[종합소득세등부과처분취소][공1998.5.1.(57),1238]
In a case where denying and practically investigating the tax base and tax amount determined through a written hearing on the grounds of the omission of the revenue amount, whether it constitutes a legitimate on-site investigation to investigate the amount deposited in the account of a financial institution and determine the amount of total revenue
Article 119 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4520 of Dec. 8, 1992) and Article 168 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 13802 of Dec. 31, 1992) provide that, even after a tax office imposed a tax on a taxpayer based on a final return of tax base pursuant to the provisions of Article 119 of the same Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 13802 of Dec. 31, 1992), if the amount of revenue is not included in the details of the tax return but is omitted from the beginning, the tax office may make a decision of correction pursuant to Article 127 of the former Income Tax Act. In general, in correction of the details of the taxpayer's return due to an error or omission, the tax office may correct it by other data if it is found that there is an error or omission in the details of the tax investigation conducted by the tax office based on the verification of source of funds for real estate transactions, it can be defined as an objective method of the tax investigation.
Article 16 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Articles 118 (see current Article 80(3)), 119(1), and 127 (see current Article 80(2)) of the former Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 4520, Dec. 8, 1992); Article 166(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 13802, Dec. 31, 1992; see current Article 142(1))
Supreme Court Decision 84Nu124 delivered on July 24, 1984 (Gong1984, 1495) Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1045 Delivered on June 14, 1991 (Gong1991, 1955) Supreme Court Decision 91Nu497 Delivered on December 10, 1991 (Gong1992, 543), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu149 delivered on June 30, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2645), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu1105 Delivered on December 10, 196 (Gong197Sang, 433), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu29797 delivered on October 24, 1997 (Gong1997, 193).
Plaintiff (Law Firm Hun, Attorneys Noh Jeong-eng et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
The director of the tax office.
Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu26310 delivered on May 28, 1997
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
With respect to the first and second points
In accordance with the provisions of Article 119 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4520 of Dec. 8, 1992; hereinafter the same), Article 168 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13802 of Dec. 31, 1992), where the revenue amount is not included in the contents of a tax return but is omitted from the beginning after the tax office made a written investigation decision, the tax office may make a decision of correction pursuant to the provisions of Article 127 of the Income Tax Act (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1045 of Jun. 14, 1991). On the other hand, in general, in correcting the contents of a taxpayer's return due to an error or omission, it shall be based on books or evidence, but if it is recognized that there is an error or omission in the contents of a tax return due to other data, it may be corrected by other data (see Supreme Court Decision 9Nu14949 of Jun. 30, 1994).
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the defendant's tax investigation was conducted from March 198 to March 198, 198 by 198 to 192, the tax amount was determined according to the plaintiff's global income tax return for the year 198 to 1992, and the plaintiff purchased real estate in December 5, 199, and there was no other income than 2,200,000, which the plaintiff reported to the defendant for 247,710,000, total income amount of 96,00 won from 198 to 1991, and the amount of 96,00,000 won was merely 96,00 won of total income amount of 196,00 won and 96,00 won of total income amount of 20,000 won, it was clearly found that the plaintiff's tax base was 96,000 won of total income amount of 9,000 won and 97,00 won.
On the second ground for appeal
In general, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirement in a lawsuit seeking revocation of disposition imposing tax shall be deemed to be an imposing authority, unless the other party proves that the facts at issue are not eligible for application of the empirical rule in light of the empirical rule in the course of a specific lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu124, Jul. 24, 1984; 97Nu2429, Oct. 24, 1997).
In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiff needs to prove that the amount deposited in the plaintiff's deposit account is not actually the plaintiff's medical income, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the burden of proof, unless the plaintiff does not have any other income than the medical income due to the operation and operation of sexually outs.
On the fourth ground
In light of the records, the court below's decision that the court below held that the amount of 1,80,000 won out of the amount deposited in the plaintiff's deposit account as of December 16, 198, and the total of 7,500,000 won as of April 30, 1992, and the total of 450,000 won as the plaintiff's medical income is acceptable, and there is no error of law in violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing, such as the theory of lawsuit. The argument is without merit.
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 Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)