[종합소득세등부과처분취소][공1989.9.1.(855),1257]
If the revenue omitted from the on-site investigation finds the revenue omitted, the burden of proof for the necessary expenses corresponding to the omitted revenue.
In cases where the tax authority determines the total necessary expenses corresponding to the total amount of income of a taxpayer in the current year by on-site investigation and finds the income omitted from the initial return, the necessary expenses, such as the corresponding purchase cost, etc., are already included in the total necessary expenses corresponding to the total amount of income unless special circumstances exist, such as where account books or other documentary evidence revealed that such expenses have been separately disbursed. If a taxpayer intends to receive a deduction due to the omission of the purchase cost corresponding to the omission of sales, he/she shall assert and prove the omission of the purchase
Article 32 of the Corporate Tax Act
Supreme Court Decision 86Nu217 Decided November 25, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 85Nu1004 Decided October 13, 1987
[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee
The director of the tax office.
Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu1284 delivered on October 11, 1988
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
As to the Grounds of Appeal:
In a case where the tax authorities determine the total necessary expenses corresponding to the total amount of income of a taxpayer in the current year by on-site investigation and discover the amount of income omitted from the initial return, necessary expenses such as the corresponding purchase cost shall be deemed to have been already included in the total necessary expenses corresponding to the total amount of income unless there are special circumstances, such as account books or other documentary evidence revealed that it was separately disbursed. In this case, if the plaintiff wants to receive the deduction on the ground that there is an omission of the purchase cost corresponding to the omission in sales, the plaintiff himself/herself must assert and prove the omission of the purchase cost (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Nu217, Nov. 25, 1986; 85Nu104, Oct. 13, 197).
In the same purport, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the burden of proof, inclusion of expenses, calculation of purchase cost, etc., such as the plaintiff's account book, and the omission of purchase cost in response to the omission of sale, and rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the purchase cost was omitted in response to the omission of sale while the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff's tax base and tax amount of the global income tax and defense tax for the portion belonging to the year 1984 were omitted in the total amount of the total amount of income, and it did not appear that the omission of purchase cost was not revealed by the plaintiff's account book, and there was no other evidence.
Therefore, this appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)