양도소득세 감면제도의 평가- 부동산세제를 중심으로 -

김남욱 한국토지공법학회 2018 토지공법연구 Vol.81 No.-

Recently, the government has been shifting the tax on capital gains tax on multi-lenders to heavy taxation, considering the overheating of the housing market, rather than maintaining the tax policy of easing the real estate transaction tax. The transfer tax reduction and exemption system of real estate is being typed in terms of balanced regional development, public utility support, land use efficiency, and national life stability in the Tax Exemptions and Exemption Act, and the range of exemptions is expanding widely. Such disguised real estate transfer and income tax exemption system may cause tax expenditures and hinder tax equality. Even though the real estate transfer income tax should be levied according to the bancassurance, it is a violation of the tax equality principle by the legislator to give preferential treatment to the taxpayer without the reasonable reason to deduct the transfer income tax, so the illegal issue of the real estate transfer tax reduction system . In addition, capital gains tax is an income tax that has been functioning as a means of curbing real estate speculation rather than providing financial resources and achieving redistribution of income for the purpose of the state. In order to realize the original taxation function of capital gains tax, do. In addition, it is necessary to seek clarification of the real estate transfer tax reduction and exemption system by the principle of clarity and strict interpretation principle, which is the principle of deriving the tax legalism because the real estate transfer tax reduction system is complex. In addition, although the exemption of real estate transfer income tax is recognized only after applying for reduction of taxes or special cases, it is necessary to specify legislative improvement measures because the Act on Tax Exemptions and Restriction of the Law may stipulate them by the presidential decrees. Therefore, after reviewing the concept of tax reduction and exemption in the Income Tax Law and the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and the current status of the real estate transfer tax reduction and exemption system, it is necessary to evaluate the real estate transfer income tax exemption and taxation exemption system as well as a comparative legal examination of foreign legislation, find ways to improve the income tax exemption system. 최근 정부는 그동안 부동산 거래세 완화라는 조세정책의 기조를 유지하기 보다는 주택시장의 과열을 고려하여 다주택자에 대한 양도소득세를 중과세하는 방향으로 전환하고 있다. 부동산의 양도소득세 감면제도는 조세특례제한법상에서 지역균형발전, 공익사업지원과 토지이용효율화, 국민생활 안정의 관점에서 유형화하여 운영되고 있으며, 그 감면범위가 광범위하게 확대되어 가고 있는 추세이다. 이러한 방만한 부동산 양도소득세 감면제도에 의해 조세지출이 이루어지고 과세형평성을 저해할 우려가 있다. 부동산 양도소득세에 대하여 담세력에 따라 과세하여야 함에도 불구하고 양도소득세를 감면하여야 할 합리적 이유없이 입법자가 감면제도를 두어 우대조치하는 것은 조세평등주의에 위반되므로 조세특례제한법상 부동산 양도소득세 감면제도의 위법성 문제를 검토할 필요가 있다. 또한 양도소득세는 소득세로서 국가목적 달성을 위한 재원마련과 소득재분배 기능보다는 부동산투기억제세로 기능을 하여 오고 있는데, 양도소득세의 본래의 세제기능을 할 수 있도록 양도소득세의 감면제도를 합리적으로 개편이 요구된다. 또한 부동산 양도소득세 감면체계가 복잡하여 조세법률주의의 파생원칙인 명확성의 원칙과 엄격해석원칙에 의하여 부동산 양도소득세 감면제도의 명확성 확보방안을 모색할 필요가 있다. 또한 부동산 양도소득세의 감면은 신청자의 감면신청이나 특례신청을 하여야만 인정되는데도 조세특례제한법에서 법률유보원칙에 의해 이를 명문화하여야 하는데도 대통령령에서 정하는 경우가 있으므로 입법적 개선방안을 강구할 필요가 있다. 따라서 소득세법과 조세특례제한법상의 조세감면의 개념과 부동산 양도소득세 감면제도 현황을 검토한 후, 부동산 양도소득세 감면과 과세특례제도를 평가함은 물론, 외국의 입법례등을 비교법적으로 고찰하여 합리적인 부동산 양도소득세 감면제도의 개선방안을 모색한다.

우리나라 양도소득세 개선에 관한 연구

윤덕병 공주대학교 KNU 기업경영연구소 2017 기업경영리뷰 Vol.8 No.1

This study tried theoretical review on the current Transfer Income Tax system, and review on current Korean Transfer Income Tax system, to derive the inherent problems in Korean Transfer Income Tax system. This study presents the improving measures thereto. The transfer income earned by any individual person is taxed as the Transfer Income Tax pursuant to the Income Tax Act, and the transfer income earned by any legal person is taxed as the transfer income on transfer gain on land etc, pursuant to the Corporate Tax Act. In case of the Transfer Income Taxes earned by individual persons, land and buildings comprise most of the taxable items of the Transfer Income Tax. This study limits the scope of study to the Transfer Income Tax on land and building as the major taxable item, rather than all the Transfer Income Tax taxed to individual taxpayers. 부동산에 대한 정책기능을 강화하며 부동산 투기억제를 주목적으로 양도소득세를 도입·시행한 이후, 여러 차례의 개정을 통하여 현재에 이르고 있다. 양도소득세는 국민의 재산권 행사를 제한하는 제도이기 때문에 많은 관심과 혼란의 대상이 되고 있으며, 또한 부동산 투기억제라는 정책적 목표와 현실적 상황을 고려하다보니 조세의 공평과세에 맞지 않는 불합리한 부분들이 현행 세법에 다수 포함되어 있다. 본 연구는 부동산 양도소득세제도 개선 방안에 대해 문제점을 도출한 후 조세정의에 부합되는 공평과세와 공정한 소득재분배를 실현시키며 부동산 투기를 억제하고 토지를 효율적으로 이용토록 한다는 본래의 목적을 달성할 수 있는 개선방안을 제시하고 있다.

