The adequacy of the decision on the estimation investigation solely on the basis of the lack of books

In order to determine the Plaintiff’s comprehensive income tax, the Plaintiff’s failure to keep the books alone is insufficient. The Plaintiff’s decision on the additional investigation can only be made when it is impossible to determine the tax base and the amount of tax even based on the data after obtaining the evidence presented by the Plaintiff and conducting a new investigation. However, even if the Plaintiff did not keep a legitimate book, the Defendant did not point out the illegality of the production and demand the Plaintiff to produce new materials. In addition, if the Plaintiff could have calculated the total amount of tax by entering in the design contract presented by the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s decision on the additional investigation was unlawful.

Article 120 of the Income Tax Act, Article 169 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Nu408 delivered on March 11, 1980, 80Nu577 Delivered on July 14, 1981

[Judgment of the court below]

The Director of the Korean Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu671 delivered on July 25, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the judgment of the court below, the defendant did not keep the account books and confirmed that the plaintiff calculated the plaintiff's total amount of income and imposed global income tax and defense tax as stated in its reasoning on the basis of the association fees paid by the plaintiff to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Branch of the Certified Architects's Association, and the plaintiff's income of this case can be calculated easily by the design contract (Evidence A No. 7-1 through 85) presented by the plaintiff on the basis that the design income of this case can be calculated easily by the design income of this case, and it does not constitute an obvious objective reason for making a decision on the estimation under Article 120 of the Income Tax Act and Article 169 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. The plaintiff's above estimation decision is unlawful,

In light of the records, the court below is just in examining the process of cooking the evidence in taking the above measures, and it is not possible to find any illegality that the defendant misleads the plaintiff about the facts in violation of the rules of evidence or the rules of evidence, and the defendant did not keep the plaintiff's comprehensive income tax in order to make a preliminary investigation, the court below may make a preliminary investigation decision only when it is impossible to determine the tax base and tax amount of the evidence, even if it is based on the data after pointed out the illegality of all the evidence presented by the plaintiff and receiving new materials and conducting a preliminary investigation. (See Supreme Court Decision 79Nu408 delivered on March 11, 1980; Supreme Court Decision 80Nu577 delivered on July 14, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 80Nu577 delivered on July 14, 1981).

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 on the bench.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)