[1] In case where the amount of gross income under the Income Tax Act is estimated in accordance with the income determination table notified by the value-added tax authority after an estimated investigation, whether the method of estimation is reasonable (affirmative with qualification)

[2] The case holding that even if the estimation method is based on the estimation method stipulated by the law, it constitutes a case where there are special circumstances to find the rationality and feasibility of the estimation method and its contents inappropriate

[1] According to Article 159 (6) 4 (d) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, in cases where the amount of gross income under the Income Tax Act was estimated in accordance with the table of income determination by the value-added tax authority after the estimated investigation, the method of calculating the gross income by the gross income ratio is also one of the estimation methods for gross income. Thus, the amount of revenue notified by the value-added tax authority after the estimated investigation is also regarded as one of the estimation methods for gross income. If the total profit ratio applied to the estimated investigation is calculated based on reasonable and reasonable grounds so as to reflect the amount corresponding to the actual amount of sales profit in the business type, it shall be deemed as the same as the estimation of gross income under the Income Tax Act. However, even if the tax authority imposed the estimated tax by the method prescribed by the Act and subordinate statutes, if there are special circumstances to deem it unreasonable if it is based on the estimation method, the estimated tax without considering such special circumstances

[2] According to the total profit ratio by business type which is the basis of the estimation of sales amount, since the total profit ratio for the pertinent taxable period to a person who is an individual retailer is 9.31%, while the transaction method that the person liable to pay taxes engaged in the wholesale and retail business was most of the sales method by the erroneous trading method, but the trading volume by the erroneous trading method is less than 2% which is less than 9.31% which is the total profit ratio as determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, if the transaction volume is less than 9.31% which is much less than the total profit ratio as determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, 9.31% of the above total profit ratio is one of the average profit ratio as determined by the laws and regulations based on the data investigated by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, it is reasonable to view that there are special circumstances to deem it unreasonable if the pertinent person's sales amount is estimated by applying the above total profit ratio, without considering such special circumstances.

[1] Article 21 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5032 of Dec. 29, 1995), Article 69 (1) 4 (d) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13199 of Dec. 31, 1990), Article 114-2 (see current Article 79), Article 120 (3) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281 of Dec. 31, 1990), Article 159 (6) 4 (d) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13194 of Dec. 199), Article 169 (2) (d) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 13194 of Dec. 31, 190), Article 19 (2) (d) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 194319 of the Act of Dec. 19, 29, 194 of the Act)

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu15202 delivered on July 30, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2722) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 82Nu211 delivered on April 10, 1984 (Gong1984, 895) Supreme Court Decision 93Nu340 delivered on March 23, 1993 (Gong193Sang, 1323), Supreme Court Decision 86Nu328 delivered on March 10, 1987 (Gong1987, 662)

Plaintiff

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu19862 delivered on February 22, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

