주택양도소득과세제도에 관한 연구

주택 양도소득 과세제도의 현황과 개선방안을 연구했다.

한글초록 : 우리나라는 1960年代 以後 急速한 經濟成長을 이루었고, 産業化와 더불어 土地需要의 急增과 함께 不動産 投機가 성행해 왔으며, 1968년 不動産投機抑制稅制를 실시하다, 1975년 所得再分配 機能 强化를 위하여 不動産投機抑制制度를 廢止하고 讓渡所得稅制度를 도입한다. 이렇게 讓渡所得稅 制度의 도입으로 不動産投機 抑制效果를 期待하였지만, 그 目的에 부합하지 못한 채 1975年부터 1991年까지 무려 16年 간 不動産 投機가 持續되면서 不動産 값은 무려 330%나 急騰하였다. 1998年 IMF이후 未分讓住宅 등 不動産市場沈滯를 活性化하기 위하여 導入한 讓渡所得稅 緩和政策으로 2002年부터 다시 住宅市場을 中心으로 不動産 投機가 일기 시작하여, 2003年부터 政府는 계속하여 租稅政策 등을 내놓고 있으나 큰 效果를 거두지 못하고 있다. 不動産 投機로 不當한 不勞所得이 發生하여, 勤勞意慾을 低下 시키고, 貧富의 隔差는 점점 커져 가는데, 現行 住宅讓渡所得稅 制度는 所得再分配 機能을 제대로 수행하지 못하고 있다.

특히, 1世帶 1住宅 非課稅의 優待조치는 오랜 세월 동안 시행되어 오면서 國民의 住居生活 安定과 居住移轉의 자유를 보장해 주는 등 여러 가지 順機能을 수행해 왔으나, 住宅이 資産增殖의 手段化 되는데 한 몫을 해 오면서 여러 가지 부작용을 야기 시키고 있다.첫째, 政府의 일관성 없는 讓渡所得稅 制度로 國民은 政府의 政策을 信賴하지 않고, 政府의 對策발표에 관계없이 住宅價格은 不安定하다. 둘째, 現行 住宅讓渡所得稅 制度는 水平的?垂直的 公平性을 侵害하고 있다. 셋째, 1世帶 1住宅 非課稅 要件을 判斷하는 것과 多住宅 住宅 數를 계산하는 方法과 重課稅 適用對象을 判斷하는 등 課稅判斷이 複雜하고 이로 인하여 過多한 行政 費用이 소요된다. 넷째, 1世帶 1住宅 非課稅 惠澤을 받기위해서 또한 多住宅 重課稅 適用을 받지 않기 위해서 정당하지 않는 租稅回避 手段을 씀으로써 社會 秩序을 歪曲 시키고 있다. 이와 같이 現行의 住宅讓渡所得稅 制度의 問題點을 해결하면서, 中産層의 住宅福祉를 침해하지 아니하는 方向으로 解決方案이 摸索되어져야 한다. 따라서 이러한 目標를 달성하기 위하여, 現行住宅讓渡所得稅制度의 1世帶1住宅 非課稅 制度와 多住宅者 重課稅制度를 廢止하고 住宅所得控除 制度를 제안한다. 住宅所得控除 制度를 導入하면, 다음과 같은 效果를 기대 할 수 있을 것으로 判斷된다.

