A. The method of determining the amount of income in a case where the source of taxation has to report the amount of income to the plaintiff according to the amount of the data, consistent with the collected data (=decision on the actual inspection)

B. The burden of proving the lawfulness and legality of the estimated taxation

(c) The legality of the estimated taxation disposition that considers the amount of income equivalent to 150 percent of the basic rate solely on the ground that evidential documents are not kept;

A. In a case where the defendant (the director of the tax office) recommended the plaintiff to report the amount of revenue according to the amount of the data submitted by the plaintiffs and the data collected at the consignment sale place in the joint fish market, and then decided it as the amount of revenue, it cannot be said that the decision of on-site investigation is the decision of estimating the amount of revenue.

B. The estimated taxation should be reasonable and reasonable so as to reflect the actual income amount close to the truth, and the burden of proving the reasonableness and feasibility should be borne by the tax authorities, if there is no account book, documentary evidence, etc. for calculating the amount of income or if the content is incomplete or false.

C. Unless there is any evidence to deem otherwise that the high rate (150 percent of the basic rate) on the income standard table was immediately reflected in the amount of income or that the Plaintiff’s estimation method of income based on the high rate was reasonable and reasonable, solely on the grounds that the account books and documentary evidence that can calculate the amount of income are not entered and kept and that the income tax was estimated due to not keeping the account books and documentary evidence, the taxation disposition that estimated the amount of income by the above high

(a) Articles 118 and 120 of the Income Tax Act; Article 120 of the Income Tax Act; Article 169 (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 82Nu36 delivered on September 14, 1982

Plaintiff

Head of Seogsan Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 80Gu218 delivered on December 16, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Based on its reasoning, the judgment of the court below decided that the defendant recommended the plaintiff to report the amount of the income in accordance with the data submitted by the defendant on the consignment market with respect to the plaintiff's business income in the joint fishing market, and that it belongs to the method of the estimation investigation rather than the field investigation decision. Thus, since the plaintiff constitutes a businessman exempt from value-added tax who is excluded from the application of high income rate under the standard income ratio table and received the estimation investigation decision, the tax disposition imposed by the defendant by applying high income ratio is unlawful. Furthermore, if the plaintiff received the on-site investigation decision as alleged by the defendant, the high income ratio can not be applied to the estimation of the income amount, and therefore, the defendant's tax disposition

However, according to the facts and records established by the court below, in determining the plaintiff's revenue amount, the defendant recommended the plaintiff to report the revenue amount according to the amount of the data collected by the plaintiffs and the tax officials under the jurisdiction of the competent tax office in the consignment market, so this decision cannot be viewed as a decision of field investigation and there is no other evidence to deem that the defendant estimated the revenue amount with respect to the plaintiff's fishery business income. Thus, the judgment below that the defendant's above decision of revenue amount constitutes an on-site investigation not a on-site investigation but a on-site investigation under the Income Tax Act cannot be interpreted as a false interpretation of its legal nature by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the investigation of estimation and the on-site investigation decision under the Income Tax Act, and on the other hand, if the plaintiff received a on-site investigation, it cannot be applied to the estimation of revenue amount, and there is no ground to view that the court below's decision of appeal is erroneous

However, pursuant to Articles 120 and 124 of the Income Tax Act, the standard rate of income for each type of business determined by the Government pursuant to the provisions of Articles 120 and 124 of the Income Tax Act shall be determined to reflect the amount of income calculated as much as possible in the amount of income if there is no book and documentary evidence necessary for the calculation of the tax base and the amount of tax, or if it is impossible to grasp the amount of income because the details are incomplete or false. On the other hand, the estimated taxation is exceptionally acknowledged in cases where there is no book and documentary evidence, etc. of a taxpayer who is the basis for the determination of the tax base and the amount of tax, or where it is impossible to impose tax by the method of the basis taxation because the details are incomplete or false (see Supreme Court Decision 82Nu36, Sept. 14, 1982).

However, according to the records, the defendant estimated and imposed income tax by applying a high rate (150% of the basic rate) on the standard rate table of income (150% of the basic rate) solely on the ground that the plaintiff, who is the person obliged to book-keeping by double-entry bookkeeping under Articles 184 and 185 of the Income Tax Act, was subject to on-site investigation but failed to keep account books and documentary evidence to calculate the income amount, and was estimated and imposed income tax. No evidence can be found to prove that the above high rate is immediately reflected in the amount of income or that the plaintiff's estimation method of income by the high rate is reasonable and reasonable. Thus, the decision of the court below that the defendant's taxation by estimating the amount of income by calculating the amount of income according to the high rate on the standard rate of income in the theory of small income, is justified, and the above judgment below's illegality does not affect the conclusion of

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.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)