1세대 1주택 양도소득세 비과세제도에 관한 연구

1세대 1주택 양도소득세 비과세제도를 연구한다.

Most countries have implemented the system of tax exemption on residential housing in such ways as tax deferral, income deduction and application of the low tax rate and so forth and have not set the ex-post-facto management requirements such as alternative acquisition to it and the like. For this reason, it can be said that the Korean tax system is generous compared to the transfer income tax system in other countries. But the system of tax exemption on one housing per household fundamentally impairs the horizontal equity and vertical equity of taxes.

Those who transfer the housing failing to meet the requirements for tax exemption on one housing per household do not come to be guaranteed horizontal equity as they come to have the burden of the excessive tax amount compared to those who transfer the housing completely meeting the requirements. And the requirements for tax exemption put its importance on the holding of housing, not real residence, and abandoned the right of taxation on the holding gain arising from owning the house. Paradoxically, they disregarded taxation on lease income and business profits of those holding multiple housing.

This resulted in a sharp rise in housing price, making it difficult for the homeless masses to own their house, which caused several social problems. This policy could be said to be the policy to make housing supply smooth, but in connection with housing, the benefit should go to the person who owns and lives in a house. First, the tax exemption and reduction system comes to impair the tax payment consciousness and horizontal equity of taxpayer or tax obligor in addition to impairing the equality of tax burden principle.

And the measures of preferential treatment of tax exemption and reduction for some taxpayers come to trigger the measure of preferential treatment for tax of the other taxpaying groups with similar situations. Second, the method of taxation on every real property should change from the method of taxation based on tax standard value to that based on real transactional price. It is possible to overcome the deduction method of the previously unidentifiable acquisition costs by using diverse technical methods.

Especially, to eliminate the practice of drawing up the double written contract to avoid the heavy burden of both the acquisition tax and the registration tax on housing, it is necessary to rule out the difficulty of implementation by lowering the burden of acquisition tax and registration tax on housing. The identification of the real transactional cost can function as the recent taxation infrastructure and so could compensate for the cause for introducing the tax standard value. Third, the current provisions of tax exemption on one house per household have been operated in the extremely complicated system, which has caused a great confusion in its interpretation and application.

The tax exemption system for housing which has a tremendous effect on the residential life of the general public should be easily accessible to the public at large. Nevertheless, because the transfer income tax system adopts the principle of enumeration, the provisions of tax exemption based on it cannot but to operate in the complicated system easily intelligible to the public at large. Fourth, the system of tax exemption on one house per household should be abolished. The result of investigation into the system of tax exemption on one house per household in the US, Japan and the UK revealed that they does not have the same tax exemption system as that of Korea.

Government's right of taxation should make a contribution to both the stabilization of common people's residential life and the securing of national financial revenues by becoming deeply involved in their life. And it should actualize the goal of taxation on the gain of holding real property based on the equity with other income. Accordingly, the system should be transformed into the residential housing support system. It is possible to overcome the side effects arising from the abolition of this system in several diverse ways presented earlier.

That is, it is possible to overcome them through the housing transfer income deduction system, tax deferral, the tax exemption and reduction system and the like. What is the most important of them can be said to be the housing transfer income deduction system. It is because the upper limit of the deducted amount can be easily identified by social consensus in the housing transfer income deduction system and it is easy to apply the policy. If the stability and equity of the tax system is guaranteed in keeping with institutional changes by minimizing the number of those suffering from disbenefits, it is thought that it has no problem.

And it is possible to restructure the transfer income tax law related to intricate and knotty housing through the abolition of this system. There is no need to classify high-priced housing separately and it is possible to simplify the interpretation and application of laws and regulations by one effort as well. The academic world has continued to present the argument that it is necessary to introduce the tax exemption system for housing as the new system to resolve the problem arising from the current system of tax exemption on one house per household.

But the reason that the current tax exemption system cannot be abolished is the hesitation of government that worries about the strong tax resistance from citizens. Accordingly, government should set the level of the amount of housing transfer income deductions through active publicization. By doing so, it should make efforts for people belonging to less than the middle income bracket not to have the tax burden related to the transfer of one house per household and for most citizens not to need to resist a switch to this system.