신탁과세제도에 관한 연구 = (A) study on the trust taxation

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

A trust arises from a contractual agreement and will be created undertrust laws. Under the typical trust agreement, an individual, usually known as the grantor, conveys legal ownership of property to another party, the trustee by fiduciary relation. The trustee has a duty to hold and administer the property for the enjoyment and benefit of a third party known as the beneficiary.
Trust law of Korea has eventually not revised since 1961, while the trust scheme in USA, UK, and Japan, was revised not only trust law but also trust taxation through modernizing in trust. That is, various trust form has been appeared in the various change of economic environment and trust has been available of measure for finance. In response to this current change, Ministry of justice of Korea has submitted Trust Law amendment to congress in 2009. Thus, current trust taxation needs to prepare this situation. Especially, current trust taxation sprinkles the statute of trust taxation in each item of taxation, so that taxpayer cannot exactly know the statute of trust taxation. Also, it is difficult to take root trust system in this environment in Korea, because appearance of various trust form can weak tax neutrality and equity and confuse tax consideration,
In order to arrange trust taxation in Korea, Revised direction will be harmonized principle of no taxation without law and principle of taxation equity. Especially, Principle of no taxation without law is principle of the supreme tax law which is based on Constitution Sec 38 and Sec 59 in Korea. These statutes play role to guarantee of property taxpayer and prohibit abusing power from national tax service. Thus, trust taxation needs to be set up explicit tax relation through these statutes. But to realize this purpose, restricting to trust flexibility can ironically delay to set root trust system. Therefore, for the guarantee of tax flexibility and realization of principle of no taxation without law and principle of taxation equity, It is my proposal by the following improvement.
First, in relation to trust taxation scheme, in the current trust taxation, absent of definition for legal entity on trust impedes tax neutrality by comparing with inducing legal entity for other trust scheme. To improve this problem, there are things must be considered to induce legal entity on trust. Because, corporations use trust as if those individuals do.
Current trust law and trust taxation don't exist standard of principal and income allocation for trust property, this situation brings about arbitrary discretion of a government office and misunderstanding of taxpayer for this allocation. To improve this case, we need to achieve impartial distribution through research Uniform Principal and Income Act of U. S. A.
Difference of tax rate between corporation and individual as the same beneficiary impedes tax equity in current trust taxation. To improve this problem, in short-term, even if uncompleted, tax rate can be applied by a group of partner of current partnership taxation, in mid-term or long-term, like trust taxation of U. S. A., trust can be considered as separately item of taxation.
Current trust taxation takes place tax deferral effect for trust reservation interest. To solve this case, trust should be regarded as one entity. Also it will be prepared calculation of taxable income method each year, and needed to convert to direct to solve tax deferral effect for reservation interest of trust by taxation trust or beneficiary regardless of actually distribution of trust income for beneficiary.
Second, In relation to beneficiary, when beneficiary is not exist or uncertain, principle of real taxation (positive activity rule) can't be applied to grantor or settlor without substantial control for trust. To solve this case, like grantor trust of U.S.A., A certain standard to be grantor based on the 'economic substantial' should be set up. Legal stability for the application of principle of real taxation should be kept strictly through the criteria.
When multiple beneficiaries exist, current trust taxation is not clear standard of distribution profit and loss. Thus, beneficiaries can attempt to avoid tax through manipulation of profit and loss. To improve this case, standard of distribution profit and loss in consideration of trust law revised bill sec 34(duty of impartiality)can be applied to this case as a remedy
Also, between beneficiary and remainder can be happened to tax shifting. This causes tax rate difference. To minimize this difference, tax calculation need to done by trust level.
Affiliating among multiple trustees has to consider single trust as multiple trustees for anti-avoidance.
Third, In relation to collective investment vehicle, Imposing on a transfer income tax for major shareholder of collective investment vehicle is irrationality. Because major shareholder of fund doesn't intervene fund operation and business, their position is not the same position as major shareholder of ordinary corporation. To improve this case, major shareholder requirement(3% or FV 10million(KOSDAQ:5% or FV 5million)) of transfer income tax should be abolished or relaxed up to 5% in filing of changes in ownership of block shares.
The reinvestment of dividends brings about partiality compared with direct investment. That is, the mismatch between investor realizations of cash and taxes payable on fund investments can be significant and will generate additional transaction cost which is not typically borne by investors who invest through individual portfolios. In relation to vertical equity, current one tax rate of dividends would increase tax burden to middle income class compared to high income class. To solve this problem, the right of choice for realization dividends needs to be induced to investor and transported from fund level to investor level. Also, to reduce tax burden of middle income class, it is essential to adopt capi

