종합부동산세제의 개선방안 연구

종합부동산세제의 문제점과 개선 방안을 연구했다.

The real estate policy in Korea has been performed mainly through the real estate tax law. Because of the rapid rise of price of houses from the end of 2001, the government introduced Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Law in 2005 to prevent speculation in real estate. The Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Law was reinforced in 2006 and 2007 as the property price was not be stable after the introduction of the law. While the increase of tax revenue enhanced financial resource of the local governments through the reinforcement of the tax law, the enforcement was accused as unconstitutional and became the reason of tax resistance.

Kim, Jong Young (2009) remarked, in his questionnaire survey results, that general people had negative reactions to the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Law and thought that there were many unconstitutional contents. On November 13, 2008 the Constitutional Court sentenced that the taxation over property by household unit was a violation of the constitution and the taxation over long-term single house owners was not the incompatible with the constitution. After the judgement, the abolishment of the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Law was discussed, but the majority thought the law might be effective after revising problems.

As the abolishment of the tax which applied for over several years might cause a great chaos and a serious difficulty to the finance of the local governments. Although the great part of the problems were cleared by the revision of the tax law in accordance with the judgement of the Constitutional Court, several fundamental problems were left after revision. The interested parties of Comprehensive Real Estate Tax are tax payers and the state or the local government to which tax is revenue. But, between them there is a conflict that tax payers want tax burden reduced while governments want sufficient tax revenue.

It is ideal that the level of Comprehensive Real Estate Tax might be determined at the reasonable level to both of them. Accordingly, this study suggested the improvements of Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Law for both the tax payers and governments, respectively. For tax payers, there were given several suggestions to protect the basic rights of taxpayer and to lessen tax burden. First, the reasonable evaluation criteria must be prepared for Comprehensive Real Estate Tax.

Fair market value and rental price are suggested as reasonable criteria which may reflect the tax-bearing capacity of taxpayers and be useful for the decision making of taxpayers for acquisition, possession and disposal of properties. Second, it suggested tax burden might be lessened by the addition and expansion of tax exemption codes. For this purpose, it is desirable to expand tax exemption for single house owners and deduct the loan amount of real property from the taxable amount. And it also suggested the taxable amount to be reconciled by the general price level.

Third, it suggested that it would be desirable to increase the number of tax payers but lower the tax rate for the purpose of maintaining the current tax burden level. After the judgement of the Constitutional Court in 2008, the number of taxpayers was sharply decreased and the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax got to lack the generality. Therefore, it needs to revise rules so that more taxpayers are to be included and the tax rate is lowered for the purpose of maintaining the current tax burden level. To increase the number of taxpayers, it is desirable to include all the taxable properties of property tax into the objects of the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax.

For the Local Governments, there were given some suggestions to achieve financial purpose of the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax to the local government. It is desirable to transfer the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax to the local tax and integrate it into the property tax in the long run. But, this study suggested two revision methods in a short-term practice considering the poor financial condition of local governments. First, it might be proper to maintain the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax as national tax, but to switch the national managing body from the national tax service to the ministry of public administration and security.

Second, it was suggested that the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax might be imposed by local governments but collected and allocated to the local governments by national government. This study suggested a short-term improvement considering poor financial condition of the local governments. In the future, further studies for the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax are recommended in the long-term and comprehensive level. 우리나라 부동산정책은 주로 조세정책을 통해서 이루어져 왔다. 2001년 하반기부터 주택가격이 급등하자 정부는 부동산 투기억제를 위한 부동산정책의 일환으로 2005년에 종합부동산세제를 도입하였다. 종합부동산세의 도입에도 불구하고 부동산가격이 안정되지 않자 2006년과 2007년에는 종합부동산세를 강화하였다. 제도의 강화로 인하여 종합부동산세의 세입이 증대되어 지방자차단체의 재정에는 도움이 되었지만 조세저항과 위헌문제가 계속적으로 제기되었다.

김종영(2009)은 일반 국민이 종합부동산세에 대해 부정적인 인식을 가지고 있으며 위헌성이 제기된 문제들이 대부분 위헌의 소지가 많다는 인식을 하고 있음을 설문조사를 통해서 밝히고 있다. 헌법재판소는 지난 2008년 11월 13일 종합부동산세의 세대별 합산과세에 대해 위헌판결을 내렸고, 주거목적의 1가구 1주택 장기보유자에 대한 부과는 헌법불합치라고 선고하였다. 헌법재판소의 판결이 있은 후 종합부동산세의 폐지론까지 대두되었으나 이미 수년간 시행되어 오던 제도를 일시에 폐지할 경우 겪게 될 혼란이 클 것으로 우려되고 종합부동산세를 재원으로 하는 부동산 교부세가 지방재정에서 차지하는 비중이 매우 크기 때문에 폐지보다는 문제점을 개선하여 이를 유지하여야 한다는 의견이 일반적인 지지를 받고 있다. 비록 헌법재판소의 판결에 따른 후속조치로 세법이 개정되어 제기된 많은 문제점이 해결되었다고는 하나 여전히 근본적인 문제점이 다수 남아 있다. 조세인 종합부동산세의 당사자는 세금을 부담하게 되는 납세자와 조세를 재정수입의 원천으로 보는 국가나 지방자치단체의 정부가 된다. 그런데 납세자는 조세부담의 감소를 원하고 과세권자인 국가나 지방자치단체는 조세를 통한 재정수입의 증대를 원하는 상충되는 요구를 하고 있다. 종합부동산세제는 이러한 상충되는 요구를 가진 납세자와 과세권자 사이에 균형을 맞추는 합리적인 수준에서 결정되어야 할 것이다.

따라서 본 연구에서는 납세자를 위한 개선방안과 종합부동산세의 재정수입을 사용하고 있는 지방자치단체가 안정적으로 재정수입을 확보할 수 있는 개선방안을 각각 제안하였다. 우선 납세자의 입장에서는 납세자 개개인의 기본권을 보호하고 적정 조세부담을 할 수 있도록 납세자를 위한 방안을 다음과 같이 제시하였다. 첫째, 종합부동산세를 위해서 합리적인 과세기준를 정하고 적용해야 할 것이다. 납세자의 조세부담능력을 잘 반영하고 납세자가 부동산을 취득하여, 보유하고, 처분하는 의사결정을 합리적으로 할 수 있도록 예측가능하고 납득할 만한 과세기준을 정할 것을 제안하였다. 이러한 합리적인 과세기준의 구체적인 대안으로 현행의 공시가격 대신 공정시장가격에 의한 취득가액과 임대가격을 제안하였다. 둘째, 공제감면제도를 추가하거나 확대하여 납세자의 조세부담을 완화해 줄