Daegu District Court 2012Guhap609 ( October 25, 2013)

Cho High-depth 201Gu3446 ( December 06, 2011)

Even if it was reported by estimation method, it is legitimate to impose tax under the On-Site Investigation Act.

Even if the income was reported by estimation method on the ground that evidentiary documents are incomplete, the necessary expenses were reflected in the field investigation and there are no circumstances to deem that there are no other reflected necessary expenses, so a disposition imposed by the on-site investigation method is legitimate.

Article 80 of the Income Tax Act and Article 143 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

2013Nu1813. Detailed income and revocation of disposition

The AA

Head of Dong Daegu Tax Office

aa

Daegu District Court Decision 2012Guhap609 Decided October 25, 2013

July 25, 2014

September 19, 2014

a

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant's imposition of global income tax for the plaintiff on July 1, 201, which belongs to the year 2007, is revoked. Each disposition of global income tax for the plaintiff on July 1, 201, global income tax for the year 2008, global income tax for the year 209, and global income tax for the year 2009.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as follows, and the reasoning for the court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for adding the judgment as stipulated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act to the Plaintiff’s assertion in the trial.

"O's global income tax for 207 years from the second half to the third half of the judgment of the first instance, O's global income tax for 2007, O's global income tax for 2008, O's global income tax for 2009, O's global income tax for 2007, O's global income tax for 2008, O's global income tax for 2008, O's global income tax for 2009, O's global income tax for 209, O's global income tax for 207 years from the second half of the judgment of the first instance to the third half of the judgment of the second instance, O's comprehensive income tax for 207 years from the second half after the second half of the judgment of the first instance, 2008, O's comprehensive income tax for 2007, O's additional income tax for 2007, 2007, including O's income tax for 208.07.

(a) Whether there exists any justifiable reason for an exemption from penalty tax;

1) The plaintiff's assertion

Around 2002, the Plaintiff received a reply that the standard expense rate was legitimate after inquiring the district tax office having jurisdiction over the assessment report at the district tax office in 2002, and made a report of estimation by standard expense rate for about 10 years from the global income tax for the year 2002. During that process, the Plaintiff was subject to the global income tax investigation at around August 2007, but did not have any point about the global income tax return at the tax office, and the pertinent tax office did not recognize that the Plaintiff’s report based on standard expense rate constitutes a violation of the duty of double-entry bookkeeping before the Daejeon regional tax office’s auditor pointed out. In other words, the Plaintiff’s report and payment of global income tax based on standard expense rate was not merely due to the Plaintiff’s land or mistake under the Plaintiff’s laws and regulations, but was based on the Plaintiff’s public opinion list by the tax authority’s inquiry and the tax office’s explicit or implied tax guidance, and thus, there is a justifiable reason for exemption from additional tax

2) Determination

Under the tax law, where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, an additional tax is an administrative sanction imposed as prescribed by the Act, and where there are justifiable grounds for not being able to cause the taxpayer’s breach of the duty, such as where it is unreasonable to expect the taxpayer to fulfill the duty, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du930, Nov. 25, 2005). Meanwhile, in imposing additional tax, the taxpayer’s intentional or negligent act is not considered, and the land or mistake of the law does not constitute a justifiable reason (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Du1829, May 23, 2013).

Based on the above legal principles, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant expressed the public opinion that is the object of trust in relation to the disposition in this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff expressed the public opinion that the obligation to report and pay global income tax by means of the disposition in this case is legitimate, considering the following: (a) Article 160 of the Income Tax Act and Article 208(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act give the Plaintiff a business operator an entry by double entry bookkeeping in principle; (b) the Plaintiff returned comprehensive income tax by double entry bookkeeping at the time of the final return of global income tax for the year 1999; and (c) the Plaintiff is deemed to have been aware that the agent himself was the subject of double entry bookkeeping; and (c) even if the Defendant did not have any legitimate opinion that the obligation to report and pay global income tax by means of the return of global income tax in this case was legitimate, even if the Plaintiff neglected to perform his duty after hearing the tax official's wrong explanation, it constitutes a case where the Plaintiff did not have any legitimate reason for the Plaintiff's duty to report and pay global income tax by double entry.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(b) Whether the depreciation costs should be additionally recognized as necessary expenses;

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition was unlawful since other expenses equivalent to the depreciation costs of buildings, vehicles, fixtures, medical equipment, and facilities and equipment were not included in necessary expenses.

2) Determination

Article 55 (1) 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "the depreciation costs of the fixed business assets as one of the necessary expenses corresponding to the total amount of income in each taxable period of the business income", and Article 62 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the depreciation costs of the fixed business assets shall be appropriated as the necessary expenses in calculating the income amount in case where the depreciation amount of the fixed business assets is appropriated as the necessary expenses for each taxable period within the limit of the amount calculated by the method reported to the head of the competent tax office by each taxable period." Article 5 (2) provides that the fixed business assets, such as buildings and structures directly used for the relevant business, vehicles and transports, tools, tools, fixtures, machinery and equipment, etc., shall be fixed as the fixed business assets for the relevant business." According to the above law, Article 55 (1) 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the depreciation costs shall be appropriated as necessary expenses when the business operator makes the settlement of accounts practically reducing the depreciation amount from the book value of the fixed business assets.

In this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff appropriated the depreciation costs as necessary expenses in the settlement of accounts and reported them as necessary expenses at the time of the final return on the tax base, and the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit without further review.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.