物理科 學習效果를 높이기 위한 形成評價 活用에 關한 硏究

안만식 建國大學校 敎育大學院 1991 국내석사

To increase the students' learning achievement in studying physics, the present paper aims to search for effective ways of application of the formative evaluation method within the scope of teaching physics. At first, the theoretical background of the formative evaluation has been investigated and the unit, 'The wave and Light', divided into eight parts, each of which subdivided into six parts has been analyzed. Then each subdivided part is used as the formative evaluation item. these items are used as the evaluation items for the experimental group of students in order to examine the effects which will have on their learning achievement and find out effective ways of the formative evaluation method by comparing the question sheets made up before the formative evaluation with which made up after the evaluation. According to the above study, I summarize the result as follows: 1. The rise of score which the formative evaluation gives to the experimental group is higher by 8.23 than that of the other group. 2. The survey of subdivided part and the other division's test show that the percentage of the correct answers comes to %88.79. And especially in the unit, 'The mirror and Lense', which is much to do with daily life, it comes to %91.98 and in the unit, 'The interference of Lifgt', which is nothing to do with daily life, but is concerned with the theory, it is %85.96. So the former case is much higher than the latter. In respect of terms, the result comes to %93.92, in it's ability, it comes to %72.37, which is the lowest. 3. According to established questions of students' researching attitude, the researching desire is increased by %23.76 after application of the formative evaluation. As a result, it can be concluded that the formative evaluation method will increase not only the learning achievement but also the students' researching attitude.

