[종합소득세등부과처분취소][공1996.3.15.(6),820]
The case holding that the decision of estimated investigation of the business operator engaged in book publishing business is legitimate;
If it is impossible to calculate necessary expenses because the account book kept and reported by the taxpayer at the time of the disposition of global income tax, etc. is not only impossible to calculate the cost of cost corresponding to the omission in sales but also the inventory asset assessment statement, cash delivery and payment, asset ledger, and debt ledger as well as all related evidential documents are not provided, the case holding that the decision of estimation of the income amount of the taxpayer is lawful, on the grounds that the account book and documentary evidence in calculating the tax base under Article 169 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14721 of July 6, 1995) shall be deemed to constitute "where there is no necessary account book and documentary evidence in calculating the tax base, or where the important part is incomplete or false," and the taxpayer has separately provided the taxpayer with an opportunity to submit data, and the taxpayer has not submitted the account book and documentary evidence related to the calculation of necessary expenses even when seeking the disposition of revocation of imposition of global income tax, etc.
Article 120 (See the current Article 80) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994), Article 169 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467 of Dec. 31, 1994)
Supreme Court Decision 87Nu537 delivered on July 7, 1987 (Gong1987, 1340) Supreme Court Decision 87Nu537 delivered on October 11, 1988 (Gong1988, 1415) Supreme Court Decision 91Nu8203 delivered on July 24, 1992 (Gong192, 2579) 94Nu1037 delivered on January 12, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 928)
Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Hun-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
The Director of Gangnam District Office
Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu1843 delivered on May 12, 1995
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal and the supplemental appellate brief submitted after the expiration of the period are examined as well.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff, who runs the book publishing business on May 31, 1989 with the trade name "○○○○○", was unable to submit the above tax base for 3,94,924 won and 789,584 won which were calculated by calculating the global income tax base for 198,60 won and then failed to submit the above tax base for 196,960 won and the amount of gross income for 196,00 won which was calculated by deducting the above amount of income for 196,90 won from the total amount of income for 196,96, and the amount of income for 20,000 won which was calculated by deducting the above amount of income for 96,00 won and the amount of income for 96,00 won which was calculated by calculating the amount of income for 19,000 won and the amount of income for 96,000 won which was calculated by deducting the above amount of income for 96,196,
According to records and evidence, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are all justified, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason for the argument.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)