첫째, 2年 以上 居住한 住宅에 대해서만, 住宅所得控除를 해주도록 하여 中産層의 住居安定을 시키면서도 國民들로 하여금 住宅投機를 根絶 시킬 수 있을 것이다. 따라서 住宅價格을 安定시킬 수 있을 것으로 期待된다. 둘째, 住宅의 數에 관계없이 擔稅能力에 따라 課稅 할 수 있는 方案으로 水平的?垂直的 不平等을 解消 할 수 있다. 셋째, 1世帶 1住宅을 判斷하고, 多住宅을 判斷하는 複雜性을 해소 할 수 있으며, 納稅者와 課稅官廳間의 摩擦도 解消 할 수 있을 것이다. 넷째, 現行 1世帶 1住宅 所有者가 非課稅 惠澤을 받는 中産層의 住居用 住宅에 대해서는 稅負擔 없이 居住移轉을 할 수 있을 것이므로 租稅抵抗이 크지 않을 것이다. 이상과 같이 現行 住宅讓渡所得稅 制度로 인한 問題點 및 住宅讓渡所得稅 制度가 새로운 制度로 轉換되어야 한다는 學界의 繼續된 주장에도 불구하고 여전히 轉換되지 못하고, 住宅讓渡所得稅 制度가 複雜해만 가는 理由는 1世帶 1住宅 非課稅 制度를 租稅抵抗 때문에 廢止하지 못하기 때문이다. 따라서 政府는 中産層의 住宅福祉를 侵害하지 않는 범위 내에서 住宅讓渡所得控除額 수준을 정하여, 새로운 制度에 대한 저항 없이 制度가 전환 될 수 있도록 智慧를 모아야겠다

영문초록 : Recently, one of the most serious problems in Korea is the ever-widening gap between rich and poor. Namely, the middle class is gradually disappearing, or the society is being dichotomized. Such a phenomenon seems to have been caused partly by the poor functioning of the tax system. Tax plays the function of nation's financial revenues as well as income redistribution. Since 1960's, Korea has recorded a rapid economic growth, and thus, people's incomes have rapidly increased, improving their living standards. On the other hand, real estate speculations have prevailed due to industrialization and increasing demands for land.

With introduction of the capital gain tax system, real estate speculations were expected to be discouraged, but the results would betray such a wild expectation; the real estate prices had risen as high as 330% for 16 years between 1975 and 1991, much less real estate speculations checked. Since the IMF bailout program in 1998, the capital gain tax system would be less strict to activate the real estate markets recessed - a great number of apartment houses were not occupied - but beginning from 2002 the speculations in real estates, especially houses, would begin to gain strength, and since 2003, the government has continued to put forwards tax reform policies but almost in vain.

While the real estate speculations have been prevalent enough to generate unfair unearned incomes, discouraging workers and widening the gap between rich and poor, the current 'capital gain tax system' can hardly play the function of income redistribution. Particularly, the tax exemption for 'one house of one family' which had long been positive enough to assure people of their stable housing life and freedom of movement is now causing various side effects including speculations in houses.

The problems of the current real estate policies can be summed up as follows; First, since the government has not operated the capital gain tax system consistently, people no longer trust government policies, and thus, any reform measure published by the government seldom serves to stabilize the housing prices. Second, the current capital gain tax system seems to violate both horizontal and vertical justice of taxation. Third, it is very complicated, requiring extremely high administrative costs, to examine the conditions for tax exemption for 'one house of one family', calculate the number of houses owned by a single family and decide on the families subject to heavy tax rates.

Fourth, many tax payers are manipulating in unfair ways to enjoy the benefits of tax exemption for 'one house of one family' or evade the heavy tax rates applied to multi-house owners, disrupting the order of our society. Hence, the government is deemed obliged to solve such problems of the capital gain tax, while not infringing on middle-class citizens' housing welfare. To this end, the researcher suggests that the current tax exemption for 'one house of one family' in the capital gain tax system should be abolished together with the heavy tax rates against multi-house owners and therewith, that a 'housing cost deduction system' should be introduced.

Then, the following effects would be expected; First, if the cost for the houses occupied for 2 years or longer should be deducted from income tax, the middle-class citizens' housing life would be stabilized with speculations in houses checked. Of course, the housing prices would be stabilized. Second, since the new tax system would depend on not number of the houses owned but tax payers' capacity, both horizontal and vertical unjustice of taxation would be resolved. Third, it would be no longer necessary to decide on 'one house of one family' or multi-house ownerships, which has been difficult and complicated.

In addition, the unnecessary conflicts between tax payers and tax office would be much relieved. Fourth, since the middle-class citizens with a single house could move freely without tax burden, their resistance to tax would be reduced. As discussed above, the current capital gain tax system has exposed various problems, while it has been argued that the ineffective system should be replaced with a new effective tax system. Howeve