연결납세제도

安慶峰(안경봉),주영섭(토론자),김재광(토론자),손영화(토론자),이은미(토론자) 한국세법학회 2002 조세법연구 Vol.8 No.2

세법에 있어서 형식과 실질

안경봉(安慶峯) 성곡언론문화재단 2004 성곡논총 Vol.35 No.1

한국의 조세회피방지규정과 일반적 조세회피방지규정(GAAR) 도입방안

안경봉(Kyeong Bong Ahn),오윤(Yoon Oh) 한국세법학회 2008 조세법연구 Vol.14 No.1

현행의 실질과세원칙과 몇 개의 개별적인 조세회피방지규정은 조세법률주의와 엄격 해석원칙의 굴레에서 크게 벗어나지 못하는 상황에서 변화무쌍한 조세회피행위에 효과적으로 대응하지 못한 것이 사실이다. 비록 2007년 세법개정안이 진일보한 규정을 도입하고 있지만 보다 포괄적이고 구체적인 기준이 제시되어야 할 당위는 여전히 남아 있는 것으로 볼 수 있다. 이를 위해 독일식의 법형성 가능성 남용방지에 관한 규정을 우리 세법에 맞게 수정하여 도입하는 방안과 미국식의 경제적 설질이론을 우리식으로 수정한 방안의 도입을 생각할 수 있다. 아울러 고려하여야 할 것은 절차법적으로 조세회피를 규제하는 가능을 갖는 가산세, 질의회신 및 입증책임의 제도이다. 이러한 제도는 자칫 일반적 조세회피방지규정이 노정할 수 있는 불확실성의 증대라는 부작용을 완화하는 순기능도 기대할 수 있는 제도이기 때문이다. 특히 전체적인 방향을 설정함에 있어서는 절차법적인 제도 중 하나로 여려 국가에서 도입하고 있는 공격적 조세회피(ATP)에 대한 대응제도라 할 것이다. 이는 나라마다 다소 차이는 있지만 사전에 법률 또는 과세관청의 고시에 의해 문제 있는 일정 유형을 정부가 고지하고 그에 해당할 경우 납세자가 자진신고하라는 방식이다. 여기서 문제 있는 유형이라 함은 바로 일반적 조세회피방지규정의 적용대상이 될 만한 것을 의미한다. 그런 의미에서 조세회피 혐의거래 신고제도(Tax Shelter Disclosure Rule)와 일반적 조세 회피방지규정 (GAAR)은 상호보완의 관계를 가지고 있는 것으로 보아야 할 것이다. 생각할 수 있는 가장 이상적인 방법으로는 일반적 조세회피방지규정(GAAR)과 조세회피 혐의거래 신고제도를 동시에 도입하되 일반적 조세회피방지규정(GAAR)을 단계적으로 적용하는 방안이라고 볼 수 있다. 우선 실제 조세회피 혐의거래 신고제도를 시행하면서 그 법적 논거로 일반적 조세회피방지규정(GAAR)을 드는 것이 된다. 이때 비밀보장거래, 성과보수 지급거래, 손실예상거래와 같은 유형에 대해 조세회피 혐의거래 신고제도를 적용하는 것은 차후 고려하고 우선 조세의 부담을 부당하게 감소시키는 거래를 국세청 고시나 시행규칙으로 공시하여 이를 신고하도록 하는 것이 조세회피 혐의거래 신고제도 도입에 따른 충격과 부담을 완화하는 방법이 될 것이다. 아울러 가산세제도에 있어서는 조세회피행위에 대해서는 부당과소신고가산세가 적용될 수 있는 길을 열어 놓도록 하되, 질의회신제도를 통해 불확실성을 완화할 수 있도록 질의회신제도를 개선할 필요가 있다. 그리고 입증책임제도에 있어서도 조세회피행위에 대해서는 납세자의 부담을 강화하는 방향으로 나아갈 필요가 있다. The current substance taxation principle and SAARs are not so effectively functioning as anti-avoidance devices in the midst of creative avoidance tactics. The conservative courts also limit their potentials as such. The revision proposal for the Article 14 of the BNTA will render definitely affirmative effects but still leave lots of shortcomings unsolved in this regard. To solve these problems the government has to seriously think of the introduction of an outright GAAR provision in the BNTA which defines the concepts of 'tax avoidance' and 'unfair reduction', and provides for the tax effect of its application. An 'abuse of right' type provision which is found in the German Abgabenordnung Article 42 or an 'economic substance' type doctrine which is found in the judge made laws of the U.S. provide good examples for us. Due adaptation to Korean tax law system are recommendable in this regard. Abreast with the discussion of the introduction of the GAAR, we may as well think about the improvement of procedures for the execution of tax laws such as penalty tax, advance rulings, and burden of proof. They may help to alleviate unintended bad effects on the taxpayer protection as well as to strengthen the anti-avoidance rule. In this juncture the introduction of anti-aggressive tax planning system, the so called anti ATP system, i.e. tax shelter disclosure rule, may well be considered. According to the anti ATP system whose examples are to be found in not a few common law states. tax authority is supposed to announce the types of aggressive tax planning periodically beforehand, and the taxpayers are required to report such activities accordingly, in which case the penalty tax is reduced or exempt. Among the measures of the anti ATP system, some penalty provisions against the tax intermediaries and other provisions for supplementary purposes are also provided. The types of aggressive tax planning will generally fall under the GAAR if the latter is introduced in the BNTA. In this regard the joint introduction of the GAAR and the anti ATP system may increase of the effect of the introduction of GAAR as well as to alleviate its unintended bad effects on the taxpayer protection. The step by step application of the GAAR according to the methodology provided by the anti ATP system would serve for those purposes.

