Whether the decision of correction can be made where there are omissions or errors after determining the tax base and amount by the method of written investigation (affirmative)

If any omission or error is found after the tax authorities determine the tax base and amount of tax by means of a written investigation decision, on the report of the adjusted account statement under Article 119 of the Income Tax Act and Article 168 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the tax base and amount of tax may be investigated and corrected under Article 127 of the Income Tax

Articles 119 and 127 of the Income Tax Act, Articles 167 and 168 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu459 Decided December 10, 1985 (Articles 119(3)269 of the Income Tax Act (Articles 119(3) and 768No 769No257 Decided December 10, 198)

Kim Jong-chul

Head of Mapo Tax Office

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of KRW 6,670,200 on February 3, 1987 against the Plaintiff and KRW 1,339,270 on that defense tax shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

In full view of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 (tax notice), Eul evidence Nos. 1 (Tax Payment Notice), Eul evidence Nos. 2 (Tax Official Certificate), Eul evidence Nos. 2-1 (Tax Official Certificate), Eul evidence Nos. 2-2 (Tax Decision), Eul evidence No. 4 (Additional Decision Decision No. 4), the plaintiff filed a final return on the tax base of global income tax for the year 1984 with an adjusted account statement confirmed that the entries in the final return on the tax base of global income tax are reasonable. The defendant determined the tax base and tax amount as stated in the annexed sheet No. 1, and the defendant imposed tax on the plaintiff on Nov. 6, 1986 in relation to the global income tax for the year 1985 for which the amount of income accrued to the plaintiff was omitted on Feb. 3, 1987, the defendant stated the amount of income omitted on the original decision as stated in the annexed sheet No. 2 and stated the same tax base and tax amount differently from the purport of the disposition of imposition.

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is lawful on the grounds of the above disposition grounds and applicable provisions of law, and the plaintiff filed a report pursuant to the provisions of Article 119 of the Income Tax Act, Articles 167 and 168 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the defendant made a written investigation decision, and the defendant found that there are clear omissions or errors such as the adjusted account statement attached at the time of the final return, etc., the defendant's unilateral on-site investigation and the disposition of additional taxation is illegal as it is against

In making the final return on the tax base of the income tax, if a certified public accountant or a certified tax accountant has attached an adjusted account statement confirmed that the entries in the return are justifiable in accordance with Article 119 of the Income Tax Act, Article 167 and Article 168 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the tax authority shall determine the tax base and the amount of the income through a written examination unless there are any errors or omissions or omissions or omissions or omissions in the return, and shall not otherwise deny the details of the return and shall not make the tax base and the amount of the income through on-site investigation or estimation investigation under Article 118(b) and Article 120 of the same Act (in this case, the tax base and the amount of the income tax shall not be determined according to the tax base and the tax base and the amount of the income tax are not necessarily determined based on the standard return or adjusted account statement, and where it is deemed that there are errors or omissions or omissions which are the basis of determining the tax base and the tax base and the amount of the tax in the above adjusted account statement, the tax base and the tax amount of the plaintiff can be determined based on the tax base and the tax base and the tax amount.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation is without merit since the disposition of this case was unlawful, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-sik (Presiding Judge)