상장주식의 양도세제에 관한 연구

박성욱 ( Sung Ook Park ),선우희연(교신저자) ( Hee Yeon Sunwoo ),이정희(공동저자) ( Jung Hi Lee ) 한국회계학회 2016 회계저널 Vol.25 No.3

According to the announcement of Korean government on February 2015, the 2014 tax revenue increased by KRW 3,600 billion compared to the 2013 tax revenue, but it did not reach to the government revenue budget by KRW 10,600 billion. Korean Ministry of Strategy and Finance stated that the major reasons for such shortage are the decrease of corporate income tax due to the deteriorated corporate performance, the decrease of value added tax and customs duty caused by the weak domestic demand and the dropped foreign exchange rate, and the reductions in the interest income tax and securities transaction tax due to the low interest rate and shrunk securities transaction. The Korean government expenditure on the national welfare is expected to increase rapidly because of the low birth rate and ageing population in Korea. However, the government revenue is not likely to be expanded easily, if the current tax system is maintained without discovering the new source of taxation. Hence, Korean government tried to increase the tax revenue through the tax amendment for 2015 in which the spirit of discovering new source of taxation is reflected by eliminating some tax benefit and enhancing the tax transparency. As securing greater tax revenue becomes to be urgent, the taxation on the capital gains from transfer of listed stocks is newly highlighted. Under the current individual income tax law, capital gains from stock transfer obtained by majority shareholders are taxable regardless of types of stocks. In contrast, capital gains from stock transfer obtained by minority shareholders are taxable only when the stocks are unlisted. Since the disparity in the taxation on the capital gains from listed stock transfers deteriorates the equity on taxation, it causes the debates among the policy makers and the academic scholars. Specifically, the taxation on the capital gains from listed stocks transferred by minority shareholders is included in the plan for the expansion of tax revenue and the reform of tax system suggested by the National Assembly Budget Office in December 2011. Several prior studies (Hong and Kim 2010; Jeong and Han 2011; Jang and Choi 2012) also suggest that the capital gains from listed stocks earned by minority shareholders should be taxed to secure the tax equity and to procure the additional tax source. However, the reinforcement of taxation on capital gains may shrink the volume of securities transaction and damage the stability of stock prices (Somers 1948; Stiglitz 1983). Therefore, the policy which mitigates the shock from the taxation, such as the exemption of securities transaction tax or the allowance of offsetting capital losses should be accompanied (Kim et al. 2014). However, if the effect of such accompanying policies is greater than that of taxation on the capital gains obtained by minority shareholders of listed stocks, the results of the taxation may deviate from the government intent (i.e., to expand the tax revenue). Moreover, since the amount of capital gains tax is sensitive to the stock price movement, the taxation on the capital gains from listed stock transferred by minority shareholders may cause the reduction in the stability of tax revenue. Therefore, it calls for the analyses on the stability of taxation as well as the change in the tax amount when we consider the taxation for the capital gains from listed stocks of minority shareholders. In this regard, this paper investigates the tax amount and stability of hypothetical capital gains tax which would be applied if the minority shareholders paid capital gains tax for listed stocks and compares the calculated capital gains tax with the securities transaction tax which is currently levying on the stock transfer, based on the daily stock transfer data executed by individuals for the period from 2000 to 2013. When we assume the stock holding periods as three, six months and one year, we find that there are large variations across the sample years on the capital gains amount obtained by the individual investors. When we calculate the related capital gains tax, the average capital gains tax amount for the sample period is greater than the average securities tax amount. However, the stability of taxation on the capital gains from listed stocks for minority shareholders is much lower than the stability of securities transaction tax. Moreover, if we consider the allowance of the carry-forward of capital losses for subsequent years, it is hard to say that the capital gains tax secures greater tax revenues compared to the securities transaction tax. The results are robust when we limit the stock transfer to the small and medium size stocks which are mainly invested by the individuals. Our results indicate that it would be better to maintain the current system (i.e., levying the securities transaction tax) and gradually enlarge the boundary of taxation for capital gains tax from stock transfers for the purpose of enhancing the stability as well as securing the tax revenue. Our suggestion is in line with the recent tax amendments for 2016 in which the range of majority shareholders subject to the capital gains tax for stock transfers is expanded, implying that such amendment accompanied by maintaining the securities transaction tax would be effective to collect the stable taxes from the long-term perspective.

