logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2008. 09. 25. 선고 2008두12764 판결
복식부기 기장의무가 없다하더라도 증빙서류 확인시 실지조사에 따라 결정함[국승]
Title

Even if there is no double entry bookkeeping, it shall be determined according to the on-site investigation at the time of confirming documentary evidence.

Summary

Even if no taxpayer has kept and recorded books prescribed by the Income Tax Act, if it is possible to calculate the tax base based on other evidential documents, such as a contract, the tax base and tax amount should be determined by the on-site investigation method.

Related statutes

Article 80 of the Income Tax Act: Decision and Correction

Article 143 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Text

All appeals are dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

Reasons

Although all of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, it is recognized that the assertion on the grounds of appeal by the appellant falls under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed pursuant to Article 5 of the above Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

[Supplementary High Court Decision 2007Nu3251 (Law No. 13, 2008)]

Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first new judgment is revoked. On October 11, 2006, the Defendant revoked the imposition of KRW 94,036,570 on global income tax for 2005, and KRW 94,036,570 on global income tax for 2005, KRW 188,069,361, and KRW 93,511,570 on the Plaintiff ○○○○○, and KRW 62,679,877 on the Plaintiff ○○○, respectively (the Plaintiff’s claim was reduced by reduction and correction in the first instance).

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1-1 through 5, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 4, and Eul evidence 13-1 to five.

A. On May 31, 2005, the Plaintiffs purchased a total of 25 billion square meters of ○○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○, ○○○○○, 26, 28, 31 forest land, and KRW 141,422 square meters of 1.7 billion, and combine the same with one parcel of land easily for sale and purchase. The Plaintiffs further subdivided the same piece of land into 25,00-1, 25-1, 25-1, 25-2, 25-3, 25-4 forest land, and 25-4 forest land on June 30, 2005, 205 to ○○○○○○○○○○, 25,25-2, 25-3, 253, 25-3, 911 square meters of 25.5 billion, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”).

B. On May 31, 2006, the Plaintiffs reported the global income tax base and tax amount for the year 2005, as indicated below (hereinafter “the final return of this case”) based on the amount of income calculated by deducting the amount calculated by the simple expense rate of real estate sales (90.8%) from the amount of income derived from the instant forest trading on the premise that the instant forest trading falls under the real estate trading business.

Plaintiff

Name

Amount of income (,00 won)

Necessary expenses ( thousand won)

Amount of income (,00 won)

Reported tax amount(,00 won)

○ ○

1,381,747

1,117,833

263,913

80,109

○ ○

690,887

58,927

131,959

3,400

○ ○

690,887

58,927

131,959

3,400

○ ○

690,887

58,927

131,959

3,925

○ ○

460,592

372,618

87,972

18,530

Total

3,915,000

3,167,232

747,762

199,364

C. After conducting a tax investigation on the plaintiffs, the defendant issued a disposition to increase the amount stated in the purport of the claim in the tax amount payable by the plaintiffs (hereinafter "the tax disposition in this case") on October 11, 2006 on the ground that only the acquisition value and the amount of acquisition tax of the forest in this case for which the plaintiffs actually paid during the forest sale process of this case, and the registered tax amount should be deducted as necessary expenses.

(In fact that there is no dispute, Gap, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul's evidence Nos. 2 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) The Plaintiffs did not have a duty to prepare and keep account books in accordance with the double-entry bookkeeping system under the Income Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act with those who start a new business in 2005, and did not keep separate account books in the course of forest trade in this case. As such, the Plaintiffs’ income amount is bound to be determined by the Act on the Estimated Investigation and Supplement, and the document evidencing the expenses paid, in the case of a new business operator, by applying simple expense rates. Thus, the instant final return is a legitimate return under the Income Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

(2) The tax authority is unable to rectify the reported amount of income unless there are reasons such as "when there are omissions or errors in the details of the return" listed in Article 80 (2) of the Income Tax Act, and as seen earlier, the final return of this case cannot be deemed to be omissions or errors in its contents. However, the instant tax disposition that increased or corrected the reported amount of tax by the Plaintiffs is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Since the determination of income amount by the method of applying simple expense rates is a kind of estimated survey method, the necessity of the estimated survey should be first recognized to deem that there is no omission or error in the final return under the above method.

