계약의 해제가 조세채권에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구 = A Study on the effects of Contract Cancellation on Tax Claim

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Ordinarily, the cancelation of contracts is classified into three such as legal cancelation, agreed cancelation and consensual cancelation. In process of cancelling contracts, many problems have arisen in relation to taxation, especially the capital gains tax, the gift tax and the acquisition tax. It may be reasonable to consider the capital gains tax, the gift tax and the acquisition tax with reference to the cancelation of contracts, as in the following:
First, it may be rational to consider the capital gains tax to be irrelative to transfer irrespective the date when the parties concerned were putted under the obligation to pay the tax. A case considered to be irrelative to transfer may be a claim for reassessment caused by a later-occurring reason.
Second, in the case of the gift fax, problems relevant to the cancellation of contracts have been resolved in accordance with an express stipulation of Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. However, it may be desirable to legislatively improve the stipulations in force that are partially unconstitutional. Specifically, it may be apposite to convert the relevant stipulation into a presumptive stipulation on the premise that the stipulations in force will be fundamentally maintained, in order that cases where taxpayers prove that they tried not to evade their liabilities to taxation may be excluded from punishments.
Third, the question whether a case, where a contract is cancelled after an acquisition tax was imposed, should be regarded as acquisition has been at issue. It may be realistic to consider even a case, where legal cancelation, agreed cancelation and consensual cancelation was performed after the balance was paid or registration was performed, to be irrelative to acquisition. Also, the acquisition tax paid by the taxpayer should be systemic ally repaid for the case considered to be irrelative to acquisition. The problem is that the local tax law in force does not permit the claim for reassessment. Nalmely, taxpayers cannot have the paid amount back if local autonomous entities do not repay it by virtue of their authorities, for such a system was not established. Consequently, the claim for reassessment caused by later-occurring reason, not to mention ordinary claims for reassessment, deserves to be applied to the local tax law the same as the National Tax Collection Law.