다국적기업의 이전가격에 대한 과세평가제도 연구

문상태 법무부 2007 통상법률 Vol.- No.76

In the context of world trade, price for internal sale of goods in trade between affiliates of a single multinational enterprise located in different countries is specifically defined as transfer price. In international trades between affiliates, multinational enterprises determine transfer price by avoiding direct impact by external market forces, and manipulate their prices of goods and profits to ultimately ensure the most favorable tax and customs treatment for their transactions by exploiting the tax and customs regimes. Generally, multinational enterprises deal with monopolistic and oligopolistic goods, which may be easily subject to transfer price manipulation and tax evasion. From an aspect of a state, this may lead to controversial issues, such as lack of tax revenue, unfairness of tax burden, etc. Under these circumstances, each country sets up its own transfer pricing taxation regimes to prevent the controversial issues above and to secure tax revenue. If each country insists on tax policy favorable to its own country, it is likely to result in tax jurisdiction conflicts or double taxation. In addition, in case of different taxation rules among various countries, multinational enterprises may be faced with conflicts. There has been collaborative effort among international organizations to unify the tax regimes so as to prevent tax authorities from establishing arbitrary and fictitious values, and thus, to avoid creating an impediment to cross border transactions. In the customs field, the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("WTO Valuation Agreement") governs the customs valuation while, in the tax field, the Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations ("OECD Guidelines") rule transfer pricing. Under the WTO Valuation Agreement, the transaction value serves as the preferred basis of customs valuation, while, under the OECD Guidelines, the arm's length price constitutes the departure to arrive at the appropriate tax base of corporate income taxes. Although the definitions of the transaction value and the arm's length price are different, both tax and customs regimes share a common premise that the arm's length price, at which the imported goods are sold or offered for sale between unrelated parties in the ordinary course of trade under fully competitive conditions, should be the point of departure in determining the value of imported goods in international trade between related parties. However, importers/taxpayers are likely to be confused when tax and customs administrations are each pulling the importers/taxpayers in opposite directions under the different regimes. In other words, tax administrations think that multinational enterprises import goods by fixing import price of imported goods at high price, and consequently, pay less tax by generating less income. On the other hand, customs administrations think that multinational enterprises reduce customs by fixing transaction value of imported goods at a low price. Importers/taxpayers are faced with confusion due to the difference in the transfer pricing valuation method determined by both regimes. Under this circumstance, the importer/taxpayer could be squeezed in the middle if neither customs nor tax administrations recognize transfer pricing as agreed to under the other discipline. In order to address the difficulties of importers/taxpayers, it is necessary to harmonizeand unify both tax and customs regimes. Therefore, this study suggests measures for development of taxation system on transfer pricing in terms of administrative and normative aspects. The following issues are related to the administrative aspect: Firstly, pursuant to the recommendations from the OECD Guidelines, both tax and customs authorities should avoid double taxation and/or double investigation by sharing the available data and information obtained from taxpayers so as to reduce the administrative burden to the taxpayers. Secondly, it is necessary to establish the tax and customs regime committee, consisting of tax and customs professionals, such as tax or customs officials, scholars, attorneys, certified