Whether, in determining the business tax base of an on-site investigation, there is a duty to investigate to the business partner.

When the tax office decides on the on-site investigation, it is only to investigate the taxation data based on the books and documentary evidence kept by the business operator, and it is not possible to conduct an on-site investigation to the business operator.

Article 34 of the former Business Tax Act

Plaintiff

The Head of the Maternization Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 77Gu609 delivered on January 23, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The reasoning of the judgment below is that the amount of cash revenue per month based on the statement of the ............The amount of cash revenue per month is deducted from the sum of cash sales and credit sales, so the amount of cash revenue per month calculated accordingly is KRW 22,850,618, and the amount of cash revenue per month based on the statement of the cash receipts and disbursements (Evidence A. 12) is deducted from the total amount of the total amount, and the amount of cash revenue per month shall be 26,173,646, and the amount of cash revenue calculated accordingly shall be considered as KRW 26,173,646, since there is a difference between the amount of cash revenue and the amount of cash revenue in accordance with the above sales and cash receipts and disbursements, one of the above sales and cash receipts and disbursements books cannot be trusted.

However, according to the records, if the above cash book was examined, it is clear that the above amount of advance payment, deposit received, and provisional deposit received, which are not related to the sales of the goods, were entered in the book, and KRW 3,906,434 in total, and KRW 416,596 in the next month is clear in the principle of entry in the book because it is not the nature that it shall be deducted from the total income amount, and KRW 27,707,052 in the total amount of the revenue amount, which is not related to the sales and KRW 3,906,434 in the sales and the above amount which is not related to the sales and the above amount of KRW 22,850,618 in the above court below's decision. Thus, it is clear that the court below's decision that there is an error that the above two books are recorded in the book, but it is not unlawful to reverse the judgment of the court below on the ground that there is a ground to make an additional investigation.

2. As to the second, third, and fourth points

In a case where the business attitude continues for a long time without any change in the scale of the facility, barring any special circumstance, it belongs to a general case where there is no significant difference in the transaction amount. According to the records, it is acceptable that there is a significant difference compared to the electricity between the purchase amount and the sales amount during the taxation period of this case, such as the original edition. Since the plaintiff's transaction partner mainly focuses on the demand for printed materials as a middle and high school in the first half of the taxable period, there is no evidence to readily conclude that there is no record that there is any difference in the record, but it is acceptable to view that there was no record on the 12-month period of this case, such as the original edition, and that there is no evidence to view that there was no record on the record that there was no record on the 12-month period of this case, and according to the provisions of Articles 34 and 70-3 and 77 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Business Tax Act, the tax office's on-site investigation can only be conducted by the account books and documentary evidence.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below, which concluded that there are deficiencies in the important parts of the entry in the books kept by the plaintiff and that it is false, is justified, and the dissenting opinion that there is an incomplete hearing, legal scenario, and a deviation from judgment can not be adopted.

3. On the fifth ground for appeal

In addition, the decision of the court below is justified by the defendant's application of Article 77 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of Article 34 of the same Act to determine the tax base amount due to the partner authority by considering the lack of the books and the false facts as seen above 2 and the defendant's determination of the tax base amount due to the partner authority by applying Article 77 (2) of the same Enforcement Decree, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation or error, such as the theory of lawsuit, and it is therefore groundless.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of the appeal shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)