[1] The purpose of Article 119(1) of the former Income Tax Act, which requires the tax authority to determine the tax base and the amount of tax in writing in cases where the final return of tax base is filed along with the adjusted account statement prepared by the tax accountant, etc., and the requirements for the tax

[2] In a case where a person subject to a written investigation decision under Article 119 of the former Income Tax Act filed a final return on the tax base with an adjusted account statement of a certified tax accountant, etc., but it is deemed clearly unreasonable to make the tax base and tax amount determined only by a written investigation because he/she could easily find out any deficiencies or errors in the tax return, etc. submitted by him/her in the course of a tax investigation, etc. on other taxpayers

[3] In the case of income tax, whether applying the revised law from the first taxable period that ends after the date of promulgation goes against the prohibition of retroactive taxation or the principle of no taxation without law (negative)

[1] Article 119(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4520, Dec. 8, 1992; Act No. 4803, Dec. 22, 1994) provides that only a person liable for tax payment, such as those who trust the amount of income reported or who can easily calculate the amount of gross income, shall determine the tax base and the amount of tax in writing with an adjusted tax statement prepared by a certified tax accountant, etc., if he/she submits an application for final tax return along with the adjusted tax base report prepared by the certified tax accountant, etc., stating that the details of the revised tax base and the amount of tax are correct by reliance on the person subject to written investigation determination and the certified tax accountant, etc., thereby allowing the Government to conduct a field investigation on behalf of another person by preparing and submitting the adjusted tax base and the amount of tax base and the amount of tax to be entered in the revised tax base and the amount of tax on behalf of the taxpayer, while raising the efficiency of tax administration and promoting convenience of the taxpayer.

[2] According to Article 119(2) and (3) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994), unlike the previous one, Article 119(2) and (3) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1992) provides that not only a return submitted but also a return submitted by a person subject to a written investigation or any other document, but also a certain case of deficiencies or errors, may not be determined through a written examination. In full view of Article 127 of the same Act and Article 182-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1467 of Dec. 31, 1994), even in cases where a person subject to a written investigation or decision under Article 119 of the same Act files a final return on the tax base along with an adjusted account statement of a tax accountant, etc., if it is evident that the tax base and tax amount can be easily determined through a written investigation or investigation.

[3] The taxation requirement of income tax is created along with the commencement of a taxable period, the tax liability is established at the time of the end of the taxable period, and the confirmation procedure is established after the end of the taxable period, and when the law is amended during the taxable period, it is determined by the law at the time of the end of the taxable period. Thus, it does not violate the constitutional provisions on prohibition of retroactive taxation or prohibition of no taxation without law because the revised law applies from the first taxable period after the date of its promulgation. Thus, the provisions of Article 182-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, amended and promulgated by Presidential Decree No. 14083 of December 31, 1993, which provides that Article 182-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall apply from the first taxable period ending after December 31, 1993, does not violate the Constitution

[1] Articles 119 (see current Article 80), 120 (3) and 127 (see current Article 80 (2)) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803, Dec. 22, 1994); Article 168-2 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1467, Dec. 31, 1994; see current Article 80 (3) of the Income Tax Act); Article 169 (see current Article 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act); Article 182-2 (see current Article 143 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803, Dec. 22, 1994); Article 182-19 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (see current Article 148 (2) of the Income Tax Act); Article 180 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 48 (see current Article 930 (2) of the former Act)

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu1427 delivered on July 10, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2148), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu21079 delivered on July 6, 200 (Gong200Ha, 1892) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 86Nu348 delivered on March 24, 198 (Gong1987, 745) Supreme Court Decision 94Nu1200 delivered on December 8, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 423 delivered on March 28, 1997) 96Nu4701 delivered on March 197 (Gong197Nu194989 delivered on March 29, 197) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu39701 delivered on March 29, 197 (Gong1997Sang, 1277) / [3198Nu6398Nu16969896898 delivered on March 1696, 19696896, 1969494.

Plaintiff

Head of Eastern Tax Office

Busan High Court Decision 99Nu3478 delivered on September 22, 2000

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the second ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is just in finding that 46 tax invoices of this case issued by the plaintiff from Taesung Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "T Taesung Industries") were false tax invoices issued without actual transaction and that 265,283,950 won for the purchase price of waste Aluminium appropriated as necessary expenses is the processing expense, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence and incomplete deliberation, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal on this point are not acceptable.

2. Judgment on ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 119 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4520 of Dec. 8, 1992; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that where a businessman who files a return of tax base and tax amount on the tax base return, based on books and documentary evidence kept and recorded, and the adjusted account statement confirmed by a certified tax accountant that the contents of the statement are legitimate, falls under the standards prescribed by the Presidential Decree, notwithstanding Article 118, the tax base and tax amount shall be determined through written deliberation; and Article 118 (2) provides that in making a written determination under paragraph (1), the Government may request correction in accordance with the Presidential Decree if the return of tax base and tax amount are incomplete or error in other documents submitted; Paragraph (3) provides that where the entrepreneur fails to submit the corrected documents or can not determine the tax base and tax amount in writing with the submitted corrected documents, or where other grounds prescribed by the Presidential Decree exist, the former Enforcement Decree provides that the entrepreneur concerned may not determine the tax base and tax amount in writing prior to the submission of documents (Article 196(13).4).