public accountants, tax attorneys and customs brokers, and interested parties involving international trade, to research the transfer pricing taxation regime and suggest policy directions. Thirdly, joint tax investigation among countries or among tax authorities must be carried out. Through this, taxpayers will be less burdened with dual investigation, and the customs authorities do not have to waste their administrative power. Lastly, cooperation for duties relating to transfer pricing valuation among countries must be carried out. It is difficult for tax authorities of one country to deal with trades of multinational enterprises that have become enormously large. In order to cope with plans of multinational enterprises that attempt Aggressive Tax Planning (ATP) going beyond the boundary of plan for tax avoidance, cooperation among countries is essential. Our tax authorities must deal with this issue in an active manner. The following issues are related to the normative aspect: Firstly, it is necessary to develop various ways to evaluate transfer pricing, and to put effort so that such taxation serves as a reasonable taxation. Secondly, in the event that the structure of price determination or transaction details is changed, if the importers/taxpayers wish to obtain assurances from the customs authorities as to the appropriateness of such change, it is recommendable that the importers/taxpayers file an application for a Pre-Examination Request ("PER") and, in turn, obtain assurances from the customs authorities. In doing so, the customs authorities do not have waste their time in spending unnecessary audits/investigations and the importers/taxpayers may engage in normal business activities by obtaining legal assurances and predictability from th 다국적기업의 관계회사간 물품의 국제매매시 적용하는 가격을 특별히 이전가격이라한다. 다국적기업은 관계회사간 국제매매거래시 외부시장 요인에 의한 직접적인 영향을 피하면서 이전가격을 결정하고, 조세제도를 적절히 이용하여 물품의 가격이나 이윤을 조작하여 궁극적으로는 이윤의 극대화를 목적으로 하고 있다. 다국적기업이 취급하는 물품이 대부분 독과점 품목으로 이전가격 조작이 용이하고 조세부담 회피가 가능하다. 이런 경우 국가적으로 보면 세수의 탈루, 조세부담의 불공정 등 문제의 소지가 있게 된다. 따라서 각국에서는 이를 방지하고 조세수입 확보를 위해 이전가격세제를 두고 있다. 각국이 자국에 유리한 조세정책을 펴게 되는 경우, 국가간 과세권 분쟁과 이중과세의 문제가 발생하게 되다. 그리고 국가별 과세방법 등의 차이가 있는 경우 다국적기업은 이로 인해 혼란을 겪게 된다. 과세당국이 자의적, 가공적 가격을 과세가격으로 결정함으로써 국제무역의 저해요인이 되는 것을 방지하기 위한 노력의 결과로 국제기구를 중심으로 과세제도의 통일화를 이루어 왔다. 수입물품에 대한 관세평가는 WTO의 관세평가협약에 기초하여 결정을 하고 있고, 국세에 대한 과세가격은 OECD의 이전가격과세지침에 의해 평가를 하고 있다. WTO 평가협약에서는 거래가격을 과세가격으로 하고 있으며, OECD 가이드라인에서는 정상가격으로 정의를 하고 있는 바, 정의는 다르지만 특수관계자간의 국제매매거래가 공개시장에서 특수관계가 없는 제3자와의 거래에서 형성되는 정상가격에 의해 거래가 되어야 한다는 공통된 전제를 가지고 있다. 그러나 동일한 국제거래에 대해 관세당국과 국세당국이 서로 다른 법규에 근거하여 상반된 시각으로 과세가격을 산정하고 있어 납세의무자를 당황하게 한다. 즉, 국세당국은 다국적기업이 수입물품의 수입가격을 높게 책정하여 수입하여 판매함으로써 수익을 적게 창출하여 세금을 적게 납부한다고 생각하는 반면, 관세당국은 수입물품 거래가격을 낮게 책정하여 관세를 줄인다고 판단하고 있다. 더욱이 양 규범이 정하고 있는 이전거래에 대한 평가방법의 차이로 인해 납세의무자들이 혼란을 겪고 있다. 세관과 국세당국이 각기 다른 법률 하에서 이전가격에 대해 어느 기관도 정상가격으로 인정을 해 주지 않는다면 결국 수입자/납세의무자는 두 기관 사이에서 착취를 당하게 될 것이다. 납세자의 이러한 점을 고려한다면 양 제도의 조화 및 통일화가 필수적이다. 따라서 본 논문은 이전가격에 대한 과세제도의 행정적 측면과 규범적 측면에서의 발전방안을 제시하였다. 행정적 측면에서 첫째, OECD 가이드라인에서도 권장하고 있듯이 국세당국과 관세당국 상호간의 과세자료나 정보를 교환 및 공유를 해서 이중과세를 방지하고, 이중의 조사를 막아 납세의무자의 부담을 경감할 수 있다. 둘째, 조세담당 공무원과 학자, 변호사, 공인회계사, 세무사, 관세사 등 조세분야 전문가와 관련업계 이해당사자를 구성원으로 하는 세제협의회를 구성하여 이전가격세제에 관한 연구와 정책방향의 제시를 할 수 있는 제도를 만들어야 한다. 셋째, 국가간 공동세무조사나 조세당국간 공동세무조사의 실시가 이루어져야 한다. 이를 통해 납세의무자에게 이중조사의 부담을 줄여주고 과세관청 입장에서도 행정력의 낭비를 줄일 수 있는 이점이 있다. 넷째, 국가간 이전가격 평가관련 업무협조가 이루어지도록 하여야 한다. 한 국가의 과세당국의 노력만으로는 거대하게 커져버린 다국적기업간의 거래를 대처하기가 어렵다. 절세전략을 넘어 공격적 조세회피(ATP)를 시도하는 다국적기업의 전략에 대응하기 위해서는 국가간 협조가 필수적이다. 이에 대해 우리 세무당국도 능동적으로 적극대처해야 한다. 규범적 측면에서는 첫째, 이전가격을 평가할 수 있는 다양한 방법을 개발하고 합리적인 과세가 되도록 노력을 하여야 한다. 둘째, 가격결정의 구조나 거래내용이 변경되는 경우 납세의무자가 이에 대한 정당성을 사전에 부여받기를 희망하는 경우 과세관청에 질의를 하고 과세당국은 이를 확인해 주는 사전가격심사제를 적극 활용하는 방안을 모색하여야 한다. 이렇게 함으로써 불필요한 조사 등의 행정낭비를 줄이고, 납세의무자 입장에서는 법적안정성과 예측가능성을 확보하여 정상적인 영업활동을 할 수 있다. 셋째, 관세에서는 특수관계가 가격결정에 영향을 미친 것으로 판단하는 경우 대부분 4방법에 의한 평가를 하고 있는 바, 4방법 평가의 산식에서 사용할 이윤 및 일반경비율을 적용함에 있어 기준비율을 제정하여 공시하고 있으나, 산정기준이 되는 비교대상업체의 모집단 선정에 적정성을 고려하여야 할 것이고, 이윤 및 일반경비율 조정신청에 따르는 비교대상업체의 투명성 및 자료가 공개되도록 제도를 개선하여야 한다. 넷째, 이전가격에 대한 과세가격의 산정은 과학이 아니 듯, 어느 적확한 과세가격을 도출하려는 핀 포인트(pin point) 방식의 관세과세방법을 지양하고 적정 정상가격범위(arm's length range) 개념을 도입하여 유연성을 두는 방법도 검토