원심은, 원고는 소외 1과 동업으로 1988. 10. 25.부터 1990. 7. 20.까지 서울 중랑구 (주소 1 생략)에서 ○○석유라는 상호로, 소외 2와 동업으로 1990. 2. 1.부터 1992. 5.경까지 의정부시 (주소 2 생략)에서 △△석유라는 상호로 각 석유류도매업을 경영한 사실, 원고와 소외 1은 소외 1 1인 명의로 1988년 및 1989년 귀속분 각 종합소득세 과세표준확정신고를 함에 있어 세무사가 작성한 조정계산서를 첨부하여 각 과세표준과 세액을 신고하고 그 세액을 자진납부하고, 피고는 이에 대하여 구 소득세법(1990. 12. 31. 법률 제4281호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제119조 제1항에 의하여 위 각 과세기간의 과세표준과 세액을 서면심리로 결정하되, 원고가 소외 1과 동업으로 ○○석유를 경영하여 온 것을 확인하고 원고에 대하여 1988년 및 1989년 귀속분 종합소득세와 방위세를 원심 판시와 같이 결정하여 부과고지한 사실, 원고는 1990. 1. 1.부터 같은 해 7. 20.까지의 ○○석유의 경영으로 인한 소득에 관하여 1990년 귀속분 종합소득세 과세표준확정신고를 하면서 소득금액으로 금 219,006원을 신고하고, 피고는 이에 대하여 실지조사방법에 의하여 종합소득세와 방위세를 원심 판시와 같이 부과고지함에 따라 원고가 이를 납부한 사실, 원고와 소외 2는 1990. 2. 1.부터 같은 해 12. 31.까지의 △△석유의 경영으로 인한 소득에 관하여는 소외 2 1인의 명의로 세무사가 작성한 조정계산서를 첨부하여 종합소득세 과세표준과 세액을 신고하고 그 세액을 자진납부하고, 피고는 소득세법 제119조 제1항에 의하여 위 과세기간중의 과세표준과 세액을 위 신고내용대로 서면심리로 결정한 사실, 한편 ○○석유에 대한 부가가치세 과세관청인 중랑세무서장은 원고가 과세자료로 제출한 매입세금계산서는 진정하게 작성된 것으로 인정되나, 매출세금계산서는 그 중 약 80% 이상이 허위로 발행된 것으로 인정되고 이를 근거로 기록한 장부와 전표 이외에는 다른 증빙자료가 없다는 이유로, 구 부가가치세법(1995. 12. 29. 법률 제5032호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제21조 제3항, 같은법시행령(1990. 12. 31. 대통령령 제13199호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제69조 제1항 제4호 (라)목의 규정에 의하여 매입세금계산서의 합산금액을 매입총액으로 하고 그 매입총액에 1988년도 석유류 개인사업자의 매매총이익률 9.31%를 곱하는 추계결정방법으로 매출총액을 산정하여 총수입금액을 산출하고, 여기에 소득표준율 4%를 곱하는 방식으로 소득금액을 산출하여 1988년 귀속분의 총수입금액을 금 389,683,869원으로, 추계소득금액을 금 15,587,354원으로, 1989년 귀속분의 총수입금액을 금 1,283,858,153원으로, 추계소득을 금 51,354,326원으로 각 기재한 사업장별 수입금액결정상황표를 작성하여 피고에게 통보하였고, 이에 따라 피고는 원고가 위 각 종합소득세 과세표준확정신고시 수입금액에 대한 신고를 누락한 사실이 있다 하여 위 사업장별 수입금액결정상황표에 의하여 그 수입금액을 새로이 산정하기로 하고, 1988년 귀속분과 1989년 귀속분의 경우 위 통보받은 각 총수입금액에서 당초 결정시 인정한 각 수입금액과의 차액을 신고누락한 수입으로 보고, 그에 대응하는 필요경비를 인정할 만한 증빙서류가 없다는 이유로 필요경비를 공제하지 아니한 채 위 신고누락수입을 신고누락된 소득으로 인정하여 당초 서면조사결정시 인정한 소득금액과 합산한 금액을 과세대상인 종합소득금액으로 보아 이를 기초로 1988년 귀속분 종합소득세 금 12,500,330원 및 방위세 금 2,631,020원, 1989년 귀속분 종합소득세 금 57,947,420원 및 방위세 금 11,695,430원을 추가로 부과고지하고, 1990년 귀속분의 경우 중랑세무서장으로부터 통보받은 수입금액결정상황표에 의하여 추계소득금액을 결정하고, 한편 원고가 소외 2와의 동업으로 △△석유를 경영하여 얻은 1990년 귀속분 소득금액을 따로 결정하고, 이를 ○○석유의 경영으로 인하여 얻은 것으로 인정한 추계소득과 합산하여 종합소득금액을 산정한 다음, 1990년 귀속분 종합소득세 금 69,140,810원 및 방위세 금 13,828,160원을 부과고지한 사실을 인정한 다음, 피고가 중랑세무서장으로부터 원고의 수입신고누락에 대한 통보를 받고, 중랑세무서장이 추계결정방법에 의하여 산출하여 통보한 총수입금액에서 당초 원고가 신고한 총수입금액과의 차액에 대하여 수입금액신고누락이 있은 것으로 보고, 그 신고누락수입금액에 대응하는 필요경비를 인정할 증빙자료가 없다는 이유로 그 신고누락수입금액과 당초 서면조사결정시 인정한 소득금액과의 합산액을 소득세법상 총수입금액으로 하여 과세표준을 산정한 것은 소득세법 제118조 내지 제120조의 어느 한 가지 방법에 의하지 아니하고, 법령상 근거도 없이 부가가치세 과세표준액을 바로 소득세법상의 수입금액으로 인정하였다는 점에서 위법할 뿐 아니라 결과적으로 단일한 과세기간중 단일 사업장의 과세목적물에 대하여 서면조사와 추계조사를 혼합하여 과세표준을 정한 셈이 되어 위법하다는 이유로 이 사건 각 부과처분을 취소하였다.

