If there is no formal deficiencies or errors in the final return of income tax base of a taxpayer who has received a written investigation decision, a correction by the on-site investigation (negative)

According to Article 119(1) of the Income Tax Act, Articles 167(1) and 168 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where a person is designated as a written investigation and decision-making person in making a final return of income tax, if a tax accountant prescribed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service has attached an adjusted statement confirming that the contents of the written statement are justifiable, the tax base and tax amount shall be determined in writing by the relevant return. Thus, even if there are omissions or errors later, the tax authorities may correct them only if it is evident that the tax base and tax amount are not included in the taxpayer’s return but are found to have been omitted from the beginning or an omission or error by the taxpayer’s return itself, and unless there is a formal defect or error in the form of the written report submitted, the tax base and tax amount shall be

Article 119 of the Income Tax Act, Article 167 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 168 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu370 Decided September 23, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 86Nu348 Decided March 24, 1987

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu8984 delivered on February 28, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers

According to Article 119(1) of the Income Tax Act, Articles 167(1) and 168 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where a person is designated as a written investigation and determination of the tax base of income tax, the tax base and tax amount should be determined through a written deliberation if the tax accountant prescribed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service confirms that the contents of the tax are justifiable. Thus, even if there are omissions or errors later, the tax authorities can correct them only if it is objectively evident that they were not included in the taxpayer’s return nor were omissions or errors in the tax base and tax amount from the beginning or they were found to have committed omissions or errors in the details of the return. The court below determined that the tax base and tax amount cannot be corrected by adding the tax base and tax amount to the on-site investigation without formal deficiencies or errors in the tax base and tax base and tax amount of the Plaintiff’s income asserted by the Defendant, notwithstanding the absence of evidence about the use of the withdrawn amount among the rental deposit, or income equivalent to the Plaintiff’s processed tax base were appropriated in the method of the on-site investigation.

In light of the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above determination of recognition by the court below is just (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Nu370, Sept. 23, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 86Nu348, Mar. 24, 1987); and the judgment of the court below cannot be viewed as an unlawful or erroneous interpretation of Acts and subordinate statutes that did not properly examine the case; therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

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

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)