부동산 양도소득에 대한 지방소득세 납세지의 문제점과 개선방안

장상록 ( Jang Sang-log ),정연식 ( Chung Yeon-sik ) 한국지방세학회 2016 지방세논집 Vol.3 No.1

The tax payment place refers to the reference place by which the taxpayer fulfills his duties and exercises his rights pursuant to the tax law, or by which the competent taxation office is determined. As such, local governments see their tax revenues differ according to the tax payment place, so it is very important where the tax payment place is located. According to Article 89 of the current Local Tax Act which specifies the tax payment place for the local income tax, the local income tax subject to reporting shall in principle have the tax payment place set forth in the Income Tax Act or the Corporate Tax Act as the local income tax payment place. The local income tax subject to special collection shall have the tax payment place determined individually according to the kinds of income. Thus, the local income tax payment place for realty transfer income is the individual's address, and the corporation's HQ or main office location. Such local income tax payment place for the realty transfer income has the following problems. First, the source of tax revenue and the origin of tax revenue are inconsistent. Specifically, in the case of the realty transfer income, the local tax payment place is the individual's address and the corporation's premises, creating the problems of the local income tax revenue for the realty transfer income belonging to the local government governing the address, etc., which have nothing to do with the location of the realty. Second, this procedure hampers the consistency of the taxation area of the realty-related property tax system. In the case of realty, it is not mobile, and is fixed in a certain region, so it is rational for the local government - which governs the location of that realty - to have taxation rights. Thus, although, for the acquisition tax or property tax, the local government governing the location of that realty has the taxation rights, the local government, which governs the address, etc. - where the realty is not located - has the taxation rights to the local income tax for the realty transfer income, thereby hampering the consistency of taxation rights between realty-related local taxes. Third, the address, etc. are the local income tax payment place, so the realty value increases due to the reflection of regional development benefits, leading to the benefits of tax revenue not belonging to that region of development. Fourth, holders of high-value assets live mainly in the greater Seoul area, leading to the local income tax revenue biasedly concentrated in the greater Seoul area, and further deepening the unbalance between the greater Seoul area and the non-greater Seoul area. Fifth, the current local income tax payment place for the transfer income distorts the burden of the administrative handling cost of local governments. Specifically, the local government, which does not govern the location of the taxable property, - only because the tax defaulter moved his address - has to cover the administrative cost for handling the default of the local income tax for the transfer income, leading to the distortion of the benefits and costs of local governments. To resolve these problems, this study proposed that the local income tax payment place for the realty transfer income should be the location of that realty. To that end, Article 89 - Paragraph 1 of the Local Income Tax Act should be revised so that the local income tax payment place for the realty transfer income should be the location of that realty.