(2) In principle, the tax base and tax amount of global income tax shall be determined by the actual amount revealed by the method of a field investigation. The method of a field investigation is exceptionally allowed only when there is no taxpayer’s account book or documentary evidence, or there is no other method to disclose the actual amount of income by the tax authority without reliability because the taxpayer’s account book or documentary evidence is insufficient or false. Therefore, in a case where a tax invoice, account book, and other documentary evidence submitted by the taxpayer is deemed to be unfaithful upon filing a tax base and tax amount, the tax authority shall point out the illegality and submit new documents on the spot investigation. Even if it is based on such materials, if a taxpayer cannot determine the tax base based on other documentary evidence, such as a contract, even if the taxpayer keeps and enters account books under the Income Tax Act, the tax base and tax amount shall be determined by the method of a field investigation and shall not be used (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu20304, Jan. 15, 199; 2004Du8293, Jul. 8, 2005).

(3) Therefore, in full view of each of the statements in Eul evidence No. 5-1 through No. 3 as to the instant case, whether it is necessary to allow an additional investigation because it is impossible to determine the tax base and tax amount through the on-site investigation, and the purport of the entire pleadings, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, it is confirmed through documentary evidence that the plaintiffs sold the instant forest to ○○○○○○ and ○○○○○○, Inc., the acquisition value and the acquisition tax amount of the Plaintiffs’ forest land, and the amount of the registration tax paid. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ revenue and most necessary expenses incurred in the instant forest sale process

Therefore, there is no reason to argue that the Plaintiffs’ income amount should be estimated by applying simple expense rate, and the assertion that the increased or decreased tax disposition was unlawful, even though there is no omission or error in the final return of this case on the premise of the above assertion, is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims shall be dismissed without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and the plaintiffs' appeal shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Relevant statutes

○ Decision and rectification under Article 80 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 31, 2006)

(1) If a person liable to make a final return on the tax base under Articles 70 through 72 or 74 fails to make such return, the chief of the district tax office or the director of the regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall determine the tax base and

(2) If a person who has made a final return on tax base pursuant to Articles 70 through 72 or 74, falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the superintendent of the district tax office or the director of the regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of

1. Where an omission or error exists in the contents of return;

(3) Where the tax base and tax amount of the concerned year are determined or revised under paragraphs (1) and (2), the chief of the district tax office or the director of the regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall make it based on the books and other documentary evidence: Provided, That where the income amount cannot be calculated by books or other documentary evidence for the reasons as prescribed by

○ Keeping and keeping account books under Article 160 of the Income Tax Act

(1) Business operators shall keep evidential documents, etc. so as to calculate the amount of income, and keep and manage books by double entry so that all transactions concerning their business may be grasped objectively.

(2) In case where a businessman who is smaller than the scale prescribed by the Presidential Decree, keeps a simple book as prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereinafter referred to as the "Simple book") and enters faithfully the details of transactions with respect to his business, he shall be considered as keeping and keeping the book as referred to in paragraph

Article 89 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19890, Feb. 28, 2007) (the acquisition value, etc. of assets)

(1) The acquisition value of assets under Article 39 (2) of the Act shall be as follows:

1. For assets purchased from a third person, the amount calculated by adding the acquisition tax, the registration tax and other incidental expenses to the purchase price;

○ Determination and Correction of Article 143 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

(1) The term “reasons prescribed by the Presidential Decree” in the proviso of Article 80 (3) of the Act means the cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. Where necessary account books and documentary evidence are missing or important parts are incomplete or false in the calculation of the tax base;

(3) In case where the estimation, determination or correction of the income amount is made under the proviso of Article 80 (3) of the Act, the method falling under each of the following subparagraphs shall be applied: Provided, That the provisions of subparagraph 1-2 shall be

1-2. The method of determining or revising as income amount the amount obtained by deducting the amount obtained by multiplying the income amount by the simple expense rate;

(4) The term “person subject to the application of simple expense rate” in the proviso of paragraph (3) means the businessman falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. A businessman who starts a business anew in the current taxable period; and

○ Keeping and keeping account books under Article 208 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

(1) The books under Article 160 (1) of the Act means the books in the form of double entry and calculation of the changes in the financial status of business and the contents of profit and loss.

(5) The term “business operator falling short of a certain scale determined by the Presidential Decree” in Article 160 (2) and (3) of the Act means a business operator falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. A businessman commencing a business anew in the current year; and

(8) “Simple book prescribed by the Presidential Decree” in Article 160 (2) of the Act means the books on which the matters falling under the following subparagraphs may be entered, and determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax

1. Matters regarding revenues such as the turnover;

2. Matters regarding the payment of expenditures;

3. Matters concerning the increase or decrease of fixed assets; and

4. Other reference matters.

arrow