취득세 과세표준 일원화에 관한 연구

취득세 과세표준을 일원화하는 방안을 연구했다.

Self-governance by local governments is in full swing in Korea. Against this backdrop, local governments are paying more attention than ever to securing local tax revenue to satisfy residents’ demand for administration services and public services, and to secure fund to operate self-government bodies. The amount of acquisition tax, taking sizable portion of the local tax, is decided by tax report, not by tax imposition.

Nevertheless, except for few cases where real purchase price is applied as tax base, one of the most crucial factors in calculating tax amount, on the ground that the reported tax amount is not credential, market price standard is applied as the lowest bar in applying tax base, allowing taxpayers to report tax based on market prices, resulting in violation of substantial taxation principle. This study reviewed whether defining tax base of acquisition tax differently depending on subject and method of transaction violates fair tax policy or not, by looking at relevant cases and theories.

As a result, the study came up with the conclusions as follows: First, we need to devise regulations to ensure that real purchase price is applied first. The biggest cause explaining why tax base of acquisition tax is different based on who makes the transaction and how the transaction for the acquisition is made is the regulation that regards the purchase price upon acquisition as report price and sets market price standard at the minimum. This used to work well in the past when tax payers’ reports are oftentimes hardly credential. However, admitting tax report amount larger than market price standard in every case constitutes violation against fair tax policy.

Regarding real purchase price as tax base and preparing penalties such as surtax for those who violated the regulation would make fairer tax system. Second, I suggest making clear-cut definitions about real purchase price. Instead of corporation’s book value, verdicts, and the amount verified by the report in accordance with the Article 27 of the Licensed Real Estate Agent’s Work and Report for Real Estate Transaction Act, additional regulation should be prepared and included to the local tax law to calculate real purchase price correctly. This should help to decide tax base of acquisition tax based on the price lawfully viewed by the local tax law.

This is also expected to uphold principle of fair tax policy and remove violations against fair tax policy by preventing change of tax base caused by other tax laws or tax payers themselves. Third, I suggest making clear-cut definitions about incidental acquisition costs. According to the current regulation, accidental costs should be included only when real purchase prices are applied. In this case, all the payment, including direct costs and indirect costs made to the other party or the third party in order to fulfill the acquisition before the acquisition is made should be included.

On the contrary, the Supreme Court ruled that if it is not about the acquisition, but about the rights of the acquisition, thereby it is not about the price of the acquired object itself, payments for the acquisition made or confirmed before the acquisition shall not be considered as purchase price. This ruling recognizes payments directly relevant to acquisition only as tax base. This ruling caused a large gap in understanding about expenses for acquisition between tax payers and taxation subject.

Also, taking note that there is emerging issues regarding whether to include all kinds of recently established allotment costs into tax base or not, clear definition is necessary for the local tax law’s regulation over accidental costs for acquisition. Some cases listed below describe where to make efforts to narrow gap between taxation subject and taxpayers. Forth, due to nature of real estates, every transaction has different price, and it should be admitted that there is no transaction price in gratuitous transactions. Therefore, complementary evaluation method should be used for gratuitous transactions of this kind because they do not have purchase price.

As of traditional complementary evaluation method, market price standard itself does not reflect the real value of the acquisition and fails to reflect its economic value. Considering multiple issues including those, additional evaluation method should be developed by borrowing concept of quasi-transaction or through other ways. Additionally, previous complementary evaluation method based on market price standard should be revised so that it is identical with the national tax code. I hope this study’s findings to unify tax base of local tax, and ultimately contribute to fair tax policy.

우리나라는 본격적인 지방자치의 시대가 도래하였으며, 이에 지방자치단체에서는 주민의 행정수요, 공공욕구 등을 만족시키기 위하여 그에 대응하는 지방자치단체의 재원을 확보하기 위하여 지방세 확충에 어느 때보다 많은 관심을 기울이고 있다. 이와 같은 환경 하에서 지방세 중 상당한 비중을 차지하고 있는 취득세의 경우 부과가 아니라 신고로 납부세액을 결정함에도 불구하고, 신고가액의 신빙성이 없다는 등의 이유로 세액을 산출하는 기준으로 가장 중요한 요소 중의 하나인 과세표준에 대하여 사실상의 취득가액을 적용할 수 있는 몇 가지 예외사항을 제외하고는 시가표준액을 과세표준 적용시 최저기준으로 삼아 실무적으로 납세자들이 시가표준액으로 신고하도록 하고 있어 실질과세를 저해하고 있다. 이에 본 연구는 취득세의 과세표준을 그 거래 주체 및 거래 방법에 따라 이원적으로 달리 규정하는 것에 대하여 조세공평주의를 저해하는지 여부를 판례, 이론 등을 검토하여 아래의 결론을 도출하게 되었다. 첫째, 사실상의 취득가액을 우선적으로 적용하는 규정을 마련하여야 한다. 현재의 취득 거래 주체 및 거래 방법 등에 따른 과세표준 차이의 가장 큰 원인은 취득 당시의 가액을 신고가액으로 하고, 시가표준액을 최저한으로 하는 규정 때문이다. 과거 신고가액의 신뢰성을 확보하기 어려운 상황에서는 부득이하게 이러한 방안을 사용할 수 밖에 없을 수도 있으나, 그렇다고 하더라도 시가표준액보다

큰 신고가액이 존재할 경우 무조건 인정하는 경우는 조세평등주의에 위배된다고 보여지며, 오히려 사실상의 취득가액을 과세표준으로 하는 것을 원칙으로 규정하고 이를 위반하였을 경우 가산세 등의 징벌적 규정을 마련할 경우 조세평등주의에 위배되는 부분은 상당히 해소된다고 할 것이다. 둘째, 사실상의 취득가액에 대한 명확한 규정을 하여야 한다. 사실상의 취득가액을 법인의 장부가액, 판결문, 「공인중개사의업무및부동산거래신고에관한법률」제27조에 따른 신고서로 검증받은 금액 등의 금액이 아닌 법인세법 등과 같이 별도의 지방세법상의 규정으로 정의를 명확하게 하여야 한다. 이렇게 될 경우 지방세법상 거래에 있어서 정당한 가액을 기준으로 취득세 과세표준이 결정되어 조세법률주의 원칙도 충족될 뿐더러, 타법 또는 납세자의 임의에 따라서 과세표준이 변경됨으로 인한 조세평등주의 위배를 상당부분 해소할 수 있을 것이다. 셋째, 취득부대비용 또한 명확한 규정을 하여야 한다. 현재는 사실상의 취득가액을 적용할 경우에만 취득부대비용을 포함하도록 규정하고 있으며, 이 또한 취득시기를 기준으로 그 이전에 해당 물건을 취득하기 위하여 거래상대방 또는 제3자에게 지급하였거나 지급하여야 할