토지거래허가를 배제ㆍ잠탈하는 경우의 양도소득세 과세 여부

윤경아 사법발전재단 2011 사법 Vol.1 No.18

이 글은 토지거래허가를 배제ㆍ잠탈하는 경우의 양도소득세 과세 여부를 판단한 대법원 2011. 7. 21. 선고 2010두23644 판결에 대한 해설이다. 국토의 계획 및 이용에 관한 법률이 정한 토지거래허가구역 내에서 거래당사자가 토지거래허가를 받지 아니하고 양도의 실질을 달성하고 있을 뿐 아니라 스스로 원상회복을 구하지도 않을 경우 그와 같은 양도차익에 대하여 과세 없는 이익을 향유하게 되는 것은 불합리한 결과로서 결국 불법을 조장하고 과세누락이 발생하는 등 조세정의에 반하게 되어 과세의 필요성이 있다. 그동안 대법원은 토지거래허가구역 내에서 토지거래계약이 허가를 받지 아니하여 무효의 상태에 있다면 단지 매매대금이 먼저 지급되었다고 하더라도 이를 양도소득세 과세대상인 자산의 양도에 해당한다거나 자산의 양도로 인한 소득이 있었다고 할 수 없다고 판시하여 왔으나, 이에 대하여는 이른바 ‘위법소득’에 대하여 과세할 수 있다는 판례의 태도와 상충되고, 양도소득에 관하여만 유독 과세대상이 아니라고 하여 예외를 인정하는 것은 합리적 근거가 없으며, 조세정의나 조세형평에도 반한다는 비판이 있어 왔던 데다가, 이 사건과 같이 중간매도인인 원고가 사실상 전매로 인한 양도차익을 향수하고 있을 뿐 아니라 원상회복이 되지 아니한 경우에도 판례의 입장을 유지하는 것은 타당하다고 보기 어려운 면이 있었다. 이에 대상판결은 다음과 같은 이유로 종례 판례를 변경하여 예외적으로 과세를 긍정하였다. 양도소득세는 자산의 양도로 인한 소득에 대하여 과세되는 것이므로, 외관상 자산이 매매 등에 의하여 양도된 것처럼 보이더라도, 그 매매 등의 계약이 처음부터 무효이거나 나중에 취소되는 등으로 효력이 없는 때에는, 양도인이 받은 매매대금 등은 원칙적으로 양수인에게 원상회복으로 반환되어야 할 것이어서 이를 양도인의 소득으로 보아 양도소득세의 과세대상으로 삼을 수 없음이 원칙이나, 소득세법 제88조 제1항 본문은 ‘양도’라 함은 자산에 대한 등기 또는 등록에 관계없이 매도, 교환, 법인에 대한 현물출자 등으로 인하여 그 자산이 유상으로 사실상 이전되는 것을 말한다고 규정하고 있을 뿐 자산이 유상으로 이전된 원인인 매매 등 계약이 법률상 유효할 것까지를 요구하고 있지는 않다. 한편 매매 등 계약이, 처음부터 토지거래허가를 배제하거나 잠탈할 목적으로 이루어진 경우와 같이, 위법 내지 탈법적인 것이어서 무효임에도 불구하고 당사자 사이에서는 그 매매 등 계약이 유효한 것으로 취급되어 매도인 등이 그 매매 등 계약의 이행으로서 매매대금 등을 수수하여 그대로 보유하고 있는 경우에는 종국적으로 경제적 이익이 매도인 등에게 귀속된다고 할 것이고 그와 같은 경우에는 ‘자산의 사실상 이전’이 있는 것으로 보아 과세를 긍정하는 것이 타당하다고 할 것이며, 그럼에도 그 매매 등 계약이 법률상 무효라는 이유로 그 매도인 등이 그로 인하여 얻은 양도차익에 대하여 양도소득세를 과세할 수 없다고 보는 것은 그 매도인 등으로 하여금 과세 없는 양도차익을 향유하게 하는 결과로 되어 조세정의와 형평에 어긋난다. 따라서 토지거래허가구역 내의 토지를 매도하고 그 대금을 수수하였으면서도 토지거래허가를 배제하거나 잠탈할 목적으로 매매가 아닌 증여가 이루어진 것처럼 가장하여 매수인 앞으로 증여를 원인으로 한 이전등기 ... This article examines Supreme Court Decision 2010Du23644 Decided July 21, 2011, wherein the Court deliberated on whether transfer income tax should be imposed in cases where a party or parties have excluded or clandestinely avoided permission for land transactions. When, within an area where land transaction permission is mandated under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, parties to a transaction effect a transfer to an actual extent without obtaining official permission for the transaction and do not seek to restore the original state of affairs, it would be unreasonable to allow the parties to enjoy non-taxed profit stemming from transfer marginal profit, as this would encourage unlawfulness and compromise taxation justice through condoning such taxation omissions. There is a need for taxation in such cases. Up to now rulings by the Supreme Court have stated that when a land transaction is void through failure to receive permission in an area where this is required, even should proceedings for the sale been paid already, these proceedings cannot be seen as income accruing from the transfer of assets upon which transfer income tax can be imposed. But this stance becomes untenable as it conflicts with the judicial stance taken by judgments that affirm taxation of so-called “illegal income”; as there are no reasonable grounds to make an exception for taxation only in the case of transfer income tax; when considering the criticism leveled on this stance, citing violation of justice and equity in taxation; and especially in such a case as this one where the plaintiff, the intermediary seller, has already enjoyed transfer marginal profits gained through resale of the land and has not restored the original state of affairs. As so, the case examined in this article modified the stance taken by previous decisions to affirm a stance of taxation, for the following reasons. Transfer income tax is imposed upon income accruing from the transfer of assets. Thus in cases where assets look to have been transferred through sale and purchase but then the contract for this sale proves to be invalid from the beginning or is invalidated afterward, the transferor should in principle return the price of sale to restore the original state of affairs, with this amount not becoming subject to taxation of transfer income tax. However, as defined in Article 88 (1) of the Income Tax Act, the term “transfer” refers to when any assets are actually transferred for price due to sale, exchange, investment, not necessarily that the contract for sales, etc., are legally valid. Meanwhile, in cases where a contract for sale and purchase, etc., is void due to being established with the purpose of evading or clandestinely avoiding permission for land transfer from the beginning, but the parties of the contract treat it as valid, with the selling party receiving the price of sale and keeping this in possession, the selling party must be seen as ultimately acquiring economic profit, upon which taxation should occur on the basis of “actual transference of assets.” Denying transfer income tax to be imposed upon this transaction, on the grounds that the sale and purchase contract is invalid from a legal perspective, results in the selling party enjoying transfer marginal profit without tax, which runs counter to justice and equity in taxation. As so, this judgment rules that in such cases where the parties to a land transaction, taking place within an area where permission must be granted for transactions of land, sold and purchased the land but then made as if the transaction was a gift and not a sale, with the goal of excluding or clandestinely avoiding the requirement to receive permission for transaction, or where a party has purchased land within an area where transaction permission is required, then resold this land to a third party without even receiving such permission and then received the sales amount but prepared a sales and purcha...

