現行 讓渡所得稅의 問題點과 改善方案에 관한 硏究

현행 양도소득세의 문제점과 개선방안을 연구했다.

Transfer Income is also referred to as Capital Gains, and in Koreathe tax rate for the capital income is higher compared to other general incomes such as earned income or business income. However, the object of taxation is rather limitedly listed and regulated. The reason why the Transfer Income tax has become deformed is because the tax system is based on government policy instead of for basic purposes such as contributing to tax revenue. It means that the current Transfer Income tax is more likely a policy tool to intercept real estate gambling instead of following the tax principal for the capital income tax.

Also, for marginal profit from the stock transfer, only the limited part of the income is regulated for the assessment, so it is actually not doing its job well. The assessment principal for the transfer income tax is not established well and it doesn’t even fulfill any of the promises of fairness or effectiveness. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the overall problems including objects of assessment, tax rate structure, reporting, and payment for the Transfer Income tax and its solutions.

The problems and solutions of the Transfer Income tax are divided into objects of assessment, calculation method for the assessment standard, and the tax rate structure and it can be summarizedas follows. The problems for assessment method and objects of assessmentand the solutions of transfer income tax are as follows. First, the weakened progressive scale and horizontal balance problems, which are the problems of the 0current Assessment Method for the Transfer Income, in addition to the problem of avoiding the income tax by transferring to other type of capital income, were studied.

In theshort term, it is better to maintain the current assessment system however, in the long term, it would be better to assess the transfer income as being the same other forms of income. However, the bunching effect may occur if the transfer income is combined with other incomes, therefore, it is also necessary to prepare complementary tools. Second, almost all properties are excluded from the object of the assessment except the unlisted stocks on unmovable properties, so there are many problems with the fair tax act aspect. Therefore, capital goods including the listed stocks as well as moveable properties should be included to the object of assessment for the transfer income tax.

The problems and solutions for calculation method of the assessment standard are as follows. First, the calculation method for the transfer income was converted from the standard value to trading value and it is more reasonable in the actual assessment principal. However, it is true that complementary tools are required to implement this system. It means that national tax office and local tax office should share the information to prevent from the leakage of the tax by making double contract.

Also the tax exemption system needs to be improved including changing the tax exemption for one household with one houseto earned income tax exemption to improve the problems that occurred from ‘up’ contract that needs for the tax exemption system. Second, currently, the general properties that were acquired before December 31, 1984 are regarded to have been acquired on January 1, 1985 and for stocks on January 1, 1986. However, it is difficult to approve its validity for this type of regulation, therefore, if the fiction was acquired before January 1, 1990, the acquisition date should be regarded as on January 1, 1990.

Third, the calculation method for the standard value of the properties that were acquiredbefore the individual house price was published needs to be legislatively repaired. Fourth, legislative improvement is also required in calculating the exemption amounts of depreciation expense to exemptthe depreciation expense even if a sales commission fee is applied. Fifth, the current transfer income tax system separates the marginal profit from the transferredincome, and if it is deficit value, the stocks and other properties are separated. However, it doesn’t make sense, so it should not be separatedand should allow transferring and exemption for 5 years.

Seventh, the basic exemption amount for the transfer income should be 1 million won regardless of the amount of income. Finally, the current tax rate structure for the Transfer Income tax has many problems; it is too detailed, it is too high, and it doesn’t match with the policy purposes, and therefore, the overall tax structure should be improved. The short and long terms of improvement plan are studied as follows. First, in theshort term, heavy tax for the people own more than one houses and non-business purpose land should be abolished.

Also the general property should be divided into non-registered transfer property, short term retention and long term retention property and apply 70% and 35% of proportional rate and 8~35% of the excess accumulation rate, and for the stocks apply 8%~35% of the excessaccumulation rate for the big shareholder’s transfer and 20% of proportional rate for small shareholders’transfer. For the long term, excess accumulation rate needs to be applied for all the properties with the premise of preparing an average assessment tool. 우리나라의 경우 양도소득에 대하여는 일반적인 소득에 비하여 상대적으로 높은 세율로 과세하고 있는 실정이다. 한편 과세대상은 배당소득과 이자소득 등 일반적인 소득의 경우에는 유형별 포괄주의를 도입하는 등 포괄적으로 규정하고 있는데 반하여, 양도소득의 경우에는 매우 제한적으로 규정하고 있다.

현행 양도소득세가 이와 같은 모습을 취하고 있는 이유는 근본적으로 당해 세제가 조세의 기본목적인 세수충족 목적보다는 국가의 정책목적을 위하여 사용되어 왔기 때문이라고 할 수 있다. 즉, 현행 양도소득세제는 넓은 세원과 낮은 세율인 과세원칙에 충실하기 보다는 부동산 투기를 막기 위한 정책적인 수단으로서의 성격이 강하다. 또한 주식 양도차익의 경우에는 증권시자의 안정화 등을 이유로 법에 열거하고 있는 아주 제한적인 부분에 대하여만 과세를 하고 있기 때문에 그 역할을 제대로 하지 못하고 있는 실정이다. 결과적으로 우리나라의 양도소득세는 과세원칙이 제대로 정립되어 있지 않고, 이 때문에 공평성과 효율성 중 어느 하나도 충족하지 못하고 있다. 따라서 본 논문에서는 우리나라 양도소득세에 관하여 과세원칙에 맞게 과세대상부터 세율구조와 신고납부 등 전반적인 문제점과 그에 따른 개선방안에 대하여 살펴보았다. 즉, 현행 양도소득세의 문제점과 그 개선방안을 과세방법과 과세대상, 과세표준 산정방법 및 세율구조로 구분하여 살펴보았다. 이와 같이 우리나라 양도소득세의 문제점과 그 개선방안을 살펴보면 다음과 같다.