[Edaily Reporter Choi Jeong-hee ] Mr. Kim, a resident of Cheongju, North Chungcheong Province, received a gift from his father in January 2026: a 480 pyeong (1,587 square meters) rice paddy in Nam-myeon, Seowon-gu, Cheongju.

After paying the acquisition tax, Mr. Kim immediately requested that the city government refund half of the tax.

This is because “self-cultivating farmers”—those who farm the land themselves—are eligible for a 50% reduction in acquisition tax when they acquire farmland. Mr. Kim believed he qualified for the reduction. He had been planting garlic on another plot of land since September 2021 and had since gone on to grow corn, watermelons, cantaloupes, and green onions. He had been farming for over four years.

However, a month later, the city hall’s response was, “No.”

The reason given was that they could not verify that Mr. Kim had actually been farming. Feeling wronged, Mr. Kim appealed to the Tax Tribunal. The outcome hinged on a mere “five months.”

Planting garlic and green onions

Mr. Kim’s argument is as follows.

Mr. Kim first began farming on a 156 pyeong (516 m²) plot of land in Heungdeok-gu, Cheongju. He planted garlic starting in September 2021 and harvested it the following June.

In June 2024, he inherited 831 pyeong (2,746 m²) of farmland in Buk-myeon, Cheongwon-gu, Cheongju, from his father. There, he planted corn, watermelons, cantaloupes, and green onions.

Under the current Local Tax Special Exemption Limitation Act, self-cultivating farmers are eligible for a 50% reduction in acquisition tax when purchasing farmland. However, they must meet certain requirements.

A key requirement is that the farmer must have continuously farmed the land personally for at least two years prior to acquiring the farmland. They must reside near the farmland (in the same city, county, or district, or in an adjacent area, or within 30 km) and must have had income from sources other than farming of less than 37 million won in the previous year.

Mr. Kim received the new rice paddy as a gift in January 2026. He had to prove that he had been farming continuously since at least January 2024.

The problem lay in the documentation required to prove this.

Mr. Kim registered as an agricultural business operator in June 2024. The local city hall determined that he had been farming directly only after his registration. The issue lay in the period from January 2024 through June 2024. They assessed that it was unclear whether Mr. Kim had been farming during those five months.

Mr. Kim submitted various documents to prove that he had been farming since 2021. These included photos of the garlic harvest in June 2022, photos of farmland and crops from 2022 to 2023, and even simple receipts for the purchase of a sickle, shovel, and plastic sheeting in December 2023.

He also submitted a damage confirmation certificate issued by the city hall when his crops were damaged.

However, the city government did not accept this as sufficient evidence. The date of registration as an agricultural business entity was June 2024, and the only transaction confirmed by the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (Nonghyup) was the purchase of corn seeds in April 2024. Both records were less than two years from the date of acquiring the farmland.

Mr. Kim argued that he had previously conducted transactions under his father’s name—who was a member of the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation—and that this was the only reason there were no transaction records in his own name, but this claim was not accepted.

Although Mr. Kim submitted several photographs, the city government determined that it was difficult to verify which plot of land he had farmed based on the photos alone. The simplified receipts also posed a problem in that it was difficult to confirm whether actual transactions had taken place.

The same applied to the Certificate of Damage issued by the city hall. While it confirmed that there had been damage to crops, it was not evidence that Mr. Kim had personally farmed the land. Mr. Kim ultimately requested a ruling from the Tax Tribunal.

“Evidence” Over Farming Experience

The Tax Tribunal (Case No. 2026Bang1177) sided with the city hall despite reviewing the evidence submitted by Mr. Kim.

The Tribunal held that tax reduction regulations must be interpreted strictly in accordance with the requirements set forth in tax law. After reviewing each piece of evidence submitted by Mr. Kim, it determined that there was insufficient objective evidence to recognize that he had been farming personally prior to January 2024.

The simplified receipts submitted, showing purchases of a sickle, shovel, and plastic sheeting in December 2023, did not qualify as supporting documents as defined in the Enforcement Rules of the Act on Special Measures for Local Taxes.

Although he submitted photos of farmland cultivation and agricultural harvests from 2022 to 2023, the court determined that it was impossible to identify exactly which plot of land the photos were taken on. Doubts were also raised as to whether the photos were taken on farmland owned by his father.

The committee determined that the “Certificate of Damage” issued by the relevant city hall did not confirm that Mr. Kim was the actual cultivator of the land in question.

On the other hand, neither the date of registration as an agricultural business entity nor the transaction history with the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation—both of which are valid as evidence—met the two-year requirement stipulated by law.

Consequently, the Tax Tribunal ruled that Mr. Kim’s acquisition tax could not be reduced.

It could not be confirmed whether Mr. Kim had actually been farming the land himself since 2021. The claim that he farmed the land and having that claim recognized under tax law are two separate issues.

Had Mr. Kim registered his agricultural business five months earlier, he might have been eligible for the acquisition tax reduction. For self-cultivating farmers to receive an acquisition tax reduction, it is crucial to secure sufficient evidence proving direct cultivation—such as the agricultural business registration certificate, farmland registry records, agricultural product transaction records, and pesticide and fertilizer transaction records—in addition to the registration certificate.

※ This article reconstructs the sequence of events based on a decision by the National Tax Tribunal. Since the real names of the individuals involved and some specific amounts were not disclosed in the Tribunal’s decision, the content is based solely on verified facts. However, certain elements—such as the individuals’ surnames and the titles used between spouses—were arbitrarily assigned for readability and do not correspond to specific details in the actual decision.