양도소득세법 인지도 분석을 통한 양도소득세법 개선방안

윤윤석(Yun-Suk Yun),심원미(Weon-Mi Sim) 한국콘텐츠학회 2011 한국콘텐츠학회논문지 Vol.11 No.3

본 연구는 성실납세를 위해 양도소득세법에 대한 인지도를 분석하고 이에 따른 양도소득세법의 개선방안을 제시하기 위해 양도소득세법에 대한 문제점을 설문조사를 통해 밝히고 통계프로그램을 이용한 분석결과는 선행 연구자들의 연구결과와 연관시켜 해석하였다. 통계분석은 양도소득세법상 세율구조의 형평성 정도와 양도소득세법상 세율 차등정도의 적정성, 양도소득세법상 세율구조의 형평성 정도와 현행 조세정책하에서의 납부회피 의도에 대하여 분석하였고, 양도소득세 납부회피에 대한 문제점을 파악하기 위해 현행 조세정책하에서의 납부회피 의도와 성실납세 회피자에 대한 행정처분 인식정도에 대하여 분석하였으며, 양도소득세법 구조의 복잡성 정도와 양도소득세법 구조의 이해정도간의 관계를 분석하였다. 상기의 분석 결과를 토대로 양도소득세법 제도에 대한 개선 방안으로 조세부담의 형평성 제고를 위한 양도소득세법상 세율구조의 형평성 제고, 성실납세 회피방지를 위한 적법한 세무조사 강화 규정정립, 양도소득세법 구조의 복잡성 완화 등을 제시하였다. This study has undertaken for the analysis of the level of recognition on the Transfer Income Tax. The statistical analysis through the questionnaire is made to find out the issues on the equitableness of Transfer Income Tax first with the level of equitableness of the Transfer Income Tax structure and appropriateness of the degree of different tax rate applied under the Transfer Income Tax, level of equitableness of the Transfer Income Tax structure and intent for avoidance of payment under the present tax policies, level of recognition for administrative disposition on those avoiding diligent payment of taxes, and it analyzed the relationship between the levels of understanding of the structure of the Transfer Income Tax and the level of complexity of the structure of the Transfer Income Tax in order to analyze if it has negative impact on the level of understanding for the structure of the Transfer Income Tax. On the basis of the above analysis result, as the improvement plan on the Transfer Income Tax system, following has been presented; enhancement of equitableness of tax rate structure under the Transfer Income Tax for improving the equitableness of tax burden, establishment of regulations to strengthen the appropriate tax investigation for prevention of diligent tax payment avoidance, relaxation of complication of the structure under the Transfer Income Tax.

주택양도소득세의 개선방안에 관한 연구

박상혁(Park, Sang Hyeok),전광섭(Jun, Gwang sup) 한국부동산학회 2012 부동산학보 Vol.48 No.-

1. CONTENTS (1) RESEARCH OBJECTIVES The non-taxation system for 1 house held by 1 household is mentioned as another problem of housing taxation policy, it contains lots of problems such as the tax equity with the owner of other assets, which the transfer income tax is imposed, or with the people, who do not own a house, the complexity of legal system, the transparency of transaction, the taxation void in case of transferring to a specially related person at low price, etc. (2) RESEARCH METHOD The difference between this study and preceding studies is to listen to the opinions of the tax accountants, the tax specialists, on the two big problems of current housing transfer income tax systems in our country, that is, the serious distortion of tax equity caused by coexisting the income deduction as countermeasure for the problems of non-taxation system of 1 house hold by 1 household and the heavy transfer income tax system for the owners having more than one house and the housing transfer income tax reductionㆍexemption policy, which are conflicting each other, and to compare with the direction of future housing transfer income tax policy, which will be selected by Government in December, 2010 and based on that result, to propose improvement measures for housing transfer income tax system in our country. (3) RESEARCH FINDINGS As identified above, since the tax specialists considered that to abolish the housing transfer income tax reductionㆍexemption system was desirable in the moment of abolishing either one of heavy taxation system for owners having more than one house or housing transfer income tax reductionㆍexemption system, and the heavy taxation of transfer income tax for owners having more than one house has many adverse effects, if it is hard to abolish immediately due to being concerned about speculation in real estate, it is recommended that suspension of heavy taxation system can be abolished after maintaining 1 or 2 years more and the flexible tax rate system around 10% should be implemented as alternative measure for the regions of housing speculation. 2. RESULTS Owners having more than one house heavy taxation system currently in force for the majority of respondents (69.5%) had recognized the need for housing and institutional devices designed to prevent. speculation owners having more than one house during and about the necessity of the system, most respondents(92.2%) were recognized. Also, is currently running a house capital gain tax relief. Exemption system by a three owners having more than one house If you have been with the previous one three owners having more than one house when comparing the majority (72.5%) of respondents undermine tax equity concerns, and solutions such imbalances include tax equity owners having more than one house grace and of Removal of heavy taxation system, and housing capital gain tax relief, relief should be abolished(50.4%) had a lot of the comments.

