Violation of the good faith principle

If the person is designated as the object of a written investigation, unless there is any formal defect or error in the document submitted at the time of the report, it should be recognized as the content of the accident, and the decision made through the on-site investigation is contrary to the good faith

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. On March 16, 1990, the Defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 4,623,060 and its defense tax of KRW 1,046,260 against the Plaintiff on March 16, 1990.

1. Details of the imposition;

갑1호증, 갑4호증의 1 내지 10, 을 1 내지 5호증의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고는 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ5동 ㅇㅇ의 7에서 ㅇㅇ정밀이라는 상호로 시계부품 등의 제조업을 경영하는 개인사업자로서, 1988. 5.말경 1987년도 종합소득세 과세표준확정신고를 함에 있어서 국세청장으로부터 조정계산서 작성권한이 있는 것으로 지정받은 세무사 홍ㅇㅇ이 작성한 조정계산서를 첨부하여 총수입금액을 134,522,267원으로, 총필요경비를 124,883,801원으로 선고하고, 그 차액인 소득금액 9,638,466원을 기초로 하여 산출한 세액을 자진납부하자, 피고는 위 신고가 소득세법 제 119조 제 1항 및 그 시행령 제 167조의 규정에 의하여 국세청장이 정하는 서면조사결정기준에 해당한다고 하여 그 신고대로 서면조사결정을 한 사실, 그런데 그후 ㅇㅇㅇ 세무서장이 원고와 거래한 소외 ㅇㅇ상사 이ㅇㅇ이 실물거래없이 세금계산서만 교부한 자료상임을 발견하고 이 사실을 피고에게 통보한 결과, 피고는 원고가 신고한 위 필요경비 가운데 ㅇㅇㅇ매입액이 38,635,072원이고, 이중 원고가 1987. 7. 30.부터 같은해 11. 30.까지 5회에 걸쳐 위 이ㅇㅇ으로부터 매입한 것으로 신고한 ㅇㅇㅇ매입액 14,145,722원이 실물거래없이 가공경비라는 이유로 이를 필요경비에 산입하지 아니하고 소득금액에 가산하여 종합소득세액 및 그 방위세액을 산출하고, 여기에서 원고가 이미 자진납부한 세액을 공제한 다음 1990. 3. 16. 원고에 대하여 주문기재 이사건 부과처분을 한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

2. Whether the disposition of imposition is lawful.

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case, which corrected the tax base and tax amount, is legitimate, because the processing expenses were found after the decision of income tax based on the plaintiff's written return, the plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case should be revoked on the ground that the defendant made a decision on the same contents as the adjusted account statement with respect to the plaintiff designated as the written investigation decision in accordance with the legitimate written return and thereafter the omission was found.

According to Article 119(1) of the Income Tax Act, Article 119(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Articles 167(1) and 168 of the same Act, where a certified public accountant or a certified tax accountant prescribed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service is designated as a person who makes a written investigation determination of the income tax base, the tax base and tax amount shall be determined in writing by the report if the certified public accountant or a certified tax accountant attached an adjusted statement confirmed that the contents of the tax base and tax are justifiable. Thus, even if a tax office ex post facto finds any omission or error, it can be corrected only when it is found not included in the taxpayer’s return but from the beginning, or when it is objectively evident that the taxpayer committed omission or error by the reported details itself, unless there is any documentary defect or error (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu4010, May 9, 1989). On the other hand, the tax base and tax amount are determined as unlawful in light of the good faith principle or the doctrine of speech and advice against the citizens in the exercise of national taxation.

However, in the instant case, even if the necessary expenses reported by the Plaintiff by appropriating the necessary expenses for processing are excessive, so long as it is contained in the details of the report and is not formally incomplete or erroneous, the disposition of this case, which revised the tax base and tax amount based on the original written investigation decision, based on the following investigation and notified taxation data, cannot be corrected, notwithstanding that the processing expenses confirmed by the taxation data notified after the written investigation decision as mentioned above cannot be added to the income amount.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is accepted as reasonable.