After Article 159(1)4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 8786 of Dec. 31, 197) was deleted, there is no legal basis to regard the tax base of value-added tax as the revenue amount under the Income Tax Act, so the value-added tax base cannot be the revenue amount of the business operator for the pertinent year. The revenue amount shall not be determined by one of the methods under Articles 118 through 120 of the Income Tax Act in accordance with the general principles under the Income Tax Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Nu211, Apr. 10, 1984; 93Nu340, Mar. 23, 1993). Thus, the method of calculating the revenue amount by the total profit ratio under the Value-Added Tax Act is also one of the estimation methods for total revenue amount under the Income Tax Act, so if it is the same as the estimation method that can reflect the total revenue amount in the calculation of profit amount in the business.

However, in cases where there are special circumstances to deem that the estimation method would be unreasonable, even if the tax authority imposed the estimation method in the manner prescribed by law, the estimation method and the content of the estimation cannot be recognized as reasonable and reasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Nu328, Mar. 10, 1987; 94Nu15202, Jul. 30, 1996).

In this case, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service: (a) determined the gross profit ratio by type of business around July 1990 when calculating the purchase amount on the basis of no account books and other evidence necessary for calculating the actual revenue amount for an entrepreneur operating wholesale retail business who failed to file a return of value-added tax or omitted a return of revenue amount; and (b) determined the gross profit ratio by type of business around July 1990; (c) according to the gross profit ratio by type of sales in the above type of business; (d) 9.31% of the total profit ratio by the Plaintiff’s individual entrepreneur for the period of operating ○ Petroleum; and (e) the method of calculating the sales amount, which is the tax base of the value-added tax, by the total profit ratio of sales in each taxable period, the Plaintiff used the method of calculating the sales amount by the total profit ratio as seen above; and (e) the method of trading conducted by the Plaintiff while operating the petroleum wholesale retail business from the intermediate wholesaler, after receiving orders of 16,000 square meters (80d) from the intermediate seller, which is more than 200.

In light of the above circumstances, the above gross profit rate of 9.31% is one of the average profit rates by industry as determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service based on the data investigated by him/her, but it is reasonable to view that there are special circumstances to deem that if the plaintiff's sales are estimated by applying it, it would be unreasonable to deem the plaintiff's sales would be unreasonable. Thus, each of the dispositions of this case, which was taken by applying the above gross profit rate, without considering such special circumstances, cannot be recognized as reasonable

Therefore, although the reasoning of the judgment below is somewhat inappropriate, the conclusion that the disposition of this case was unlawful because the method of estimation adopted by the defendant is unreasonable, is justifiable, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the requirements of estimated taxation, as alleged in the grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal

In addition, the defendant's remaining grounds of appeal are based on the premise that the ratio of gross profit to sales applied by the defendant is reasonable, or that the estimation method adopted by the defendant concerning gross income under the Income Tax Act is reasonable and reasonable, so long as the defendant has already estimated gross income, it is not necessary to determine further.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)