상속세및증여세 포괄주의 과세에 따른 문제점과 대책

안만식 경희대학교 국제법무대학원 2010 국내석사

현행 상속세및증여세법의 규정을 보면 제2조 제3항에서 전통적인 민법의 증여개념과 별도로 세법상의 증여개념을 도입하고 있다. 제2조 제3항은 별도로 증여이익을 형량 할 수 있는 세부규정이 있어야 납세자를 규율할 수 있는 선언적 규정이므로 조세법의 기본원리와 저촉됨이 없다고 할 수 있다. 그러나 동조 제4항의 단계거래원칙에 관한 규정은 각각의 거래과정에서 적정한 조세를 부담하였다 하더라도 결과적으로 상속세 및 증여세가 감소되었다고 판단되면 일응 이를 부인할 수 있다는 것이므로 좀 더 명확하게 구체적으로 규정되어야 한다. 기본적으로 상속세와 증여세는 소득세와 법인세의 보충적 조세라는 측면에서 보면 이 규정은 당해 행위 전반이 오직 상속세및증여세법외에 다른 세법의 적용을 받지 않는 경우에 한정되어야 하며 단순히 “부당하게”라는 불명확한 개념이 아닌 구체적으로 어떤 거래가 부인대상이 되는 것인지, 부당성의 판단에 대해 명확하게 규정하여야 한다. 현행 증여세 완전포괄주의는 그 어느 때보다 조세법의 기본원리와 대립되는 요인이 많다. 앞서 설명한 바와 같이 과세요건 명확주의에 배치되는 측면이 있는가 하면 이중과세 나아가 삼중과세까지 발생할 소지를 지니고 있다. 또한 납세자의 예측가능성도 저해하고 있다. 그러므로 상속세및증여세의 납세자가 기본적으로 누려야 할 권익은 보호되어야 한다는 측면에서 포괄주의 시행 수년이 지난 현 시점에서 전면적인 법률정비를 실행할 필요가 있다. 상증세법 제41조의 특정법인에 해당하지 않는 영리 흑자법인에 자산을 증여하여 당해 증여행위로 인해 법인세가 과세 되었다면 포괄주의가 도입 된 이후라도 당해 법인의 주주에게 증여세를 과세할 수는 없다고 판단된다. 그리고 상증세법 제42조 “기타이익의 증여” 규정은 지나치게 포괄적으로 과세대상을 규율하고 있어 구체적인 하부 위임규정의 마련이 시급하다고 판단된다. 또한 제42조 본법에서 개별 예시규정에 해당하는 증여이익은 개별 예시규정에 의하고 그 이외의 증여이익에 대하여만 제42조의 포괄 규정을 적용한다고 명시하고 있음에도 동법 시행령 제31조의10 증여세 과세특례규정에 의해 법에서 규정한 효력을 무력화 시키고 있는 점도 시정되어야 한다. 더구나 상증세법 시행령 제31조의 10 규정은 모법 어디에도 위임된 바 없어 위임입법의 한계를 넘어선 시행령으로 판단된다. 포괄주의가 도입되면서 특수관계없는 자간의 고가 양도, 저가양수에 대한 증여이익을 판단하는 준거 기준에 보충적 평가가액까지 포함하도록 한 것은 시가가 없는 경우에 보충적 평가가액을 적용하도록 규정한 시가의 판단기준을 같은 법령에서 부인하는 모순을 가져오므로 반드시 수정되어야 한다. 또한 임의적인 사례 가액의 적용을 엄격히 제한하고 납세자가 원하는 경우 과세당국에서 증여 시점에서 납세자 부담없이 적정한 평가가액을 고지하여 주는 제도를 도입할 필요가 있다. 이와 더불어 증여세 과세 강화의 차원에서 강화된 물납제도도 당해 비상장 주식을 증여 또는 상속받음으로 인해 부담하게 되는 증여세와 상속세는 당해 주식으로 물납할 수 있도록 개정되어야 한다. 결론적으로 변칙적인 부의 대물림을 방지하기 위한 증여세 포괄주의는 존치하되 그 동안에 발생된 여러 문제점을 감안하여 전면적으로 합리적인 법률 조정이 이루어져야 한다. 그 조정의 방향은 첫째, 조세법의 기본원리와 대립되지 않도록 과세요건을 구체적으로 명시하고 가급적 이중과세가 발생하지 않도록 하여야 한다. 둘째, 포괄주의 만능이 되지 않도록 타 세목, 타 세법과의 관계를 충분히 고려하여야 한다. 포괄주의라는 미명아래 증여이익의 과세대상을 무제한으로 확장하는 일이 없도록 관련 법령과 유권해석을 명확히 하여야 한다. 셋째, 증여 유형별 예시규정과 포괄규정과의 관계를 명확히 설정하여 납세자의 법적안정성을 도모하여야 한다. 넷째, 포괄주의를 시급하게 도입하는 과정에서 예상하지 못한 상증세법 자체 또는 타 법률과 배치되는 규정에 대한 조정이 이루어져야 한다. In current Inheritance and Gift Tax Law provisions, Article 2, Section 3, brings in the concept of a gift that appears in tax law, separate from the concept that appears in the traditional civil law. Since Article 2, Section 3, of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Law is a declarative provision—which separately requires a detailed regulation that can decide the sentence of gift benefits in order to regulate the taxpayers—the law itself cannot be seen as incompatible with the basic principles of tax law. However, Section 4 under the same article provides that “if it is deemed to have unfairly reduced the inheritance tax or the gift tax through an indirect method involving a third person or through a method involving two or more conducts or transactions, it should be seen to have dealt with the parties directly or should be seen as a series of conducts or transactions, depending on its economic substance.” This provision needs to be further clarified and should specifically provide that if it is deemed to have resulted in a reduction in the inheritance or gift tax, even though the burden of taxation was appropriate in each of the transaction process, this claim can be denied prima facie. At a fundamental level, if the inheritance tax and gift tax are seen as a supplementary income tax, the legal effect of this provision should be limited to the cases, in which the overall conduct is solely subject to the Inheritance and Gift Tax Law, not to other tax laws. Also, this provision should clarify the ambiguous concept of “unfairly,” specify what constitutes a transaction that is liable for denial and further detail how to judge unfairness. Moreover, the provision should put the burden of proving unfairness to the tax authorities in order to prevent arbitrary interpretations of the law and administrative enforcement. The current all-inclusive taxation system on inheritances and gifts has many conflicting aspects with the basic principles of tax law. As mentioned earlier, some provisions are in conflict with the principle of a clear tax requisition and some have the possibility of double or triple taxation. Also, not only is it difficult for a taxpayer to predict an additional tax burden once a gift has been bestowed, it is also difficult for a taxpayer to properly assess his/her donated property even during the initial reporting stage. Although the Inheritance and Gift Tax are taxes that affect very few taxpayers, the basic rights and interests of taxpayers must be protected. Thus, there is an urgent need for a comprehensive tax law reform at this point, after several years of implementing the principle of all-inclusive taxation of inheritances and gifts. If a corporation tax is imposed upon the act of a gift to a profit-inducing corporation, which does not fall under the category of “controlled corporation” described in the Inheritance and Gift Tax Law, the shareholders of the corporation should not be taxed, even after the vigorous implementation of the all-inclusive principle. In order for the tax authorities to levy a gift tax on the shareholders for the increases in stock value, they should first revise the provision for the shareholders of “controlled corporation,” so that it does not clash with the provisions under Article 2 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Law. The “Gift of Other Interest” provision under Article 42 of the current Inheritance and Gift Tax Law is an all-inclusive provision designed to supplement types of the all-inclusive principle and to practically apply the declarative provision of Article 2, Section 3 by imposing a gift tax on gratuitous transfers of property that is not specified in law. Similar to other provisions, however, this provision regulates overly broad ranges of taxable objects, and thus there is an urgent need for specific sub-provisions. Moreover, Article 42 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Law