조세행정지도의 법리

안경봉(Kyeong Bong Ahn) 영남대학교 법학연구소 1994 영남법학 Vol.1 No.2

N/A

회사간(會社間) 거래(去來)와 법인세법

안경봉 ( Kyeong Bong Ahn ) 법조협회 2001 法曹 Vol.50 No.5

실질과세원칙의 조세조약에의 적용

安慶峰(Kyeong Bong Ahn),尹智炫(Ji Hyun Yoon) 한국세법학회 2007 조세법연구 Vol.13 No.1

외국법인이 조세피난처에 SPC를 설립하여 국내투자를 하고, 소득이 발생된 경우 내국법인이나 외국법인이 조세피난처에 설립한 SPC는 현지법령의 규정에 따라 허가나 인가를 받아 설립하기 때문에 조세피난처의 ‘거주자’로서의 요건을 갖추게 되는 것이 대부분이다. 그런데 OECD 모델조약을 기초로 하여 체결된 대부분의 조세조약은 일방체약국의 ‘거주자’의 부동산소득에 대하여는 원천지국에서 과세하도록 하고 있으나, 주식의 양도소득에 대하여는 거주지국에서 과세하도록 하고 있다. 이러한 이유로 타방체약국의 주식에 투자하기 위하여 일방체약국에 SPC를 설립한 기업들은, ⅰ) 국가간 조세조약에서 일방체약국의 ‘거주자’이기만 하면, 타방체약국에서 과세할 수 없고, ⅱ) 일방체약국에서 인정한 ‘거주자’의 지위를 타방체약국의 내국법상 실질과세의 원칙에 의하여 부인하고 조약상의 혜택을 박탈할 수 없다는 논리를 내세우고 있다. 이와 같은 경우 과세당국은 조세피난처에 설립된 SPC를 외국법인의 도관회사로 보고, 오히려 국내 세법상 실질과세의 원칙을 적용하여 주식양도소득의 실질귀속자로 보아 외국법인에게 법인세를 과세하는 것이 적지 않다. 이와 같은 과세청의 논리는 조약과 실질주의에 관한 규정을 분리하여 이해할 필요가 없다 하더라도 기존의 일반조항이 조약규정의 적용을 제약하는 효력은 가질 수 없다는 입장을 취하는 한 부정적으로 볼 수밖에 없다. 물론 2006.6월에 신설된 ?국제조세조정에 관한 법률? 제2조의 2의 적용 여부도 생각해 볼 수 있으나, 동 규정이 창설적 규정이라는 입장에 의하면 동법 부칙에 따라 2006년도부터 적용될 수 있을 뿐이므로 주식의 양도가 그 이전에 이루어진 경우는 적용하기 곤란하다. 과세청의 논리에 따라 국내 세법상 실질과세의 원칙을 적용한다 하더라도 여전히 남는 문제는 외국인투자펀드가 투자회사 혹은 투자신탁, 파트너십 형태를 취할 경우 이를 실질귀속자로 보고 우리나라에서 과세할 근거가 무엇인가 하는 것이다. If tax treaty has not “beneficial owner” clause, and “the property of the company consists not less than 50 per cent of immovable property” clause, can the substance over form rule be applied to counter the abuse of tax treaties? In my opinion, art. 14 of the Basic Act on National Tax and Art. 4 of the Corporate Tax Act cannot be applied as the basis for improper use of tax treaty, because these provisions do not spell out their purpose clearly enough, and treaty benefits have to be granted under the principle of “pacta sund servanda”. Can domestic legislation be enacted and adopted to bring in anti-abuse rules to be applied to treaties if such legislation spells out its purpose clearly enough ? Commentary para. 22 and 22.1 on the Article 1 of Model Tax Convention 2003 seem to keep open the possibility of application of substance over form. In other words the OECD commentaries, as amended in 2003, allowed the OECD member States to deal with the problem of treaty shopping by using its domestic law principles such as the doctrine of substance?over?form. Thus Art. 2.2 of the Law for the Coordination of International Tax Affairs(“LCITA”) (Substance over Form Rule in International