分讓權 保有期間이 讓渡所得稅 및 綜合不動産稅課稅에 미치는 영향에 關한 硏究

박석창(Park, Seok Chang),최민섭(Choi, MIn Seub) 한국부동산학회 2009 부동산학보 Vol.37 No.-

1. CONTENTS (1) RESEARCH OBJECTIVES There has been confusion among the tax payers when they pay their transfer income tax and general real estate tax because the government relieved tax according to the term of the possession of a bill of sale in lot. Government applies different tax rates of the transfer income tax and general real estate tax according to the term; the longer one possesses the bill, the lower the tax rates becomes. In this study I looked at the problems related with this tax relief, and I have suggested a few possible solutions for the problems. (2) RESEARCH METHOD As a groundwork for the further development of this study a few fundamental concepts are analyzed; the legal nature of a bill of sale in lot, the term of the completion of a bill of sale in lot, the process of registration after the completion of apartment construction project, and the time of purchase of an apartment. The three laws influence our thought process; article 55 of the newly effective income tax law which defines the tax rates according to the term of the possession of a bill of sale in lot and, which will be effective since February 9th 2009, article 95 about tax relief for the long term possession of a bill of sale in lot and article 9 of taxation according to the term of possession. Based on the research on these three articles the appropriate taxation method is discussed in regard of the effect of the term of possession of a bill of sale in lot on the transfer income tax and general real estate tax. (3) RESEARCH FINDINGS Article 104 of Income tax (Transfer Income Tax rate) defines the different tax rates according to the term of the possession of an immovable property. Obviously possessing a bill of sale in lot gets favor from the government, and the government relieves tax for the period of possession of a bill. There are a few problems though. It is vague when a bill of sale in lot transformed into an immovable property, and also government recalculates the term of possession from the time of registration of an apartment. Government applies lower transfer income tax rate for the sale of the bill of sale in lot than the sale of an immovable property. Knowing this, the sellers, instead of paying the rest, dissolve the registration of an apartment so that they may have lower transfer income tax rate, and this is a side effect of the article 104. 2. RESULTS It is necessary for the government to include the term of the possession of a bill of sale in lot in the term of possession of an immovable land when it calculate the transfer income tax and the general real estate tax considering the legal nature of a bill of sale in lot as a temporary bond; expectative right of the law of realty. Also in principle it is appropriate to look at the time of registration as the time of the termination of the preservation registration and as the time of possible transfer registration. However, considering the characteristics of newly built apartments it is better to recommend the registration by the time one reported the final move-in after the termination of preservation registration. Otherwise it maybe just fine to regard the sale as a transfer without registration, and in this case one may get the benefit of tax relief.

개정 기업인수,합병 세제에 관한 문제

이건국 ( Keon Kuk Lee ),정래용 ( Rae Yong Jung ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2013 법학연구 Vol.23 No.3

Korean taxation of Mergers and Acquisitions was reformed to support corporate restructuring effectively in 2010. However, the wide system of tax-free reorganization has been attended by several problems. For example, it has some provisions which are against tax neutrality and the principle of equity of taxation. It is also weak for tax avoidance through various reorganization transactions. Therefore, this study demonstrates the improvements of the taxation of M&A as below based on the principle of efficiency and equity to support corporate reorganizations efficiently and regulate tax avoidance strictly. First, there is a possibility of tax avoidance by corporate inversions. Thus, when the stockholder of target corporations is a foreign company located in a tax haven which adopts the residence principle for income accruing from transfer of securities based on tax treaty, it needs to be taxed without the benefit of the tax deferral despite qualified mergers. Also, the loss of the right of the taxation can be occurred in the triangular merger case that the stockholders of target corporations are non-residents or foreign companies and the parent companies of acquiring corporations are foreign companies. Therefore, it is asked that the benefit of the tax deferral should not be adopted for the stockholders in that case. Second, there is the problem of double taxation in appropriating asset adjustment accounts for the all-inclusive transfer of assets and the all-inclusive exchange and transfer of stocks, because the provision of asset adjustment accounts has been applied correspondingly from corporate tax act. It is contrary to the principle of equity of taxation. Therefore, in the case of the all-inclusive transfer of asset, the amount of asset adjustment account needs to be appropriated except for the amount of realized transfer marginal profits. In the case of the all-inclusive exchange and transfer of stocks, the reformed system of spin-off and investment in kind on corporate tax act needs to be applied in order for avoiding double taxation. Third, the continuity of economic substance has not been maintained in most reorganizations through backdoor listings. It leads to abuse of tax-free benefits, which also does not conform with the principle of substantial taxation. Thus, it is needed to apply the COBE requirements for acquiring corporations` businesses and reinforce the COI requirements for majority stockholders of target corporations. Fourth, the total period, when corporations are monitored whether they are qualified for tax-free requirements, is flexible. The reason is that the period from the registration to the beginning of the post control is variable based on the registration date. Because it cause the problem of the principle of equity, it is asked that the post control should be finished at the date after 3 years from the registration date to fix the total period for tax-free requirements. Fifth, the current taxation of deemed dividends caused from the transfer of marginal profits accruing from mergers into capital has some problems. it is not regulated in the taxation of the all-inclusive transfer of assets. Therefore, it is needed to supplement the taxation of deemed dividends caused from the transfer of marginal profits accruing from the all-inclusive transfer of assets into capital. It is thought that abovementioned improvements will help the taxation to secure reasonability and neutrality and to revitalize corporate reorganization.