A. Whether a provision on a high rate of income standard by type of business is legitimate

B. Requirements for legitimate taxation by estimation

(c) The adequacy of the estimated taxation disposition that considers the actual amount of income equivalent to 150% of the average income rate of the enterprise solely on the ground that the person is the person evading the actual inspection of income;

A. The provisions on the income-based rate by type of business in 1978, which was set by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, as well as the basic rate of the income-based rate of the year 1978, higher than the specified rate of the basic rate, and the three-minuted income rate of the lower rate, should be considered reasonable as the basis for the estimation of the income amount to be applied to the income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based

(b) The estimated taxation is intended to recognize the estimated taxation as a true income amount, which is obtained by a probable method as possible, in a case where it is impossible to grasp the objective income amount, so it is reasonable and accurate in the estimated method itself, which is adopted in addition to the necessity of the estimation, to be lawful.

C. The Plaintiffs’ estimated taxation that the Plaintiff’s actual income amount constitutes 150% of the average corporate standard income rate solely on the ground that they are the persons evading the actual inspection of the amount of income is illegal in lack of rationality and feasibility unless the materials to recognize that the high rate of the standard income rate is similar to the Plaintiffs’ actual income rate are found.

(a) Articles 120 and 124(b) of the Income Tax Act;

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Head of Seogsan Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 82 Gu118 delivered on May 17, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

(1) Under Articles 120 and 124 of the Income Tax Act, there are no books and documentary evidence necessary for the determination of tax base and tax amount under Article 120 and Article 124 of the same Act, or because the details are incomplete or false, it is desirable to provide that the standard income rate for each type of business to be applied in case of the determination of the estimated income amount may reflect the amount of income less than the amount of income available. Thus, in this case, the standard rate for income by type of business to be applied in the case of the determination of the estimated income amount is stipulated not only in the standard rate for income by type of business 1978 as determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, but also in the case of the higher rate and three percent of the lower rate, the higher rate itself cannot be said to be in conflict with the purport of the statutory provisions. Rather, the provisions on the above differential income rate are reasonable in terms of the estimation of income amount to be applied to the income earner with the actual difference in income. However, in a concrete case, it is reasonable in terms of whether the choice of the three types of the above standard rate is appropriate, namely

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the above rate of standard income is invalid is erroneous.

(2) Furthermore, even though the above provision on the high rate of income in the table of the above income standard does not become invalid, the court below held that in this case, the disposition imposing each income tax of this case by estimating the amount of the plaintiffs' income by applying high rate equivalent to 150% of the basic rate of income, which is the average and standard income level, on the sole basis of the fact that the defendant in this case constitutes the evasion agent of the actual income amount who is not equipped with books and documentary evidence so that the plaintiffs can investigate and determine the actual income amount as

On the other hand, since the estimated tax is obtained by a method which could be a case where it is impossible to grasp the objective real income amount and intends to recognize it as the correct income amount, even if the estimated tax is lawful, the method of estimation itself adopted in addition to the necessity of estimation should be reasonable and accurate. According to the records, it can be known that the plaintiff's actual income amount was estimated as equivalent to 150% of the average company's standard income rate just because the plaintiff's actual income amount was evaded due to the reason that the plaintiff's actual income amount was evaded due to the defendant's previous evidence, and there is no evidence to find that the above high rate of standard income rate is similar to the plaintiffs' actual income amount. Thus, the above high rate of the estimated tax amount is illegal. In this regard, the decision of the court below ordering the revocation of the amount exceeding the amount of tax amount calculated by the average income rate among the disposition imposing the tax amount of this case calculated by applying the above high rate is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of this legal theory.

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-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young