Whether it is possible to determine whether to recognize corporate income based on the standard rate of government income with respect to voluntary declarations of income in a business year.

Even if the plaintiff voluntarily reported the income of the plaintiff corporation in the business year of 1965, the defendant is recognized as cases falling under Article 32 (1) 2 (c) of the former Corporate Tax Act (Act No. 1720, Dec. 30, 65) and recognized corporate income based on the government income standard rate, and it is difficult to recognize as not including all expenses required for the above income in determining the above income standard rate, and there is no legal ground that the income amount calculated under the above law should be deducted from the income amount calculated under the above law, and there is no ground that the law should be deducted from the incidental accident expenses, and the addition of the established rules by the head of the third class can not be subject to taxation in violation of the principle of fair taxation or the principle of no taxation without law.

Article 28(1) of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 32(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (C)

Japanese Passenger Transport Service Corporation

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 66Gu348 delivered on March 16, 1967

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

According to the records, the plaintiff's major reasons for filing a claim are significant and non-existent in the 1965 business year (the expiration of 12.31 of the same year), and the defendant voluntarily declared the income amount under the proviso of Article 28 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 32 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act. However, if the plaintiff's income amount was returned within the prescribed period, it cannot be determined by the government, and even if the government did not prepare books or evidential documents of the corporation pursuant to Article 32 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, it is hard to determine the income amount as deductible expenses because the above books and evidential documents were not prepared, and it is unlawful that the court below did not determine the income amount under the above Article 32 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act for the reasons that the above taxation disposition was invalid for the reasons that it did not constitute non-existent income tax base for the 16th anniversary of the above determination of income amount. It is against the principle that the plaintiff 16th of income tax base.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-dong (Presiding Judge)