(a) Where the income tax base and tax amount are estimated, and the method thereof;

(b) The case holding that it is improper to determine the estimated amount based on the average income amount of a lawyer's total revenue by case;

A. The estimated income tax under the Income Tax Act is exceptionally acknowledged in cases where a taxpayer’s account books or documentary evidence necessary to determine the entrepreneur’s tax base is either incomplete or false and thus it is impossible to conduct a field investigation on the grounds that there are insufficient or false important parts of the account books or documentary evidence, and even in cases where the income tax base and its tax amount are determined based on the basis of the most reasonable and reasonable grounds, the method is determined based on the most reasonable and reasonable basis, and the method of calculation is deemed reasonable among those listed in Article 159(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, such as the method of calculation based on the sphere of authority between

B. In determining the amount of a lawyer’s revenue, the tax authorities estimated the amount of a lawyer’s average revenue based on 600,000 won per case in cases of a civil and criminal case, 350,000 won per case in cases of a family case, and 300,000 won per case in cases of a case in which the tax authorities estimated the amount of a lawyer’s revenue, but there is no ground to view that the amount of a lawyer’s revenue per case was on-site based on accurate books and documentary evidence and that it was most accurately reflected in the actual amount of a lawyer’s revenue,

Article 120 of the Income Tax Act, Articles 169 and 159(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Plaintiff

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu1002 Decided September 26, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The estimated taxation under the Income Tax Act is exceptionally acknowledged in cases where it is impossible to conduct a field investigation because there are no books or documentary evidence necessary for a businessman to determine the tax base of the businessman, or there are deficiencies or falsity in important parts, and the income tax base and its tax amount are also determined on the basis of the most reasonable and reasonable basis even in cases where the book keeping is determined on the basis of the above reasons. The method is deemed reasonable and reasonable, and the method of calculating the amount by the right type with other partners in the same business situation who are investigated and decided by the account books is listed in the most appropriate method (Article 159(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act) and the arbitrary method is not allowed. According to the legal established by the court below, the plaintiff reported the total amount of the income from the bar business in 1982 to 31,200,000 won, and paid the global income tax and defense tax calculated on the basis of the above 00 won for the reasons that the defendant did not have any documentary evidence of the above revenue amount, 36057 cases and 150 cases per case per case.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the amount of revenue per case by kind of the case, for which the defendant had Nos. 3-1 and 2, is an attorney-at-law who was investigated by accurate books and documentary evidence, and whose actual amount of revenue is the most accurate reflecting the actual amount of revenue, and there is no other evidence to prove this point. Thus, the method of partner's right of estimating and investigating the plaintiff's total revenue amount based on the amount of revenue per case is unreasonable and unreasonable, and it cannot be deemed unlawful.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is justifiable, and the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)