Where it is necessary to make a field investigation decision although the books under the Income Tax Act are not kept and kept;

Even if the Plaintiff did not keep the books under Article 184 of the Income Tax Act on real estate income, if the income which serves as the tax base can be calculated on the basis of other evidentiary documents because the matter is relatively simple, the tax base and tax amount should be determined on-site investigation, and it cannot be said that there are evident reasons for the decision on the additional investigation.

Articles 120 and 118 of the Income Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Nu135 Decided September 24, 1980, Supreme Court Decision 80Nu433 Decided November 25, 1980

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Sungbuk Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 79Gu587 delivered on July 16, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in making a final return of tax base on global income for the year 1977, the court below determined that the plaintiff filed a report only on the revenue accrued from the judicial book business and did not file a report under the tax-related Acts on the revenue accrued from one real estate lease in the store owned by the plaintiff. The defendant determined the amount of total revenue from the above real estate lease for the year in question as 11,875,000 won in an authorized manner on the ground that the plaintiff did not have books and documentary evidence to investigate the plaintiff's revenue from the above real estate lease, and determined that the fact that the income accrued from the above judicial book business as reported by the plaintiff was not disputed between the parties based on the tax base and tax amount on global income for the year in question based on the revenue from the above real estate lease as decided by the defendant's estimation investigation, and therefore, it is recognized that the defendant could have determined the amount of income accrued to the plaintiff in 1977 and the amount of income accrued from the above real estate lease contract for the year 1977.

According to the records, the plaintiff's income from real estate in the year 197 can be seen as having been kept a book under Article 184 of the same Act and the fact that the plaintiff did not keep a book on the income from real estate in the year 197. However, the real estate income from this case is related to the income from the lease of the above real estate owned by the plaintiff, and the case is relatively simple and can be easily calculated by only Gap evidence 3-1,48 and Eul evidence 5 (each house rent contract). In this case, even if the plaintiff did not keep and keep a book, it can be calculated based on other evidential documents such as the above contract. Thus, even if the plaintiff did not keep and keep a book, the tax base and tax amount should be determined on the spot, and it cannot be viewed as falling under a case where there is a clear reason for the decision on the additional investigation (see Supreme Court Decisions 80Nu135 delivered on September 24, 1980; 80Nu433, Nov. 25, 1980).

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

Justices Kim Jung-tae (Presiding Justice)