explicitly states that any gift benefits that are illustrated in the example provisions should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and only other gift benefits that are not specifically illustrated should be subject to the all-inclusive provision under Article 42 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Law. However, the ten special provisions of gift taxation under Article 31, Section 1, of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Law decree provides that “if a gift is subject to two or more provisions under Article 33 or Article 45 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Law, only one of the provisions with the greatest amount of taxation shall be applied.” This provision is problematic since it overrides the legal effects of the provisions that are illustrated in detail under the Inheritance and Gift Tax Law. Particularly, the ten provisions under Article 31 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Law decree can be seen as a decree that acts beyond the limits of delegated legislation since it was never delegated any legal force under the Inheritance and Gift Tax Law. Second, even if Article 42 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Law may be seen as a delegation, it is difficult to recognize its effectiveness since it violates other provisions of the law. In order to apply only a single provision with the greatest amount of taxation on an act of gift, which is subject to two or more example provisions, this should be prescribed in the Inheritance and Gift Tax Law. Furthermore, this prescription should explicitly provide that gift benefits that are illustrated in the example provisions should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and only other gift benefits should be subject to the all-inclusive provision. Under the all-inclusive taxation principle, even the transactions between persons with no particular relationship could be taxed on high-price transference or low-price acquisition. Also, the all-inclusive principle allows supplementary evaluation prices, let alone principle market prices, to be considered in determining the value of gift benefits. These provisions contradict with another provision of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Law, which states that evaluation should solely be based on the supplementary evaluation price in the absence of a prevailing market-price. Thus, these provisions must be revised so that they may set the prevailing market-price of the gifts bestowed when there is a value of transaction among two or more people, allow gift benefits to be calculated in comparison to the set market-price, and put the burden of proving prevailing market-prices to the tax authorities. One of the most confusing parts to a taxpayer after the implementation of the all-inclusive taxation principle is the provision that allows for the case-specific price, such as a sales price of a comparable asset or an appraisement, to substitute the market-price when evaluating one’s bestowed property. Some taxpayers with limited information would not only have difficulty collecting case-specific prices but they would also have no way of confirming their price since the reporting date for a gift tax and the approval date for a market-price are identical. Consequently, there is an urgent need for a tax system that strictly limits the arbitrary implementation of a case-specific price and that mandates the tax authorities to notify the taxpayer of a properly evaluated price. In the past, many took advantage of the limitedly traded unlisted stocks and sold their stocks for a significantly lower price compared to the evaluated price at the time of taxation. In order to prevent this behavior, the law was revised to exclude any unlisted stocks from the list of assets that can be used to pay a gift tax. Also, unlisted stocks were limitedly accepted as a payment of inheritance tax, only in the case in which there was no other inheritable asset. Yet, since the inheritance tax and gift tax require high taxes to be paid at the same time, and since they are both taxes imposed on assets, the law should be revised so that at least the inheritance tax and gift tax—which are imposed because of an inheritance or a gift of unlisted stocks—are allowed to be paid in unlisted stocks. In conclusion, while the all-inclusive principle on gift taxes should be retained for the purpose of preventing anomalous inheritances of wealth, there needs to be a comprehensive revision of the law given that some critical issues were raised for a period of time. The law should be revised in the following directions. First, tax requisition should be specified explicitly and the possibility of double taxation should be reduced, so that the law is in line with the basic principles of tax law. Second, in order to avoid categorical applications of the all-inclusive taxation principle, the compatibility of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Law with other tax laws or other tax items should be sufficiently considered. In usual and normal circumstances, the inheritance tax and gift tax should be left as a supplemental income tax or a supplemental corporate tax. There should be a stricter interpretation of the law so that the range of taxable objects is not indefinitely broadened under the name of the all-inclusive taxation principle. Third, the different role of the provisions with case-specific examples and the role of all-inclusive provisions should be clearly assigned in order to promote taxpayers’ legal stability. Fourth and finally, in recognizing the unexpected problems that have resulted from the hasty implementation of the all-inclusive principle, there needs to be an effort to fix the contradictions within the Inheritance and Gift Tax Law and the contradictions between the law and other tax laws.