Appropriateness of a partner’s right-based method of estimating the amount of income of the partner determined by an estimate investigation based on comparative standards (negative)

In the decision of the estimation investigation by the method of the trade partner type in which the amount of income of the person liable for tax payment is calculated according to the balance with other trade partners, the amount of income of the trade partner who is the comparative standard should be the correct account books and documentary evidence and should be the most accurately reflect the amount of income and the amount determined by the estimation investigation

Article 120 of the Income Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Nu29 Decided July 22, 1980; 79Nu398 Decided November 11, 1980; 79Nu307 Decided November 15, 1980; 80Nu392 Decided December 22, 1981; 83Nu37 Decided April 26, 1983

Plaintiff

Head of the Do Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu235 delivered on January 17, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

In the decision of the estimation investigation by the method of a so-called trade name in which the amount of income of a partner is calculated according to the balance with other partners, the amount of income of the partner who is the comparative standard should be the most accurately accurately reflected that the amount of income of the partner is examined and determined by the accurate account books and documentary evidence, and that it is not the amount determined by the method of the estimation investigation (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu37, Apr. 26, 1983). Therefore, it is justifiable to determine that the Defendant’s estimation of the Plaintiff’s taxable income by the method of a trade name by the method of a trade name is unlawful on the grounds that the employee’s income in comparison with the Plaintiff was properly calculated by the on-site investigation or there is no assertion as to the calculation by

From the above opposing point of view, we cannot accept the argument that the defendant's estimation investigation method by the trade partner type of this case is lawful.

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 Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)