A. The burden of proving the legality of the estimated taxation

(b) Whether the estimated taxation disposition is appropriate, applying the income standard rate higher than twice the basic rate, because the person is a disguised income earner;

A. The estimated taxation under Article 120 of the Income Tax Act is exceptionally acknowledged in cases where there is no tax base and documentary evidence of a taxpayer who served as the basis for the determination of the tax base and amount of tax, or where it is impossible to impose tax by the method of the basis of the taxation because the details are incomplete or false. Thus, the estimated taxation should be reasonable and reasonable to reflect the estimated amount of income near the truth, as well as the method and contents of the estimation in order to reflect the estimated amount of income near the truth. The burden of proof is the tax authority.

B. In the purport that a disguised income earner, etc. is regulated without considering the actual amount of income, it is unlawful to deem the Plaintiff as a disguised income and apply a high-income standard rate exceeding twice the basic rate solely on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have important parts of the account books and documentary evidence necessary for the recognition of the amount of loss, and to impose estimated tax on the Plaintiff as a disguised income.

Article 120 of the Income Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu36 Decided September 14, 1982, 82Nu39 Decided September 28, 1982, 81Nu286 Decided October 12, 1982, 81Nu244 Decided February 8, 1983

Busan Trucking Company

Head of the Office of Government

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu69 delivered on February 21, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the legal determination of the court below, when the plaintiff is a domestic corporation that runs a transportation auxiliary service business with 122,425,79 won for 1978 with the annual revenue amount of 14,58,845 won and the amount of tax base calculated by deducting 14,306,895 won and 861,219 won for the tax base of 50% for the total amount of tax base of 30% for the income amount of 40% for the year 198, the defendant determined the annual revenue amount of 50% for the total amount of tax base of 30% for the income amount of 50% for the year 197, the amount of tax base of 50% for the income amount of 20% for the year 197, the amount of tax base of 30% for the plaintiff's annual revenue amount of tax base of 40% for the income amount of 5% for the year 1980, 197.

The estimated taxation under Article 120 of the Income Tax Act is exceptionally granted in cases where there is no taxpayer's account books and documentary evidence, which are the basis for the determination of tax base and amount of tax, or where it is not possible to impose tax by the taxation based on the basis because the details of the account books and documentary evidence are incomplete or false. Thus, the estimated taxation is limited to cases where it is impossible to investigate the actual amount of tax and it is not possible to do so by the estimation method, and there is reasonable and reasonable feasibility to reflect the method and contents of the estimation in the most true income amount, and the burden of proof for this is borne by the tax authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Nu36, Sept. 14, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 82Nu39, Sept. 28, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 81Nu286, Oct. 12, 1982; Supreme Court Decision

However, according to the records, the income standard rate applied by the defendant as a disguised income earner is higher than twice the basic rate. While examining the records of the case, there is no proof that the measure of estimation of the above high rate is reasonable and reasonable on the ground that the plaintiff did not have important parts of the disbursement account and documentary evidence necessary for the recognition of losses, and rather, the high rate applied to the plaintiff cannot be deemed to be determined in the purport that the plaintiff regulates disguised income earners, etc. without considering the actual amount of income at all, and thus, the defendant's disposition of this case by high rate is deemed to lack its rationality and validity.

Therefore, the court below's decision that the amount of corporate tax calculated by deducting 7,856,089 won from the corporate tax amount of KRW 4,655,01,101, which applied the basic rate at KRW 12,510,101, which applied the Defendant's high rate, and the amount of tax equivalent to KRW 1,517,830, which applied the basic rate at KRW 2,289,937, which is the defense tax based on the corporate tax which applied the high rate of KRW 2,289,937, which was just and there is no reason to believe that the tax disposition at this case is legitimate, since the Plaintiff constitutes a person who was the actual taxpayer at a high rate under the standard rate of income in 1978.

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 Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)