Seocho 2013west 230 ( October 16, 2014)

The reasons why the taxpayer wants to investigate and determine by means of estimation cannot be considered as satisfying the requirements for estimation.

Even if the income rate determined by the defendant is higher than that of the same kind of business, and the fact that the defendant entered false matters is recognized, such circumstance alone alone does not lead to the absence of necessary books and documentary evidence in calculating the tax base or the absence of important or false parts

2014Guhap7275 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing global income tax, etc.

LAA

OO Head of the tax office

September 19, 2014

January 09, 2015

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part demanding the revocation of the part exceeding the OO of global income tax for the year 2007 and exceeding the OO of global income tax for the year 2008 is dismissed. 2. The remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On October 4, 2012, the former Cheong-gu branch Defendant revoked each of the global income tax OO and OOOO of global income tax for the year 2007 reverted to the Plaintiff and the year 2008.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a business entity that manufactures the rear discharge lamps for automobiles and supplies them to the OOO corporation under the trade name of 'O industry company located in Incheon OO-gu'.

B. On October 4, 2012, the Defendant: (a) determined that “O 200,000,000 won for raw materials, 200,0000,0000 won for global income, 200,0000 won for 20,0000 won for global income and 20,0000 won for global income; and (b) determined that the amount of tax for 20,000,000 won for 20,000 won for global income and 20,000 won for 20,000 won for global income and 20,000 won for global income and 20,000 won for 20,000 won for global income and 20,000 won for 20,000 won for global income and 20,000 won for global income and 20,000 won for 20,000 won for global income and 20.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The account book prepared by the Plaintiff appears to be 19.0% in 2007 and 9.5% in 2008, the standard income rate, which is the index converting the standard expense rate and simple expense rate into the income rate, shall be 8.4% in 2007 and 8.5% in 2008, and the simple income rate shall be 7.3% in 2007, and 7.3% in 2008. The income rate determined by the Defendant shall be 30.8% in 2007, and 22.7% in 208, the income rate of the same company from 2009 to 2010, and the income rate of similar company shall be 0.0% in 1.0% in 1.0% in 200 to 11.0% in 200 in 209 and 208 in 2010 in 200.

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts of recognition

1) The details of the income amount reported by the Plaintiff from 2007 to 2010 are as follows.

(unit: million won)

2) The details of expenses not proven among the necessary expenses reported by the Plaintiff are as follows.

(Unit: (Unit: 19.0%) false bookkeeping rate of 19.0% 9.5% 34.4% 29.8% 22.3% 22.8% 40.7% 40.7% 40.7% 40.8% 40.7% in 2007 and 14.6% in 2009 14.6% in 2008 14.7% in 2009 14.7% in 20.7% in 30.8% in 22.7% in 40.7% in 40.7% in 40.7% in base income rate of 8.4% in 8.5% in 8.5% in 8.3% in simple income rate of 7.3% in 7.6% in 7.46% in 34.7% in 35.41% in 201.

3) The income ratio reported by the Plaintiff, the income ratio decided by the Defendant, the relevant indexes, etc. are as listed below: [Grounds for recognition] without dispute; entry in Gap evidence 2; and the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Determination

1) The tax base and tax amount of global income tax shall, in principle, be determined by the actual amount revealed by the method of a field investigation, and in order to determine it by the method of a field investigation, it shall be exceptionally permitted only when there is no taxpayer’s account book or documentary evidence, etc., or when there is no other way to disclose the actual amount of income without the credibility of the important portion being recorded in incomplete or false. Thus, even if some of the account books or documentary evidence recorded are included in the books or documentary evidence, if it is evident that the remainder except the relevant portion is the data that conforms to all facts and can be calculated based on this, the tax base and tax amount shall not be determined by the method of a field investigation, and the reasons that the tax disposition by the field investigation is more unfavorable than the disposition by the method of an on-site investigation or that the taxpayer wants to investigate and determine it by the method of estimation cannot be deemed as satisfying the requirements of an estimated taxation (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 197)

2) We examine the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant denies only KRW 00 billion necessary expenses, which the Plaintiff reported on the account books from 2007 to 2008 without evidentiary documents; (b) the Defendant recognized other necessary expenses for the Plaintiff’s return on the account books; (c) the Plaintiff is obliged to keep evidential documents, etc. for the purpose of calculating the amount of income as a person subject to double-entry bookkeeping under the Income Tax Act to record and manage the account books so that transactions can be objectively identified; (d) the standard expense rate applies to a small-scale business operator; (e) even if the standard expense rate is different from this standard expense rate recognized by the on-site investigation, the Defendant may not be presumed as identical or similar to the actual expense rate of 200 years from 207 to 2008, based on the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s calculation of income tax base for the Plaintiff from 2007 to 207, based on the premise that the remaining portion, other than those recorded on the account books, can not be deemed as necessary for the Plaintiff’s calculation of income from 2007 years and 207 years.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the assessment standard and tax amount should be revised after the estimation of global income tax for the year 2007 and 2008 is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit of this case which exceeds 4,07,630,010 won of global income tax for the year 2007 and the part which seeks revocation exceeding 1,672,424,480 won of global income tax for the year 2008 is unlawful and thus, it is dismissed. The remaining claim of the plaintiff is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.