(a) Requirements for the estimation and determination of tax base and tax amount;

(b) Determination on and determination of the total income amount and tax base;

(c) A case where details of the final return of value-added tax cannot be considered as taxation data in determining the tax base.

A. The fact that a taxpayer does not voluntarily present the data for the on-site investigation or that a taxpayer wishes or invokes the investigation by means of estimation cannot be deemed to have satisfied the requirements for the determination of estimation. It can only be said that a taxpayer refuses to comply with a tax authority’s request for submission of data or fails to obtain taxation data for the actual amount investigation in any other way, as well as where the tax authority cannot obtain taxation data for the actual amount investigation.

B. Since the total amount of income and the tax base of both are different in terms of the number or stages on which the calculation is based, the issue of how to determine and determine the amount in any way should be determined separately depending on whether it falls under any of the statutory grounds for the method of investigation, respectively. Since the two methods are not necessarily to be determined and determined by the same method, even if the tax base is determined by the method of estimation investigation, if it is possible to investigate the total amount of income, the total amount of income shall be determined by the method of field investigation.

C. The content of the final return of value-added tax should be taken into consideration as a valuable taxation data in determining the tax base of income tax, barring special circumstances. However, if the final return of value-added tax was made by a taxpayer’s agent by unilaterally stating the details of the tax office’s employees in the return form issued with the taxpayer’s seal affixed thereon, the said return form cannot be considered as the income tax assessment

(a) Article 120 of the Income Tax Act; Article 114-2 (2) of the Income Tax Act; Article 159 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu305 decided Mar. 13, 1984; 85Nu833 decided Sep. 23, 1986; b. Supreme Court Decision 80Nu101 decided Jul. 13, 1981; 81Nu159 decided Feb. 9, 1982

Plaintiff

Head of Western Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu603 decided September 27, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal.

The determination of the tax base and the amount of tax under Article 120 of the Income Tax Act is exceptionally accepted in cases where there is no necessary account books, documentary evidence, etc. in calculating the tax base, or where it is impossible to make a determination by any other means because the details are incomplete or false. Thus, the mere fact that a taxpayer does not produce data for a field investigation or that a taxpayer wishes to investigate and determine the tax base by means of estimation cannot be deemed as satisfying the requirements for the determination of the estimated investigation. It can be said that a taxpayer can make the determination of the estimated investigation only if the taxpayer refuses to comply with the request of the tax authority for the submission of data or fails to obtain the taxation data for the actual amount investigation even if the tax authority cannot obtain the taxation

In addition, Articles 117 through 120 of the Income Tax Act, Articles 164 through 169 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act apply mutatis mutandis to the investigation of total amount of income pursuant to Article 114-2(2) of the Income Tax Act and Article 159(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act concerning the investigation and determination of the tax base and amount of tax. The issue of whether to investigate and determine all the amount of total income and the amount of the tax base are different from the amount of the calculation in terms of the basis and stages of the calculation, so the issue of how to determine and determine by any method shall be determined depending on what constitutes one of the statutory grounds concerning the investigation and determination method, and two must not be determined by the same method (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Nu101, Jul. 13, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 81Nu159, Feb. 9, 1982).

Therefore, in determining the global income tax base of the Plaintiff in 1981, it is unfair that the first final return was filed by the Plaintiff on the part of the total amount of business income and real estate income, and thus, the fact that the Plaintiff failed to comply with such request is unlawful. Thus, it cannot be said that there was an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out in the reasoning of the lower court’s determination on the global income tax base of 1981 by multiplying each income amount by the standard rate of income.

2. The second ground of appeal is examined.

Unless there are special circumstances, the final return of value-added tax should be accepted as a valuable taxation data in determining the tax base of income tax, and the argument points out. However, as the plaintiff's evidence Nos. 5 and Eul evidence Nos. 6, which was the final return of value-added tax for the second and second years of 1981, and the plaintiff's report method was signed by the non-party delegated by the plaintiff, such as the judgment of the court below, with the plaintiff's seal affixed on the return form and affixed it to the defendant's tax office employees, and the defendant's employees unilaterally stated the details, it is reasonable to view that the tax base of income tax cannot be considered as the income tax assessment data. Therefore, the decision of the court below that

In addition, a real estate rental business operator who is engaged in real estate rental business has not leased part of the building and has not leased it officially.

The mere fact that the obligation to report the suspension or closure of business under Article 5 (4) of the Value-Added Tax Act cannot be deemed to have occurred, and it does not necessarily have to be taken into account the existence or absence of such a report in the investigation of the income amount. Therefore, the argument that the Plaintiff was illegal to recognize that the Plaintiff did not actually lease part of the building for lease and set up a public room even though the Plaintiff did not report the suspension or closure of business.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)