Transactions) was newly inserted in May 2006. The questions concerning Art. 2.2 of LCITA are as follows: What is “for the purpose of using a tax treaty or this law improperly”? What does “Economic Substance” mean?, and Is Art. 2.2 of LCITA creative provision or reiteration of existing rule? First of all, in interpreting Art. 2.2. Para. 3 of LCITA, it is not proper to refer to such provision as Art. Para.4 of IGTC for two reasons. First, the theory or the precedent concerning this provision is not established as yet. Second, there is the difference between “improperly reduced” in Art.2 Para.4 of Inheritance and Gift Tax Act(“IGTA”) and “for the purpose of using a tax treaty or this law improperly” in Art. 2.2. Para. 3 of LCITA. Commentary Para. 9.5 on the Articles of Model Tax Convention hereunder will be useful in interpreting Art. 2.2 of LCITA. It is important to note, however, that it should not be lightly assumed that a taxpayer is entering into the type of abusive transactions referred to above. A guiding principle is that the benefits of a double taxation convention should not be available where a main purpose for entering into certain transactions or arrangements was to secure a more favorable tax position and obtaining that more favorable treatment in these circumstances would be contrary to the object and purpose of the relevant provisions. According to this guiding principle, it will be important for the court to investigate the subjective intent of the party concerned. But because this subjective approach , in which the tax result is decided upon the subjective intent, is not familiar to the Korean court as yet, it will be very interesting for the court whether to decide according to this approach or not. LCITA adopts “economic substance” concept. But it is questionable about how to look for the “economic substance”. The courts may not be bound by the forms in which a transaction has been cast under all circumstances, but may look to some underlying transaction. But cases where the Korean Supreme Court has looked to the substance without the relevant provisions, or in spite of the transaction not being sham/simulation, have been infrequent. Is Art. 2.2 of LCITA creative provision or Reiteration of Existing Rule? In my opinion, Art. 2.2 of LCITA cannot be applied on a retroactive basis, because it has the character of creative provision.

