The scope of omissions or errors that can correct the tax base and tax amount determined by the method of written examination;

Omission or error prescribed in Article 127 of the Income Tax Act, which can correct the tax base and amount determined through a written hearing under Article 119 of the same Act, is limited to cases where it is objectively evident that a taxpayer’s duty return is not included in the details of duty return, and an omission or error is committed from the beginning or by his/her own duty return. Thus, even if there is an error or omission in the taxpayer’s duty return, it shall be recognized as reported unless there is an error or error in the form of the above written statement, and the tax base and amount

Articles 119 and 127 of the Income Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu459 Decided December 10, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 86Nu348 Decided March 24, 1987

Plaintiff

Head of Eastern Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 87Gu168 delivered on February 24, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

Omission or error under Article 127 of the Income Tax Act, which can correct the tax base and tax amount determined through a written review under Article 119 of the same Act, is limited to the case where it is objectively evident that the taxpayer’s return is not included in the taxpayer’s return but the omission or error is committed by the taxpayer’s return itself. Thus, even if there are errors or omissions in the taxpayer’s return details, it is necessary to recognize and allow the taxpayer’s return as stated in the report and to deem that the taxpayer cannot correct the tax base and tax amount by conducting a field investigation (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu348, Mar. 24, 1987). Thus, the court below’s decision that the Defendant’s disposition of pit taxation of this case is unlawful on the grounds of the confirmation of the purchase and sale of raw materials in the theory of lawsuit, is not unlawful, such as the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)