(a) requirements for determining the estimated assessment of the tax base and amount of global income tax;

(b) In cases where the actual transaction price of transfer and acquisition is fully verified, whether the scope of the incidental expenses related to acquisition may be determined by the relevant statutes and municipal ordinances;

(c) Where multiple parcels of land are traded at the same time in one place of business, whether the income thereof must be investigated and determined in the same manner;

A. The tax base and tax amount of global income tax shall, in principle, be determined by the actual amount revealed by the field investigation method, and it shall be exceptionally permitted only when there is no taxpayer’s account book or documentary evidence, etc. or when there is no other method to disclose the actual amount of income by the tax authorities without credibility because the important part of the tax is insufficient or false. Thus, even if the taxpayer did not keep and keep account books under the Income Tax Act, if the tax base can be calculated based on other documentary evidence, such as a contract, if the tax base and tax amount can not be determined by the method of the field investigation, or by the method

(b) Even if there is no documentary evidence to verify the actual amount of expenses incurred in relation to the acquisition as long as the actual transaction price of transfer and acquisition is confirmed, if the relevant statutes and municipal ordinances stipulate the standards for such expenses, etc., the scope of such expenses may be determined pursuant to such statutes, etc.

C. The issue of how to investigate and determine the income, etc. of the land subject to taxation in any way should be determined individually depending on which the statutory grounds for the investigation and determination method fall under any one of the statutory grounds for the investigation and determination method, and it does not necessarily require that the income, etc. should be investigated and determined by the same method as the land was sold at the same time at one workplace.

A. C. Article 94 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994); Article 118 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994); Article 142 (1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act; Article 45 and Article 92 of the former Income Tax Act; Article 94 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 80Nu433 decided Nov. 25, 1980 (Gong1981, 13467), 85Nu978 decided Feb. 24, 1987 (Gong1987, 555) (Gong1991, 663) decided Dec. 26, 1990

Plaintiff

Head of Namgu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 92Gu1934 delivered on January 13, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In principle, the tax base and tax amount of global income tax shall be determined by the actual amount revealed by the field investigation method, and in order to determine it by the estimation investigation method, it shall be exceptionally permitted only when there is no taxpayer's account books or documentary evidence, etc. or when there is no other method that the tax authorities can disclose the actual amount of income, and even if there is no other method that the taxpayer can keep and keep account books prescribed by the Income Tax Act, if the tax base can be calculated based on other documentary evidence, such as a contract, if the tax base and tax amount shall not be determined by the field investigation method or by the method of estimation investigation.

In addition, even if there is no documentary evidence to verify the actual amount of expenses incurred in relation to the acquisition as long as the actual transaction value of transfer and acquisition is confirmed, if the relevant statutes, municipal ordinances, etc. stipulate the standards for such expenses, etc., the scope of expenses can be determined pursuant to such statutes, etc., and the actual amount of expenses cannot be confirmed, and the profit margin should not be calculated by the estimation method immediately. However, in such case, it is reasonable to view that the taxpayer needs to prove that there was an expenditure exceeding the amount prescribed by the statutes, etc.

In the same purport, the court below's determination of the tax base and tax amount of the global income tax of this case is reasonable as the transfer value and tax amount are all confirmed with respect to seven parcels of land, such as land in attached Table 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12 of the judgment of the court below among the land in this case, and on the basis of the actual amount of the transfer and acquisition and the incidental expenses related to the acquisition calculated in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes or municipal ordinances, etc. (the plaintiff's assertion and proof as to the fact that there was any items other than the original judgment or excess expenses) based on the real amount of the above transfer and acquisition as well as the incidental expenses related to the acquisition (the plaintiff's assertion and

In addition, the theory of lawsuit is that a number of lots of lots of land sold at the same time at one workplace should be investigated and determined in the same manner, but the issue of how to investigate and determine the income, etc. of the land subject to taxation by any method shall be determined separately depending on which corresponding to any of the statutory grounds for the investigation and decision method, and it shall not be necessarily determined by the same method because a number of lots of lots of land were sold at one workplace at the same time, and the income, etc. thereof shall not be necessarily examined and determined by the same method. There is no reason to

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 Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)