중국기업의 한국거래소 상장활성화를 위한 세제지원방안

안경봉(Ahn Kyeong-Bong),장월하(ZHANG Yuexia) 한국국제조세협회 2012 조세학술논집 Vol.28 No.1

In order to promote internationalization of Korean financial markets, Korea Exchange (KRX) has been actively advancing the listing of foreign companies, especially Chinese companies, in Korea. This process demands much effort across different domains. In terms of taxation, if investing in the stocks of Korea-listed Chinese companies would cause more tax than investing in the stocks of (Korea-listed) Korean companies, it might discourage investors from doing so. This might consequently discourage Chinese companies from listing in Korea. This paper attempts to propose a solution to this issue, through detailed examinations on the taxation on stock investment incomes (dividends and capital gains) of related countries. Due to the restrictions on direct overseas listing of Chinese companies imposed by the Chinese government, many Chinese companies choose to list overseas indirectly via offshore holding companies which may be treated as Chinese resident companies. When investors invest in the stocks of Chinese companies listed in Korea, the taxation on stock investment incomes of different countries are involved, including those of China, Korea, the countries where the offshore holding companies are established, and the countries of residence of the investors. Since it is virtually impractical to check the taxation of every investor’s country of residence, this paper only focuses on the taxation of China, Korea and the countries where the offshore holding companies are established. This paper finds that compared to investing in the stocks of Korean companies, when investing in the stocks of Korea-listed Chinese companies, investors would incur no more dividend tax, while foreign entities would possibly incur more tax on capital gains because that both China and Korea can claim the capital gains as their source income. This paper thus suggests that Korea excludes capital gains on stocks of Korea-listed foreign companies from the scope of source incomes, based on the following grounds: (i) as the majority of the Korea-listed foreign companies are Chinese companies, this initiative could encourage investors to invest in the stocks of Korea-listed Chinese companies, which as a result would attract more Chinese companies to list in Korea; (ii) although ceding certain taxing right, this initiative will not conflict with the purposes towards which the system of source rules of Korea might be directed; (iii) this initiative will not violate the principle of tax equality; (iv) this initiative supplements the loop-hole in the existing source rules of Korea.

자본거래를 통한 변칙증여의 과세방안

안경봉 ( Ahn Kyeong Bong ) 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 2010 조세와 법 Vol.3 No.1

From January 1, 2004, the gift taxation based on the completecomprehensive system has been introduced. According to the complete-comprehensive system, it can levy the gift tax on the all the types of irregular donation through capital transactions. However, the complete-comprehensive system may cause remarkable damage to the purpose of legislation, because it may be against the principle of tax equity, and may cause double taxation on gift interests. Accordingly accounting method of gift interests must be simplified and gift tax regime concerning irregular donations must be rationalized in order that the complete-comprehensive system may be successful to contribute to the realization of impartial taxation and the redistribution of wealth. Also the introduction of capital gains tax and comprehensive income tax need to be discussed in depth.

단말기 가격할인과 부가가치세 과세표준의 산정

안경봉(Ahn Kyeong-Bong),채승우(Chae Seung Woo) 한국국제조세협회 2011 조세학술논집 Vol.27 No.2

The mobile telecommunication service has been provided in Korea since 1980s. A handset for mobile phone service (“mobile phone”, “MP”) is indispensable for the provision of such service. The regulations regarding the radio communication has set the licensing regime for the MP since its beginning of the services. After the market development in late 1990, the licensing regime was deregulated such that the license for using the MP was deemed to be given through the service subscription contract between mobile telecom operators(“MTO”) and end-users. On the other hand the mobile telecommunication service has been regulated by the telecommunication business law, which specified the rules regarding the licensing regime for MTOs’ MP sales business, and its marketing. Major terms and conditions in typical consignment sales contract between MTO and sales agent have been based upon such regulations, which has been modified several times from the beginning till today. The most notable feature of the sales contract lies in the transfer of ownership of MP. According to the contract terms, the MTO may assume the seller status of MP, whereas the agent is the buyer of MP. However, it is the MTO who is the seller of MP against the end-users in the mobile phone subscription contract. A sort of discrepancy is occurring in the context of identification about who is seller of MP. Such discrepancy is invoking interpretation issues regarding the rules specified in the value added tax law(“VAT law”) which defines some conditions for the non-inclusion of tax base benefit. Non-inclusion of tax base may be accepted in case of the sales of goods the price of which are discounted between seller and buyer. The problem in this case lies in the contractual fact that the MTO is the seller against the sales agent, whereas the price discount is done through the provision of the monetary subsidy by the MTO in favor of end-users.

한국에 있어서 조세회피행위 규제의 현황과 과제

안경봉 한국세법학회 2017 조세법연구 Vol.23 No.2