The early 2013 middle 483

Considering that not less than 1/2 of his own labor force was not put in and taxation was made by denying the fact of self-defense for 8 years, no error exists.

No error in taxation by denying the fact that it appears as evidence of wage and salary income, etc., data on land possession, etc., and thus denying the fact for 8 years;

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

The revocation of the disposition of revocation of imposition of a farmland long-term holding book pursuant to the capital gains tax pursuant to the District Court 2014Gudan2056

IsaA

Head of the High Tax Office

June 8, 2015

July 13, 2015

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 of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 149,324,810 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on December 21, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 12, 200, the Plaintiff acquired an OO-dong O-dong 834-22, 519 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from O-si O-si, O-si, and sold it to Nonparty Ga for KRW 520,000,000 on January 20, 201.

B. Since then, the Plaintiff applied the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax for self-Cultivating farmland under Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10531, May 19, 201; hereinafter “Special Taxation Restriction Act”), and the final tax amount was determined as zero won by scheduled return of capital gains tax.

C. Since then, the Defendant excluded the reduction or exemption of self-arable farmland under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act on the ground that the Plaintiff did not self-defluence of the instant land, and on April 10, 2013, issued a correction and notification of capital gains tax of 87,254,780 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the first disposition”).

D. After the comprehensive audit conducted by the director of a regional regional tax office of China, it was pointed out that the instant land was not subject to the special long-term holding deduction due to lack of self-requirements. Accordingly, the Defendant excluded the special long-term holding deduction, and accordingly calculated the income tax amount, tax base and calculated tax amount, and increased the determined tax amount by 34,484,450 won, and the penalty tax shall also be increased by 27,585,580 won, and 62,070,030 won (including the additional tax) for the Plaintiff on December 21, 2013.

E. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the initial disposition, filed a request for review with the National Tax Service on November 27, 2013 through an objection on August 29, 2013, but was dismissed on March 4, 2014. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for trial with the Tax Tribunal on January 6, 2014, but was dismissed on August 22, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 36, 37, 41, 42, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and all purport of oral argument

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff live in the OO-gun No. 810 O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-o

From this point of view, the Plaintiff: (a) succeeded to 834-3 square meters for a 143 square meters for the head of a family in order to hold a common distance for his family; (b) remodeled the instant land to dry field; (c) did not appear to have cultivated the land, which is attached to the instant inherited land, but was insufficient to grow, and (d) purchased the instant land. From the date of purchase to the date of transfer, the Plaintiff continued to have his labor force entirely put in the instant land to the date of transfer; (d) while the Plaintiff was operating a factory during the period of possession of the instant land, Nonparty OO, the spouse of the instant land, was mainly in charge of the practice; and (c) the Plaintiff concentrated on the date of a farming house for health. Accordingly, the instant land constitutes capital gains tax reduction or exemption on self-arable farmland pursuant to Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and is not a self-owned land.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, on a different premise, did not satisfy the requirements for self-sufficiency solely on the ground that the Plaintiff acquired other business income, and imposed a high-amount transfer income tax as seen earlier on the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

(b) Related statutes;

The entry in the attached Form is as specified in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

(1) As to whether capital gains tax on self-farmland has been reduced or exempted

Article 69 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act shall apply to eight years for a resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree who resides in a location of farmland.

As for the income accruing from the transfer of land directly cultivated and prescribed by the Presidential Decree, the tax amount equivalent to 10/100 of the transfer income tax shall be reduced or exempted, and the term "direct farming" in Article 66, subparagraph 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act means that a resident is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his own farmland at all times or in cultivating or cultivating not less than 1/2 of the farming work with his own labor.

Here, there are special circumstances regarding ‘self-Cultivating' for not less than eight years, which is a requirement for tax reduction or exemption.

Unless there exists any burden of proof against the Plaintiff, and on the other hand, the transferor is not presumed to have been aware of the fact that the transferred land was used as farmland (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu996, Oct. 21, 194).

According to each of the above evidence, Gap's evidence, Gap's evidence, 5 through 13, 38, 43, and 44, the above land was used as farmland around the time of the transfer of the land of this case. (1) The defendant, as to OO-Gu O-dong 834-3 in the neighborhood where the land of this case was transferred together with the land of this case, acknowledged the plaintiff's self-defense for not less than 8 years and did not exclude capital gains tax reduction and exemption). The plaintiff is admitted as members of the O-O Agricultural Cooperative from March 17, 1986. The plaintiff's wife, land's wife, customer, and purchaser of the land of this case, etc. were cultivated directly by the plaintiff in the land of this case.

However, according to the facts as to whether the Plaintiff cultivated not less than 1/2 of the farming work with its own labor for not less than 8 years until January 20, 201 until it transferred to other persons on or around June 200, the Plaintiff’s 1/6th of 200 square meters of this case’s land was operated as an enterprise with approximately 36 km from June 1, 1993 to 120-5 of O-dong 120-5 of O-dong 1200 square meters of this case’s land’s land, and the Plaintiff had been residing in the 20th of 00 O-dong 200 o-dong 200 o-dong 2300 o-dong 200 o-dong 200 o-dong 230 o-dong 200 o-dong 200 o-si 20 o-dong 202.

④ In the farmland ledger against the Plaintiff, the land of this case is, from the date of transfer, to five years before the date of transfer.

In light of the above, it is difficult to find that the Plaintiff has self-defensed the land of this case for not less than eight years solely on the basis of the facts that the Plaintiff was first registered on November 11, 2005. In light of the above, there is no objective evidence to acknowledge the fact that the land of this case was self-defensed for a certain period of not less than eight years (no objective evidence exists to acknowledge that the period of self-defensiveness is more than eight years).

(2) As to whether land for non-business use is land

Article 95(1) of the Income Tax Act and Article 104-3(1)1 of the same Act stipulate that a special deduction for long-term holding shall be excluded when the owner of farmland does not reside in his/her own land or does not own the land for a period prescribed by Presidential Decree during the period of possession of the land for non-business use. According to Article 168-8(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Farmland Act, "self-arable" means that a farmer engages in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his/her own land or growing or growing at least half of his/her own labor, which is excluded from special deduction for long-term holding. Thus, if the above self-sufficiency requirement is not met, it constitutes a land for non-business use with the burden of proof to the defendant, who is the tax authority, on the requirements for such non-business land for which the transfer income tax is under the transfer income tax, and each evidence and fact finding that the plaintiff does not know at least 1/2 of his/her own land for long-term farming or growing plants.

3. Conclusion

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