The legitimacy of a partner's method of determining the amount of income of the partner determined by the estimated investigation as a comparative standard (negative)

In the decision of the estimation investigation by the method of a trade partner's type in which the amount of income of a taxpayer is calculated in accordance with the balance with other trade partners, the amount of income of a partner who uses the comparative standard should be the one which reflects the amount of income as the most accurately and determined by the accurate account books and documentary evidence, and should not be determined by the method of the estimation investigation. Therefore, the method of estimating the amount of income of a taxpayer based on the amount of income of a partner determined by the method of the estimation

Articles 114 and 120 of the former Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 3175, Dec. 28, 1979); Articles 159(5) and 169(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 9698, Dec. 31, 1979);

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu37 Decided April 26, 1983 Supreme Court Decision 83Nu71 Decided May 10, 1983

Plaintiff

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu332 delivered on May 20, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In full view of the provisions of Articles 114 and 120 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3175 of Dec. 28, 1979) and Articles 159(5) and 169(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9698 of Dec. 31, 1979), which were in force at the time of the instant case, the amount of partner's revenue, which is used as comparative standard, shall be the amount determined by the method of comparative investigation, which is the amount determined by the method of comparative investigation, and shall not be the amount determined by the method of estimation. Thus, the method of estimating partner's revenue again based on the amount of partner's revenue determined by the method of estimation investigation, is unreasonable and unreasonable (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu3781, Apr. 26, 1983; 200Nu18371, Aug. 37, 1983).

In the above purport, the court below is just in holding that the taxation disposition of this case was unlawful because the method of the trade partner's punishment of this case, which conducted the estimation of the plaintiff's revenue amount again based on the non-party's revenue amount determined as the method of estimation investigation, was unreasonable and reasonable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)