In cases where it is found that a person designated as a written investigation decision fails to provide evidential documents for part of necessary expenses in the final return on the global income tax base, whether the initial written investigation decision may be corrected on such ground (negative)

In case where it is found that a person designated as a written investigation and decision-making person fails to provide evidential documents with respect to part of necessary expenses in the final return on the global income tax base, it shall not be objectively evident that he/she was found to have committed an omission or error without being included in the details of the taxpayer's return from the beginning or by itself. Therefore, it shall not be deemed that the initial written investigation decision is correct on the ground that it does not constitute "when an omission or error is discovered" under Article 1

Articles 119 and 127 of the Income Tax Act, Articles 167 and 168 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 88Nu4010 decided May 9, 1989 (Gong1989,914) 89Nu2073 decided August 8, 1989 (Gong1989,1384) 89Nu2851 decided Feb. 13, 1990 (Gong190,686)

Attorney Han-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

the director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu13730 delivered on September 26, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below issued the final return on global income tax for the purpose of 1986 and 1987, which was designated as a written investigation decision, as a personal entrepreneur operating the advertisement manufacturing business, etc., and filed the final return on global income tax base for the purpose of 1986 and 1987. The defendant, upon receipt of a tax evasion complaint and on the investigation of the plaintiff's account books and evidential documents, issued a tax disposition in this case by revising the original written investigation decision on the ground that some of the necessary expenses included in the plaintiff's contents were processed without evidentiary documents, and the income was omitted. However, the plaintiff did not have evidentiary documents for the part of the necessary expenses in the nature of the business he operated, but did not have any evidentiary documents for the purpose of the processing. Thus, it cannot be objectively deemed that the failure to keep evidentiary documents for the above expenditure was omitted without being included in the taxpayer's report or it was objectively evident that the return was committed by the omission or error itself.

In light of the records and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below are justified (Supreme Court Decision 86Nu348 delivered on March 24, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4010 delivered on May 9, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 88Nu2073 delivered on August 8, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 89Nu2851 delivered on February 13, 1990, etc.); and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as theory of lawsuit, rules of evidence, and incomplete hearing. The arguments are groundless.

Therefore, 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.

Justices Lee Woo-soo (Presiding Justice)