現行綜合不動産稅課稅制度의 問題點과 改善方案

현행 종합부동산세 과세제도의 문제와 개선방안을 연구하였다.

The purpose of this study is to examine the problems regarding the current system of Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax, and present the improvement plans. The policy of real estate taxation has the three basic functions - distribution of resources, redistribution of income, and growth and stabilization of the economy - as other taxation systems do, but in a short run, it functions as a means of realizing the goal - restriction of the current real estate speculation and land price stabilization. In the case of Korea, since the supply of land is limited compared to the demand, land prices have kept creasing; and thus in fact, land has been recognized as a means to gain more capital.

Remedies of the government on land problems that started in 1960's have focused on temporary measures upon speculation in time, with no comprehensive, fundamental policy. To solve those problems, the Public Concept of Land Ownership was introduced, and some of them which were implemented in early 1990's include the Residential Land Ceiling System, contribution system for development, and Excess Vacant Land Taxes abolished by a decision of unconstitutionality of the Constitutional Court. The sensation of the apartment speculation that began in 1970's continued for years even up to the point of introducing the Public Concept of Land Ownership.

As various kinds of real estate taxation policies have been newly established, revised, and abolished by regimes and Participatory Government emerged, the comprehensive real estate holding tax law was introduced as the best possible real estate taxation policy. This law, established on Jan. 5, 2005, imposed comprehensive real estate holding tax on owners of high value real estates so as to reconsider the equality of tax burden on real estate possession, promote price stability of real estate, and thus contribute to sound development of the national economy and balanced growth of the local finance, but there have been various controversial issues in this regard.

Some of the improvement plans for involved problems are as follows: First, comprehensive real estate holding tax imposed to taxation subjects is a type of property tax on real estate owned. The central government's gaining the rights of taxation on real estate, which are the local governments' tax source, is an infringement of the right of self-government, and can make worse the poor local financial state.

As an improvement plan for this, the taxation on real estate in the scope of the wide-area unit of local government is to be taken care of by provinces as a concept of property tax, a part of wide-are local government tax so as to balance the finance among basic organizations, while the central government focuses on controlling financial imbalance among wide-area local governments. Second, as to double taxation on goods subject to the same type of taxation, the local government imposes property tax on housing and land, and the government imposes comprehensive real estate holding tax on real estate over a certain amount, which results in double taxation.

Since comprehensive real estate holding tax is imposed on real estate just as property tax, there is a possibility of double taxation. Some might claim that this is not double taxation because the subject to impose the tax is the government and it is separated from property tax, but in consideration of the fact that the mayor and country chief are obligated to cooperate in the procedure, Minister of Public Administration and Security is to provide the data on taxation, and the whole amount of comprehensive real estate holding tax is granted to the local government, this is in fact a type of local tax.

Thus, it would be proper to convert it to an official local tax or wide-area local government tax. Third, there is a problem of summing up taxation for each household, a single man or woman who had his/her own house but did not need to pay comprehensive real estate holding tax is supposed to pay unitary tax after getting married, which may result in charging comprehensive real estate holding tax. Besides, this might be recognized as a type of penalty of marriage, which is a violation of the constitution Art. 36-1, stating that marriage and family life should be established and maintained based on dignity of a person and sexual equality and the government should ensure this.

Besides, as this is a type of separation of goods according to the civil law, and violates the principle of equality stated in Art. 11-1 of the constitution, this can be regarded as unconstitutional. To prevent avoiding taxation, the unitary taxation for each household to realize taxes on property should be complemented in a way of death tax or gift tax. In addition, the unitary taxation for each household should be abolished to remove any risk of unconstitutionality, and instead replaced with the unitary taxation for each individual. Fourth, the taxation on a household with one house is another problem.

Households with one house are end-users, and rarely aim at speculation or property increase. In addition, it is unreasonable to impose taxes on households with one house only because the real estate price increased regardless of income. As an improvement plan for this, as to those who have been unemployed for three or more years, those who retired, or 65 year old or older ones whose income is lower than the minimal wage according to the minimum wage law, the plan to deduct around 50% of the tax should be considered.

In addition, long-term special deduction on households with one house should be provided and the system to deduct around 50% of the comprehensive real estate holding tax already paid for the last 5 years from the capital gains tax when they sell the house. Fifth, the problem of taxation on profit not yet realized should be taken into consideration. Although comprehensive real estate holding tax is regarded as a tax on property, theoretically it has a problem since it is imposed on pr