Whether a disposition imposed after an estimated investigation and determination on rental income is legitimate

Where the details of the operation of the rental deposit and its details are known, the total income amount and income amount on the basis of the tax base may be calculated on the basis of the original documentary evidence even if the plaintiff did not keep or record the books of law; thus, the defendant's disposition of imposition is unreasonable.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The defendant's disposition of imposition of global income tax of 50,980,730 won (gold 29,470 won for the year 1985, gold 13,617,070 won for the year 1985, gold 13,617,070 won for the year 1986, and gold 37,064,190 won for the year 1987) and 10,176,450 won for the defense (gold 30,850 won for the year 1985, the amount reverted to 30,732,770 won for the year 1986, and the amount reverted to 7,412,830 won for the year 1987) shall be revoked. The defendant's litigation expenses shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Details of taxation; and

The plaintiff's 1 (Application Form 1), 2 (Written Decision), 3-1, 2-1, 2-1-4, 1-1-4, 1-3-2, 2-2-1-2, 3-2-3 (Report on Change of Income Tax in 88), 4-2-3 (Report on Investigation)-4, 7-2-4, 1-7, 9-7, 9-7, 1-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, and 8-7, 9-7, 1-7, respectively.

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

The plaintiff's attorney asserted that the tax disposition in this case was unlawful because the plaintiff prepared and kept a lease contract, apartment sales contract, and receipt for the payment of public charges while leasing the apartment owned by the plaintiff, and only received a lease deposit without rent from the tenant, and the full amount of the deposit can be verified by the fact that the management of the lease deposit and the details thereof can be verified, so the tax disposition in this case was determined and imposed without a real investigation and without a decision on the actual investigation. At the time of the tax disposition in this case, the defendant could not calculate the amount of the lease deposit and the amount of the income by supporting documents, such as the lease contract, submitted by the plaintiff at the time of the tax disposition in this case. The other documents were merely prepared to submit the claim procedure, which is the first instance stage, to calculate the amount of the income and the amount of the income at the time of the imposition. Thus, the plaintiff

According to Article 19 (2) of the Income Tax Act, the Plaintiff’s total income amount shall be the amount calculated by deducting the necessary expenses from the total income amount of the above rent No. 1 for the year concerned. The Plaintiff, even if he had received the above rent No. 1 for 6 years, may use the rent No. 1 for each of the above rent No. 2 for the purpose of using the rent No. 1 for the rent No. 1 for each of the above rent No. 2 for the purpose of acquiring the rent No. 1 for each of the above rent No. 1 for the purpose of acquiring the rent No. 4 for each of the above rent No. 1 for the rent No. 5 (the above rent No. 2 for each of the above rent No. 4 for the purpose of calculating the rent No. 2 for each of the above rent No. 1 for the purpose of calculating the rent No. 1 for the rent No. 1 for the apartment No. 2, the amount calculated by calculating the rent No. 1 for each of the rent No. 2 for the above reasons for calculating the rent No. 1 for the rent No. 1 for the total revenue amount

① Under the above facts, the Plaintiff only prepared and kept a lease contract, etc. for the above apartment house, but did not keep the account books under Article 184 of the Income Tax Act, but the income of this case cannot be deemed as complicated because it is related to the revenue acquired from the lease of apartment units owned by the Plaintiff, and it can be known solely with the above lease contract, etc. prepared and kept by the Plaintiff. In such a case, even if the Plaintiff did not keep the account books of law and keep the account books of the above lease, the amount of the gross income, which serves as the basis for the tax base, can be calculated on the basis of the above lease contract, etc. (in this case, the Defendant’s assertion that, even if the Plaintiff failed to do so, it cannot be viewed as the basis for the actual investigation into the above rent, etc.). On the other hand, the Defendant’s assertion that the amount of the income generated from the use of the real estate can not be included in the calculation of the income amount of the deposit or other real estate under Article 18(1)1 of the Income Tax Act without any dispute over the establishment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the taxation disposition of this case is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

May 9, 1990