Whether the estimated taxation disposition based on the method of partner's right which lacks rationality and feasibility is appropriate (negative)

In this case, an attorney-at-law who is a taxpayer has employed two employees to process civil cases mainly, but there are no advisory firms, while a partner who is a comparative basis employs four employees to professionally accept and deal with maritime cases. Since the advisory firm has nine or more advisory firms, it cannot be deemed that a partner who is a partner of the same business as a taxpayer is not a partner of the same trade. Therefore, the tax disposition based on the amount of income which is estimated by the method of partner's authority lacking rationality and feasibility is illegal because the tax office's estimation of the income compared to his total amount of income is the selection of a partner who is a comparative basis.

Article 120 of the Income Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu359 Delivered on October 10, 1984

Plaintiff

Head of Western Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu334 delivered on April 19, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

In determining the business income of the plaintiff in 1981 by the method of estimated investigation, the court below held that the plaintiff's business size constituted 93/100 of the size of the non-party's attorney-at-law who is a partner, and imposed the plaintiff's total revenue amount, income amount, and tax base amount of the non-party's total revenue amount of KRW 72,694,40 and KRW 4,794,350 of global income tax, defense tax amount of KRW 1,064,820 of global income tax, but the non-party attorney-at-law employed four employees (one secretary, two employees, one other, and one other), and the adviser company also has nine employees (one secretary, one manager, one employee, and one employee) to be in charge of civil cases, such as compensation for damages caused by mining accidents, and the plaintiff's decision that the plaintiff's business income amount was inappropriate by comparison with the plaintiff's total revenue amount of the non-party's business partner's estimation, which is not reasonable.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and decision of the court below as above is just, and there is no error of fact or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the class of partner authority such as the theory of lawsuit.

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 Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju