Seoul High Court-2016-Nu-72367 ( dated 20, 2017)

The meaning of cases where there is clear evidence to acknowledge the suspicion of tax evasion among the requirements for permission of duplicate tax audit.

(b)In the event there is clear evidence to prove the suspicion of tax evasion means the case where the probability of the fact of tax evasion is deemed to be reasonable on the basis of objectivity and reasonable material, and such material does not include any material already investigated in the previous tax investigation;

Article 81-4 (Prohibition of Abuse of Tax Investigation Authority)

2016Nu72367 Gross income and revocation of disposition

The issues of the plaintiff through the judgment of the previous lawsuit and the direction of waiver of appeal.

under the notice that there is a suspicion of omission in the revenue amount of the discount fee for notes using the borrowed account

by confirmation that the second tax investigation was commenced, and at the time of the first tax investigation

Taking into account the fact that the financial transaction confirmation investigation was not conducted on the issue borrowed account;

The second tax investigation is a case where there is hard evidence corroborating a suspicion of tax evasion."

It is reasonable to see that it constitutes a case, prepared by three investigating countries of the Seoul Regional Tax Office at the time of the first investigation

It cannot be viewed any different from the fact that the document contains the key borrowed name account.

�� 제1심 판결문 제7면 제11행 아래에 다음 내용을 추가한다.

The Plaintiff’s key borrowed account is used for collection of short-term short-term short-term short-term short-term bills as an agent.

After purchasing at a discount the superior bill by handling only sound (commercial bills), the amount of the bill shall be collected on the due date;

(1) The nature of the bill, the method of purchase, the period of retention, etc. of the bill, other than the issues used for the purpose of

In other words, the completion rate is calculated by subtracting 0.1% from the average discount rate of bills in the name account other than the issues.

on the basis of this subparagraph, it is reasonable and reasonable and reasonable estimation method for estimating the income amount of the key borrowed account.

I asserts that it is not.

However, not only in the second tax investigation process but also in the lawsuit of this case, the title of the second tax investigation at issue

evidence, such as relevant books, in which the commission rate of bill discount using the account may be calculated, shall be submitted;

Account in the name of Parkdd's account out of the issues other than those presented by the Plaintiff in the appellate court.

and the timing, method, etc. of each deposit or withdrawal indicated in the name of Parkd's account among the issues borrowed accounts

Since the key borrowed account is similar, the nature of the account, the method of purchase of bills, the period of retention, etc. are not issues.

Considering that it is similar to the name account, the defendant's confirmation at the time of the first tax investigation.

on the basis of 0.81% of the average rate of bill discount (0.91%) less 0.1%, at issue

If the revenue amount of the discount fee to be paid for each account has been determined by estimation, it shall be confirmed that the period of holding the bill has been.

for this reason, the bill held in short-term holding from the average discount fee of the borrowed-name account other than the issue

The defendant accepted the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's claim was not confirmed, and the above criteria are accepted by the defendant.

under this chapter, if the amount of the discount fee is estimated using the outstanding borrowed account, the amount of the discount fee is estimated.

It is reasonable as it is based on flexibility.

In addition, it is a procedure to determine the tax liability to be borne by the taxpayer under the provisions of tax law.

taxing authority in the process of specifically calculating and determining its tax base and amount of tax;

Even if there were errors in the calculation method, etc. of the office, the amount of tax imposed and notified as such is originally equivalent.

as a result of not exceeding the scope of the reasonable tax to be borne by the taxpayer and well

If the method does not vary to the extent that the scope of the taxable unit and the reasons for the disposition is different, that party's tax

It is not necessary to revoke the imposition and collection disposition within a large range of amount as illegal (Supreme Court July 28, 1992).

The average discount rate of bills confirmed at the time of the primary tax investigation, and the average discount rate of bills confirmed at the time of the primary tax investigation, etc.

(0.91%) Based on the basis of 0.91%) the amount of discount fees for notes for the key borrowed account;

Since the decision of estimation is within the scope of the reasonable tax amount in case of estimation, even if the defendant did so,

Based on the basis of the estimation of the revenue from the discount fee for bills using the key borrowed account, the error was found.

Even if there is no illegality of the instant disposition, the instant disposition should not be revoked.

On the other hand, at the time of the first tax investigation, the plaintiff on the spot investigation by the bill of exchange.

at the time of the second tax investigation, the amount of income of the plaintiff using the key borrowed account;

It was estimated and taxed, and the total amount of taxable objects in a single place of business during the same taxable period.

A lawsuit which determines the tax base by mixing the on-site investigation and the estimated investigation; and

Although it is alleged that there is a violation of the relevant provisions of the tax law and its Enforcement Decree, the entry of Gap evidence 4-2

According to the results of the second tax investigation, "the confirmation of the report on the completion of the investigation" is filed by the plaintiff in the first tax investigation.

In calculating the acquisition amount, only the amount of revenue has been increased without necessary expenses, but (a) account books and evidence required.

Inasmuch as there were no or significant parts, it was estimated and corrected (as it constitutes insufficient or false).

Therefore, the notice of the results of the determination of the disposition of a tax offence in the primary tax investigation is written.

.The plaintiff's reasons for decision of notice. The amount of the bill which is an essential document when calculating the amount of bill discount;

The bill discount rate, the period of holding the bill, etc. shall be kept and kept in the original book related to the revenue amount.

