(a) Calculation method of revenue amount where a base amount of value-added tax is determined;

B. The method of calculating the amount of income where a single transaction with a certain trading company was not made without keeping a single account book (=the method of surveying the actual account)

A. Article 159(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act was deleted as a result of the abolition of business tax and the enforcement of the Value-Added Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 8786, Dec. 31, 1977). Since there is no ground to regard the value-added tax base as the amount of income under the Income Tax Act, the Plaintiff filed a voluntary return of the value-added tax base in 1979 and confirmed without the correction of the Defendant, even though this amount of value-added tax base cannot be the amount of income of the Plaintiff of this case’s warehouse business in the corresponding year. Accordingly, the amount of income should be determined by the method of one of Articles 18 through 120 of the Income Tax Act in accordance with

B. If the amount of warehouse business income during the taxation period of the Plaintiff is only a single transaction with a certain trading line, it can be said that the actual amount can be calculated by other documentary evidence even if the Plaintiff did not follow such documentary evidence as a daybook, etc. Therefore, the amount of such income cannot be determined by the method of an additional investigation solely on the ground that the Plaintiff did not keep a daybook, and that it should follow the method of an actual investigation.

(a) Article 114 of the former Income Tax Act (Act No. 2933 of Dec. 22, 1976), Article 114 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Act No. 8351 of Dec. 31, 1976), Article 169(2)1, Article 159(1)4, Article 159(3), Article 160 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, Article 160 of the Income Tax Act

Plaintiff

Head of Seogju Tax Office

Gwangju High Court Decision 81Gu31 delivered on March 30, 1982

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Gwangju High Court.

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

Based on its reasoning, the court below determined that the disposition imposing the global income tax on the difference between the difference of 14,188,155 won which the plaintiff reported as the revenue amount of warehouse business at the time of the final return of global income tax, and the amount of 19,420,000 won as the value-added tax base for warehouse business in 1979 was legitimate, since the defendant voluntarily reported the amount of 19,420,000 won as the value-added tax base for warehouse business in 1979.

However, at the time of enforcement of the former Income Tax Act (Act No. 2933, Dec. 22, 1976) and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Act No. 8351, Dec. 31, 1976), where the total amount of revenue is determined and determined under the Business Tax Act for the business which is subject to the business tax under Articles 169 (2) 1, 114, 159 (1) 4 and (3), and 160 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, if the total amount of revenue is determined and determined under the Business Tax Act, it shall be deemed that the total amount of revenue which is the tax base for the business tax already determined and decided without undergoing a new investigation and determination procedure on the business income is the total amount of income of the business income of the corresponding business year (see Supreme Court Decision 79Nu294, May 27, 1980); however, after the enforcement of the Value-Added Tax Act (see Supreme Court Decision 197).

Therefore, even though the Plaintiff voluntarily returned the base amount of value-added tax in 1979 and confirmed without correction by the Defendant, the base amount of value-added tax cannot be the Plaintiff’s revenue of the warehouse business in the pertinent year. Thus, the amount of income must be determined by one of the methods stipulated in Articles 118 through 120 of the Income Tax Act in accordance with the general principles of the Income Tax Act. Each of the statements set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 3, 7-1, and 12 of the above Article, the witness of the court below, and the witness of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2’s testimony, the Plaintiff established a contract on the storage of grain and government-managed grain in his own warehouse, and operated the business of storing government-managed grain and government-managed grain in accordance with the special agreement, and the other goods other than government-managed grain should not be kept together in accordance with the contract, and even if the Plaintiff did not have installed daily bookkeeping and storage fees, the amount of revenue from the warehouse business cannot be determined by the Plaintiff’s separate evidence.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below that the defendant's decision of revenue amount without the above method is lawful on the grounds as stated in its reasoning is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the method of determining revenue amount under the Income Tax Act, and this is affected by the conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)