The case holding that the decision of estimated investigation of business tax base is illegal

If the tax office recognizes that there was an increase in sales of the former (former) without any justifiable ground in calculating the amount of the business income by the method of estimated investigation, and that there was an erroneous calculation of the number of business days, the determination of the business income tax base is unlawful as it is by arbitrary method without any legal basis.

Article 35 of the former Business Tax Act

Plaintiff

Head of Western Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 77Gu224 delivered on November 28, 1978

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In the reasoning of the judgment below, the defendant's decision that there was an increase in 20 percent of sales in comparison with the former (electric) without any justifiable ground in calculating the tax base amount for the second-term business year 1975 and business income amount for the year 1975 for the plaintiff (the defendant is not able to find any ground for it, and there is no question as to what is the basis for the calculation method under Article 77 (2) 1 through 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Business Tax Act at the time of the time of the calculation method) and the number of business days of the defendant's own finding that it was erroneous that it was calculated for 150 days, in light of the fact that the defendant's decision on the tax base amount for the business income for the second term of the year 1975 and that it was illegal as it was by a arbitrary method without any legal basis, and that it is not unlawful to calculate the tax base amount for the tax base amount for the business income and the tax base amount for the previous tax base amount for the business income.

Therefore, this case's appeal is without merit, and therefore, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 400, 395, and 384 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and Articles 95 and 89 of the same Act as to the bearing of litigation costs. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Hah-hak (Presiding Justice)