綜合不動産稅制의 改善方案에 관한 硏究

지방재산세의 재분배 효과와 공공재 공급 및 교육수요를 분석했다.

With the launch of the Roh Moo-hyun government, balanced national development was set as one of the primary policy goals. To push forward with the balancing initiative, the government carried out numerous measures for regional developments. However, due to the government-led project also proposed as presidential election pledges, the whole nation had turned into an arena of real estate speculators and speculation all across the nation resulted in skyrocketing land & housing prices and soaring gap between the rich and the poor. Especially facing skyrocketing housing prices, the government needed to make a huge breakthrough.

At last, the government confirmed a real estate tax system modification bill, which included the comprehensive real estate tax and the law was enacted on August 31 accordingly. The new bill divided real estate holding tax into two categories: property tax levied by cities and municipal districts according to ownership of houses, buildings, and land, and the comprehensive real estate tax levied on the level of the central government. Especially for owners of multiple dwellings or large amounts of land, the tax burden was expected to increase greatly as comprehensive real estate tax on housing or land would be added on to the relevant local tax.

The aim of the August 31 law was to eliminate the real estate bubble to normalize the market and ensure that the public's faith in the conquest of the real estate speculation took proper root. Expectedly, it would lead to a landmark result & a step towards tax equity and promotion of both national and regional economic growth.

However, as the government's new real estate policy went into effect controversy continued over whether the policy was introducing double taxes, or discriminating married couples, or imposing taxes on unrealized income, or the violation of the property rights, the principle of equality before the law and the financial rights of autonomous governments, or causing a reversal of salutary free market trend. Finally, taxpayers who raised those issues filed a petition with the Constitutional Court against the new real estate law. The Constitutional Court ruled partially unconstitutional the comprehensive real estate tax on owners of more expensive homes.

The ruling said the regenerative tax system of imposing high taxes on all single-home owners excessively infringed on an individual's right to property. Also, the court said charging the real estate tax to the combined sum of homes held by members of a household was unconstitutional, following previous rulings that the clause on charging taxes on the combined sum of homes could be justified in that it prevents tax evasion, but owning property through inheritance among family members was not necessarily intended to evade taxes and charging more taxes to married couples or families was against the Constitution that stipulated more protection for married couples and families.

The court maintained the basic frame of the comprehensive property tax, saying its purpose was justified. The purpose of the thesis is firstly, to review all the elements of the tax code ruled either unconstitutional or inconsistent with the Constitution by the Constitutional Court and secondly, to make suggestions for improvements on the law underwent a revision by the National Assembly from a legal perspective.

Firstly, the comprehensive real estate tax does not overlap with the property tax so it is not double taxation, first because deductions for property tax commensurate with the previous payment are made, second because by the multi-level standard of assessment the property tax is laid on a relatively low rate compared to the comprehensive real estate tax. Furthermore, to remove any doubts about double taxation a better approach, I suggest is to make the due dates for property and the comprehensive real estate tax overlap on the same day.

Secondly, both property and the comprehensive real estate tax should be combined and converted to land holding tax in order to resolve suppressed development or renovation for housing issues caused by high rate of housing holding tax. Plus, to alleviate the contradiction of taxation that occurs when land and housing are treated equal in value although the are not in reality we can think of adopting the notion of national land holding tax. In addition, for taxpayers the governments should allow freedom of choices either to go by income splitting rules or an individual unit rule.

When it comes to income splitting rules, which have earlier been adopted and practiced in the States or Germany, there is no point for owners in splitting real estates intentionally for the purposes of progressive real estate tax evasion any longer. Thirdly, over the dispute that the comprehensive real estate law infringes the rights of property, new set of assessment standards of tax should be made for a solution. Specifically, a long-term residents who own only one house that has nothing to do with speculation won't be levied punitive taxes if the assessment standards are set equally on taxable capacity and revised upwards every year.

Also, deductions for both property tax commensurate with the previous payment and accrued expenses due to real estate purchase could be great applications of the principle of substantial taxation. Lastly, charging property tax, which is a local tax, and also charging the comprehensive real estate tax, a national tax can be seen as double taxation. That is why autonomous governments argue that taking up the property tax as a national tax is infringing the financial rights of local offices. To settle the disputes, it should be the autonomous governments that impose the comprehensive real estate tax.

It is also well with the aim of the August 31 law legislated and revised for stabilization of housing prices and promotion of balanced land development as well as the local finance. Ever since the Roh moo-hyun government came up with the policy designed