Sub-4599

Loans, interest expenses, and expenses incurred in the process of designing and applying for alteration of urban planning, which are incurred in acquiring access land, do not constitute capital expenditures.

"It is reasonable to view that interest on loans used to acquire an access road site, expenses disbursed in the course of designing and applying for alteration of urban planning and application, and interest thereon do not constitute capital expenditure under Article 163 (3) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, expenses disbursed for convenient use of the transferred asset under Article 163 (3) 3 and 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, or expenses equivalent thereto." (Contents of the judgment)

Article 97 of the Income Tax Act

2014Guhap1070 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Note AA

Head of Suwon Tax Office

October 16, 2014

October 30, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition on March 21, 2013, the imposition of OOO(including additional taxes), including transfer income tax and special tax for rural development tax for the Plaintiff for the year 201, is revoked (the date of the disposition entered in the complaint, seems to be a clerical error).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 26, 1998, the Plaintiff acquired and possessed 18,803 square meters of O-dong O-dong O 62-1 forest as an auction. On June 1, 201, the said forest was divided into 62-1 forest land and 82-12 forest land and 10,000 square meters (the instant 1 land less than 62-12 forest land), and the instant 1 land was divided into 62-1 forest and 62-12 forest and 300 square meters (the instant 2 land after division was hereinafter referred to as “the instant 2 land”). The Plaintiff filed a request for a judgment on July 4, 201 with 30 O-si 20,000 (the instant 200,000 won) on the ground that the acquisition value and necessary expenses of the land were not deducted from the transfer value of the instant land, but the Plaintiff did not file a request for a judgment on 2100,000 O.

Facts without any dispute, Gap's 4, 6 evidence, Eul's 1 through 3 (including various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

“After acquiring the instant land 1 and 2 through auction, the Plaintiff filed an application for change of the plan to create urban planning facilities on the ground to build the sports facilities, such as a golf practice range, and during that process, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land 477-19 square meters and buildings on the ground for the purpose of using it as the access road to the instant land (hereinafter “instant 3 land”). Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful inasmuch as financial expenses (interest) for the borrowed OO for the purchase of access roads, ② the aggregate of expenses paid during the process of planning alteration and application (=the cost of applying for urban planning alteration + the cost of construction design + the cost of civil engineering design + the cost of construction design + the cost of OOOOOOO ＋ the cost of public announcement of the cost of newspapers + the financial expense of OOOO) and OOOO 2 on the instant land deemed necessary expenses for the instant land and not recognized as necessary expenses.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

Article 97 (1) 2 of the Income Tax Act provides that "capital expenses prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as capital expenses, shall be deducted from the transfer value when calculating gains on transfer of a resident." Article 163 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "capital expenses prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as capital expenses, mean those falling under any of the following subparagraphs" and "capital expenses calculated by applying Article 67 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act mutatis mutandis under subparagraph 1". However, Article 67 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "capital expenses mean expenses paid to extend the service life of depreciable assets owned by a business operator or to increase the real value of the relevant assets" and "expenses for the use of land under subparagraph 1 of Article 163 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall be expenses for convenience under subparagraph 3 of Article 163 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act or expenses for the use of land under subparagraph 4 of Article 163 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act."

In a case where a new road is constructed on such land for the convenience of land use under subparagraph 4, and such a road is provided to the State or a local government without compensation, the value of the land constituting such road.

(5) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s disposal of the land of this case 1 to 5 is not for the purpose of extending the service life of the land of this case 1 to 3 or changing the use of the land of this case 1 to 3 or for the purpose of using the land of this case 1 to 3 or for the purpose of using the land of this case 1 to 3 or for the purpose of using the land of this case 1 to 5, 7, 9, and 1 to 4 as a whole. The Plaintiff’s disposal of the land of this case 3 or 1 to 3 or the interest on the loan of this case 3 to purchase the land of this case 1 to 3 or to increase the real value of the land of this case 1 to 3 or to 1 to 3 or to 1 to 3 or more transfer cost of the land of this case is not for the purpose of using the land of this case. The Plaintiff’s disposal of the land of this case 3 or 4 to 1 to 4 to 1 to 3 or more transfer the land of this case.

3. Conclusion

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