[종합소득세등부과처분취소][공1993.5.15.(944),1323]
Method of determining the total amount of business income;
Article 159 (1) 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 8351 of Dec. 31, 1976) has been deleted (Presidential Decree No. 8652 of Aug. 20, 197) pursuant to Article 159 (1) 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 8351 of Dec. 31, 1976).
Articles 118, 119, and 120 of the Income Tax Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)
Plaintiff
The director of the tax office
Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu11499 delivered on December 3, 1992
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
At the time of enforcement of the former Income Tax Act (Act No. 2933 of Dec. 22, 1976) and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Presidential Decree No. 8351 of Dec. 31, 1976), Article 169 (2) 1, Article 114 of the same Act, Article 159 (1) 4 and (3), and Article 160 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where the amount of gross income is investigated and determined pursuant to the Business Tax Act, the amount of gross income has been considered as the amount of gross income of the business year as the tax base for the business income of the business year without a need to undergo a further investigation and determination procedure, but Article 159 (1) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act was discarded and the Value-Added Tax Act was enforced (Presidential Decree No. 8351 of Dec. 31, 1976).
In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the tax disposition of this case, which the non-party, who is the husband of the plaintiff, recognized as having the same amount as the amount reported by the plaintiff in 190. The non-party reported the amount of value-added tax base as his rental income, is unlawful. The ground for appeal 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.
Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)