http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
만성 간질환 환자에서 혈청학적 표지자에 따른 B형 간염바이러스와 C형 간염바이러스 중복감염
윤병철,한병훈,이상욱 고신대학교(의대) 고신대학교 의과대학 학술지 2004 고신대학교 의과대학 학술지 Vol.19 No.1
Background : Hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C vrius (HCV) are two major etiologic agents of chronic hepatitis. The epidemiological similarities between HBV and HCV infections were noted. The interaction between HBV and HCV has so far been poorly investigated in Korea. In this study, we evaluate to the virologic and clinical characteristics of the coinfection in Korea. Methods : We enrolled 103 patients of chronic liver disease and classified as group A of HBsAg/anti-HCV positive patients, group B of HBsAg positive/anti-HCV negative patients and group C of HBsAg negative/anti-HCV positive patients. The clinical characteristics of each groups were assessed and compared. Results : Serum HBV DNA was found more frequently in group B (68.4%) than in group A (17.9%0. The prevalence of patients with serum HBV DNA was significant lower in group A than group B in anti-HBe positive patients. The prevalence of patients with serum HCV RNA was significant lower in group A (64.3%) than in group C (86.5%). The comparison of baseline LFT and liver histology between each groups is not significant. Conclusion : These results suggest that HBV and HCV coinfection shows a reciprocal inhibitory effect on HBV and HCV replications, the inhibitory effect of HBV on HCV might be limited in the anti-HBe positive groups. The coinfection is not associated with the severity of liver disease and clinical course.
組合課稅에 관한 判例硏究 : 출자, 지분양도 및 노무제공과 관련하여
尹柄哲 한국세법연구회 2002 조세법연구 Vol.8 No.1
이 논문은 조합(partnership)에 대한 출자(in-kind contribution), 조합지분의 양도(transfer of partnership interest), 조합에 대한 노무(supply of service to the partnership) 제공에 관한 대법원 판례를 중심으로 하여, 조합으로부터 나오는 소득에 대한 과세문제를 분석 정리한 것이다. 조합과세에 대한 대법원의 입장을 요약해 보면, 대법원은 조합에 대한 재산출자를 기본적으로 양도로 보고 있으며, 자기 지분에 해당하는 재산도 양도된 것으로 보고 있다. 조합지분의 양도로 인한 이익을 어떻게 소득구분(income classification)할 것인가 하는 점에 관하여는 대법원 판례는 이를 양도소득(capital gain)과 사업소득(business income)으로 과세하는 판례로 나누어져 있다. 이점에 관하여는 양도소득으로 과세하는 것이 타당하다고 생각한다. 그리고 구체적인 사안에 따라 조합의 사업소득으로서 아직 과세되지 아니한 부분이나 잔여재산의 분배(distribution of liquidation proceeds)로 볼 수 있는 경우에는 각 개별 사안에 따라 사업소득이나 기타 증여세 과세문제가 될 수 있다고 본다. 즉 대가 (amount received)와 취득가액(basis)의 차액에 관하여 바로 소득구분을 따지기보다는, 과세소득의 발생경위에 관한 구체적 사실관계를 더 따져서 그 소득금액이 기발생한 사업소득이나 청산으로 인한 잔여재산 분배로서 사업소득에 해당할 여지가 없는지를 심리해 보아야 한다고 생각한다. 한편, 형행 세법 규정상으로는 지분양도(transfer of partnership interest)와 관련하여 하나의 재산에 관하여 발생하는 가치의 증가(미실현이익 : unrealized appreciation)에 대하여 이중과세가 발생할 가능성이 있는바, 이를 조정하는 규정이 없는 현 상황에서는 필요경비 공제(deduction of expenses) 내지 취득가액 공제(deduction of basis) 규정의 해석에 의해서라도 양도차익(capital gain) 산정에 있어서 이중과세를 피하여야 할 것이다. 그리고 조합에 대한 노무 제공은 비독립적 종속적 노무의 제공이라고 인정되는 경우에는 이를 근로소득으로 불 수 있다고 하였고 업무집행 조합원(managing partner)으로서의 정액급여인 경우에는, 제 3자가 그러한 노무를 제공하였을 때에도 동일한 조건하에 급여를 지급하였으리라고 인정되는 경우에는 그 급여를 근로소득(salary)으로 볼 수 있다고 하겠다. This article analyzes tax issues of Supreme court precedents in relation to the in-kind contribution to the partnership, transfer of partnership interest, supply of service to the partnership, and the income derived from the partnership. To summarize the position held by the Supreme Court regarding the taxation on partnership, the Supreme Court, in principle, considers the in-kind contribution to partnership as a transfer, and also considers that the property corresponding to the partnership interest of the transferor also has been transferred. As for the income classification for the income gained through the transfer of partnership interest, there are two types of precedents of the Supreme Court-i.e., classification as capital gains and classification as business income. In this respect, however, it seems reasonable to tax such income as capital gains. More specifically, if the business income of the partnership, which has been already accrued, has not yet been taxed or a certain income may be considered as a distribution of liquidation proceeds, such income could be taxed as business income or be subject to a gift tax. In other words, rather than conducting income classification on the difference between the amount received and the basis, specific facts pertaining to the circumstances of occurrence of the income subject to taxation should be considered in greater detail, and thus we should first examine whether such income, as business income that has already occurred or as a distribution of liquidation proceeds, falls under business income. In the meantime, in relation to the transfer of partnership interest under the existing regulations of the Tax Law, there is a likelihood of double taxation occurringupon the increase of value attributable to a single property (unrealized appreciation). Under the current situation without a provision that controls the outbreak of such double taxation, by reasonable interpretation of the regulations on deduction of expenses or deduction of basis, double taxation should be avoided. Furthermore, the supply of service to the partnership may be deemed as earned income if it is acknowledged to be a supply of dependentand subordinate service. In the case of a fixed allowance of a managing partner, if it is acknowledged that an allowance under the same conditions would have been paid even if a third party supplied such service, then such allowance may well be considered as salary.