In addition, Article 127 of the Act provides that if an omission or error is found after the assessment standard and tax amount cannot be determined pursuant to Articles 117 through 120 of the Act or after the determination, the government shall, without delay, investigate the tax base and tax amount, and make the determination or correction thereof, and Article 182-2 of the Enforcement Decree provides that if it is confirmed that the business operator who received the written investigation decision pursuant to Article 119(1) of the Act falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the government may correct the tax base and tax amount pursuant to Article 127 of the Act, and Article 169(1) of the Act provides that cases falling under any of subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 169(1) include cases where

B. In cases where only a person liable to pay income tax, such as a person who can trust the amount of income reported under Article 119(1) of the Act, or who can easily calculate the amount of gross income, and a person liable to pay income tax, files an application for a final return of tax base and the amount of tax in writing with an adjusted statement prepared by a tax accountant, etc., the determination of the tax base and the amount of tax should be made through a written review. As such, in reliance on the person subject to a written investigation and a tax accountant, etc., leading a tax accountant to conduct on-site investigation to be Government by preparing and submitting an adjusted statement verifying that the details of the final return of tax base and the amount of income are correct in accordance with the tax base investigation and the income statement, and thus, in order to enhance the efficiency of tax administration and promote the convenience of a taxpayer, the adjusted statement is deemed to have been prepared at all false and processed without any grounds such as documentary evidence, or where it is objectively evident that the amount of tax was reported but it is improper to determine the tax base and the amount of tax only by a written investigation is determined based on the tax base and the tax base and the tax return.

In addition, Article 119(3) of the Act and Article 168-2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act stipulate the reasons for not making a decision in writing, and Article 182-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act stipulates the reasons for not making a decision of correction pursuant to Article 127 of the Act after the written investigation is made. However, this is based on the premise that there is a reason that it is unreasonable to make a decision of tax base and tax amount only on the basis of a written investigation, such as the case where it is evident that the adjusted account was prepared in a false and processed manner at all without any ground, such as documentary evidence, or where it is evident that the revenue was omitted at all or was reported from the beginning without being included in the contents of the report, or where it is objectively evident that the contents of the report have committed omission or error (in this respect, there is no ground for appeal that Article 182-2

However, as amended on December 8, 1992, Article 119(2) and (3) of the Act provides that, in making a written review decision different from the previous one, not only the report submitted but also any deficiencies or errors exist in other documents, the decision may not be made in writing in a certain case. In full view of the provisions of Article 127 of the Act and Article 182-2 of the Enforcement Decree above, even in cases where a person subject to a written review decision under Article 119 of the Act files a final return on the tax base along with an adjusted account statement of a tax accountant, etc., even if the person subject to a written review decision under Article 119 of the Act denies the contents of the report and the tax amount submitted by the person subject to a written investigation decision on tax base and the tax amount may be determined or corrected by the on-site investigation or the on-site investigation if it is clearly deemed that there is any deficiencies or errors in the report or other documents submitted by the person subject to a written review decision on tax base and the tax amount may be determined or revised by a written investigation (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu27Nu9, Jul.

C. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, when the plaintiff filed the final tax base return on global income tax for 1993 and 194, the court below found that the amount equivalent to the amount of the tax invoice in this case was appropriated as necessary expenses and attached to the adjusted account statement prepared by the tax accountant while filing a return on the tax base and tax amount, and the defendant determined the tax base and tax amount through a written examination on the grounds that the plaintiff satisfies the criteria for written investigation determination. However, in the course of the tax investigation on the solar industry of the director of the tax office in this case, the plaintiff was found to have received a false tax invoice from Taesung Industries without any actual transaction and included the processed necessary expenses in the processed expenses. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is just in holding that the defendant who was notified of such contents was correct in light of the legal principles as alleged in the ground of appeal and the above, since it was clearly erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the determination on the tax base and tax amount in this case, among the documents submitted by the plaintiff when filing the final tax base return on global income tax base.

The argument in the grounds of appeal is that Article 182-2 of the Enforcement Decree amended and promulgated by Presidential Decree No. 14083, Dec. 31, 1993, which provides that Article 182-2 of the Enforcement Decree shall apply from the first taxable period ending after December 31, 1993, the proviso of Article 1 and Article 4 of the Addenda to the above Presidential Decree shall be violated the Constitution. However, income tax requirements are established at the time of the commencement of the taxable period and the end of the taxable period, and tax liability shall be established at the time of the completion of the taxable period, and when the Acts and subordinate statutes are amended during the taxable period, the issue of taxation and the scope of tax liability shall be determined by the Acts and subordinate statutes at the time of the end of the taxable period. Thus, it cannot be said that the amendment does not violate the Constitution concerning the prohibition of retroactive taxation or the principle of no taxation without the law (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu13067, Jul. 9, 1996).

All arguments in the grounds of appeal are not accepted.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of 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 Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)