It can be recognized that the facts stated "....." are the plaintiff's revenue at the time of the first tax investigation.

The plaintiff's revenue at the time of the first tax investigation seems to have been the estimated tax investigation. Thus, the plaintiff's revenue at the time of the

The plaintiff's assertion on this part, which is premised on the investigation, shall not be accepted.

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s additional argument

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Article 81-6(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides for the grounds for investigation of notice of second tax investigation.

In light of the above, the second tax investigation is identical to the first tax investigation under Article 81-6 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes.

The regular selection inspector referred to in paragraph (2), which is a duplicate investigation for the same tax item and the same taxable period.

Article 81-4 (1) and (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes are violated.

2) It is reasonable to deem that the instant fee belongs to the Plaintiff.

The previous decisions were presented as clear material to prove the suspicion of tax evasion, and the second one was the second one.

The scope of the tax investigation is whether the instant fee was actually realized to the Plaintiff; and

Although it should be limited to whether taxation has been made, the defendant's investigation should be conducted.

A short-term collection agency bill transacted with the issue borrowed account by unfairly expanding the scope;

Ag to this effect.

B. Determination

1) According to the statements in Gap evidence No. 6, 'ear business' is a ground for investigation of notice of second tax investigation (ear business).

(t) After reviewing the reported details, it is analyzed that there is an omission of income amount, etc., and the return is appropriate;

It was selected as a person subject to investigation to verify the sex (Article 81-6 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes).

The previous action of this case is deemed to have been filed after the first tax investigation mentioned above.

In full view of the progress of the second tax investigation and the purport of Gap evidence No. 4-2, the whole pleadings:

Investigation Process - Taxation Data Processing (Income amount of 1,125 million won) on the report of the completion of the second investigation

(Reduction)Re-audits on suspicions of omission in the amount of revenue discount charges and borrowed account, reasons for exclusion from duplicate investigations;

- Pursuant to Article 81-4(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 63-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

The fact that it is stated that it falls under the grounds for exclusion from double investigation, and the plaintiff also the second tax investigation.

After March 14, 2014, the submission of preparatory documents dated June 15, 2017 of the instant notice shall be made.

Before the second tax investigation is conducted for the occasional selection under Article 81-6 (3) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes.

In full view of the fact that the second notice of tax investigation was disputed on the premise, the reason for the second notice of tax investigation.

Article 81-6 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes is a clerical error in Article 81-6 (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

2) The grounds for the selection of the person subject to investigation are not limited to the scope of investigation, as seen earlier.

Investigation of the previous litigation and the second tax investigation and the results of the second tax investigation report;

The term "the borrowed account" mentioned in the circumstances shall be the judgment of the court of this case and the high prosecutors' office of 00.

under the direction of the plaintiff to waive the appeal, the amount of the discount fee in the bill using the key borrowed account

The second tax investigation commenced in order to confirm the suspicion of omission after receiving a notice that there was a suspicion of omission.

In light of the meaning of this case, the defendant's acceptance of this case while conducting the second tax investigation.

Fees are included in the borrowed-name account and the key borrowed-name account outside of the issue, and the fees of this case are included in the Fees of this case

(2) the portion included in the issue borrowed account and the bill using the issue borrowed account in excess of this;

It is legitimate for the Plaintiff to additionally investigate the revenue amount of the stamp and impose it on it.

this part of the claim is rejected.

3. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.

Red00

000 director of the tax office

oly 2017.15

2017.20

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu and purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the part exceeding KRW 482,93,071 among the disposition imposing global income tax of KRW 581,954,478 for the plaintiff on July 1, 2014 and exceeding KRW 533,526,942 of the disposition imposing global income tax of KRW 689,813,297 on July 9, 2014, and the part exceeding KRW 533,526,942 of the disposition imposing global income tax of KRW 1,063,923,272 of the disposition imposing global income tax of KRW 1,063,923,272 for the plaintiff on whom July 1, 2007 belongs, respectively.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is to change or add some of the following, and it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff's appellate court under Paragraph (2) below, and therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article

〈바꾸거나 추가하는 부분> �� 제1심 판결문 제5면 제13, 14행의 "(2011. 1. 27. 선고 2010두6083 판결, 2012. 11. 29. 선고 2010두19294 판결 등)"을 "(대법원 2011. 1. 27. 선고 2010두6083 판결, 대법원 2012. 11. 29. 선고 2010두19294 판결 등 참조)"로 바꾼다. �� 제1심 판결문 제6면 제3행 아래에 다음 내용을 추가한다.

The plaintiff asserts that the key borrowed account at the time of the first tax investigation cannot be seen as a new material. The key issue is only the collection of bills at maturity and it is difficult to view it as an objective and reasonable material supporting the probability of tax evasion. The second tax investigation is not a case where "the date of disposition stated in the purport of appeal No. 1-1, No. 2 and No. 3," which is the date of disposition stated in the complaint and petition of appeal No. 1-2 and the second tax investigation, is not a case where "the error of entry in the statement in the purport of appeal No. 1-2 and No. 4-2". In full view of Gap evidence No. 3, No. 4-2, the second tax investigation is not a case where "the second tax investigation is not a case where the second tax investigation is conducted in the second tax investigation of "the second tax investigation of "the second tax investigation of "the second tax investigation of "the second tax investigation of "the second tax investigation of the second tax investigation of the second tax investigation of the second tax investigation of the plaintiff in the second tax investigation of this case."