Whether it falls under estimation grounds

Since tax invoices necessary for calculating the tax base, accounting books and other documents do not exist or important parts are incomplete, or its contents are obvious to be false, the disposition of this case is subject to the assessment of tax base, and there is a cause of estimated adjustment as prescribed by the Value-Added Tax Act

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. 2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Details of the instant disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties:

"원고는 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동ㅇㅇ번지에서 ㅇㅇㅇ이라는 상호로 음식점업(종목 부페)을 하던 중 1993년 법인세, 1994년 부가가치세 2기 예정신고분까지 법인세와 부가가치세의 신고・납부를 하였다. 그런데, 피고는 원고의 위 신고의 내용(매출액)에 탈루가 있다고 보고 위 사업장에 대하여 1992년 2기분부터 1994년 2기 예정신고분까지의 부가가치세, 1992 사업연도와 1993 사업연도의 법인세에 관한 경정조사를 하였는데, 그 조사결과 원고의 일일수입금액에 관한 증빙이 없을 뿐 아니라 1992. 1. 1.부터 1993. 12. 31.까지의 원・부재료비 기장비율이 실제 원・부재료비의 기장비율이 실제 원・부재료비의 41.55%에 불과하는 등 보관하고 있는 수입금액에 관한 기장내용이 원・부재료비 금액에 비추어 허위임이 명백하다는 이유로, 위 전 기간동안의 원고의 수입금액을 1994. 5. 1.부터 1994. 9. 30.까지의 기간동안 원고의 원・부재료비에 대한비용의 관계비율'로 역산하여 추계하고 이를 토대로 원고법인의 추가익금산입액과 추가손금산입액을 결정하여 원고법인의 소득금액을 계산한 뒤 1992. 1. 4. 원고에게 별지와 같은 부가가치세와 법인세를 경정결정하여 원고에게 고지하였다(다음부터 이 사건 부과 처분이라 부른다).",2. 이 사건 부과처분의 적법 여부

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is legitimate as it is based on the estimation correction method prescribed by relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

The plaintiff asserts as follows. First, even if the plaintiff's actual sales can be confirmed with the books and evidence kept by the plaintiff, and even if some of the books are incomplete or reliable, it is illegal for the defendant to make the estimation investigation decision immediately without any other reasons for estimation correction. Second, part of the single taxable object is illegal to calculate the remaining tax base by the on-site investigation decision and make the disposition of this case. Third, it is unlawful to apply the expense ratio corresponding to a specific period to the above period even if the expense ratio of the plaintiff's place of business was increased four times from February 1992 to October 194, 1994. Fourth, in calculating the expense ratio, the defendant's calculation of the expense ratio was based on the bill, and the cost purchased in cash was calculated unfairly lower than the expense ratio due to the failure to take account of the expenses purchased in cash. However, this is unlawful."

1) Determination as to whether there is a ground for additional correction

A) The proviso 1, 2, and the main text of Article 21(2)1, 21(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that where the government revises the tax base and the amount of tax payable by investigation, if there is no tax invoice, account book, or other evidence necessary for calculating the tax base, or the material part is incomplete, if the contents of the tax invoice, account book, or other evidence are obviously false in light of the size of facilities, the number of employees, and the market price of raw materials, goods, products, or all kinds of charges, it may be revised by estimation as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 32(3) and (2) of the Corporate Tax Act

B) However, some of the following facts do not conflict between the parties, and some of them can be acknowledged by taking into account all the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of evidence No. 3 and the whole purport of oral arguments:

① At the time of the above tax investigation against the Plaintiff, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff, through relevant public officials, to provide the account books necessary for calculating the tax base, such as the account books related to the inclusion of daily income during the pertinent business period, the daily settlement table of cash register, and the documents evidencing the income amount

② Although the Plaintiff entered the monthly income in the account book, there is no account book or evidence on the daily income that can support the monthly income. The actual income on the account book, which is the initial record on the income for the period from May 1, 1994 to September 30 of the same year, is 1,407,729,730 won, or the Plaintiff’s income on the account book for the same period, is 612,728,333 won, which is 43.5% of the actual income, and there was no evidence to verify the actual income for a period other than this period.

③ In addition, the Plaintiff’s book-keeping costs and material costs were limited to 50.8% in 1992 and 35.9% in 193, compared to the actual cost and material costs, which were shown in the bill entry book.

C) Therefore, as above, since the account books on monthly sales kept by the Plaintiff do not have any evidence to support them and are different from the above account books, there is no tax invoice, account books, or other evidence necessary for calculating the taxation standards, or the contents of the account books are obvious to be false, the instant disposition is deemed to have a ground for estimating the estimation under the Value-Added Tax Act or the Corporate Tax Act.

2) Determination as to whether a legitimate correction method was applied

A) Article 69 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value of the Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14863, Dec. 30, 1995) provides that the method of calculating the estimated amount of inputs by one of the criteria, such as the estimated amount of inputs, the related ratio of expenses, the commodities turnover ratio, the gross profit ratio, the value added ratio, etc., which is one of the criteria determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service or the commissioner of the competent regional tax office;

In addition, Article 93-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the above purport shall be applied to the calculation of the business revenue amount in the case of the estimation of revenue amount: Provided, That Article 94 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that when the income amount can be calculated by books or other documentary evidence, other than books kept by the corporation, even in the case of the estimation of revenue amount pursuant to Article 93-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the tax base and tax amount in the business year

B) However, the following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the statements in Eul evidence 1-1-7, Eul evidence 2-2, and the whole purport of the pleadings.

① When the Defendant estimated the value-added tax and corporate tax on the Plaintiff’s workplace, it calculated the amount of 1,407,729,730 won based on the Plaintiff’s records for the period from May 1, 1994 to September 30, 199, and calculated the amount of 1,76,538,254 won for the actual amount of 1.8128 (=407,729,730 ±776,538,254 won) calculated by deducting the amount of 1,92, 129, 228, 368 won, 193, 193, 97, 196, 196, 196, 39, 196, 196, 196, 196, 196, 196, 39, 196, 196, 194.

(C) Therefore, since from May 1, 1994 to September 30 of the same year with respect to the Plaintiff’s workplace, as long as it can be calculated 1.8128 of the "related ratio of the cost stipulated in Article 69(1)4 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the same year (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14863 of Dec. 30, 1995), the value-added tax shall be calculated by applying the "related ratio of the cost to the preceding period from February 1, 1992 to February 1, 1994" based on the sales of the above value-added tax base, the amount of income for the business year and 193 business year shall be calculated based on the amount of income which is the tax base of the above value-added tax, which can be calculated by deducting or correcting the amount of income from the field survey conducted in accordance with Article 94 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, the aforementioned estimate method cannot be deemed to be inappropriate for the defendant to have applied the same ratio of total purchase cost to the above period of 18 years.

As seen above, the instant disposition cannot be seen as legitimate in accordance with the above law because there are grounds for the correction of estimation under the Value-Added Tax Act, the Corporate Tax Act, and the Enforcement Decree thereof, and the method of estimation correction cannot be found to be unjust or unreasonable. There is no other ground for illegality in the instant disposition.

3. Conclusion; and

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is unfair, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.