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서 론 1
• 제1절 연구목적 1
• 제2절 연구방법과 범위 4
• 제3절 선행연구 검토 6
• 제2장 신탁 일반 및 과세이론 9
• 제1절 신탁의 의의 9
• 1. 신탁의 개념 9
• 2. 신탁의 연혁 12
• 3. 신탁의 효용 16
• 제2절 신탁의 법적성격 17
• 1. 신탁의 기본구조 17
• 2. 신탁구조에 관한 학설 24
• 3. 신탁종류별 유형 28
• 제3절 신탁의 당사자 33
• 1. 위탁자 33
• 2. 수탁자 35
• 3. 수익자 42
• 4. 집합투자기구의 경우 44
• 1) 위탁회사 45
• 2) 수탁회사 47
• 3) 투자자 49
• 제4절 신탁과세이론 49
• 1. 신탁실체이론 48
• 2. 신탁도관이론 51
• 3. 신탁구조에 관한 학설과 신탁과세이론과의 관계 53
• 4. 세법상 입장 54
• 제3장 각 국의 신탁과세제도 56
• 제1절 외국의 과세제도의 의의 56
• 제2절 미국의 신탁과세제도 57
• 1. 개 요 57
• 2. 미국 신탁에 관한 과세제도 58
• 1) 미국 신탁의 유형 58
• 2) 미국 신탁에 관한 과세제도 62
• 제3절 영국의 신탁과세제도 85
• 1. 개 요 85
• 2. 영국 거주자신탁에 관한 과세제도 87
• 1) 개 요 87
• 2) 영국 거주자신탁의 유형 88
• 3) 영국 거주자신탁에 관한 과세제도 91
• 제4절 일본의 신탁과세제도 100
• 1. 개 요 100
• 2. 일본 신탁에 관한 과세제도 101
• 1) 개 요 101
• 2) 일본 신탁의 유형 102
• 3) 일본 신탁에 관한 과세제도 103
• 제5절 외국의 신탁과세제도의 비교 및 시사점 111
• 제4장 현행 신탁과세제도와 문제점 114
• 제1절 세제정비의 필요성 114
• 제2절 신탁과세구조 및 신탁소득에 관한 과세제도 115
• 1. 의 의 115
• 2. 신탁과세구조 115
• 3. 신탁소득에 관한 과세 118
• 4. 문제점 120
• 제3절 신탁의 당사자에 관한 과세제도 122
• 1. 수탁자에 대한 과세여부 122
• 1) 신탁설정단계 122
• 2) 신탁자산 운용단계 123
• 3) 신탁자산 보유단계 124
• 4) 신탁종료단계 125
• 2. 수익자에 대한 과세여부 126
• 3. 위탁자에 대한 과세여부 128
• 4. 문제점 129
• 제4절 집합투자기구에 관한 과세제도 131
• 1. 개 요 131
• 2. 펀드 모집 및 설립단계 132
• 3. 펀드운용소득의 귀속 및 보유단계 133
• 4. 펀드 배분단계 136
• 5. 문제점 139
• 제5절 국제 간접투자기구에 관한 과세제도 143
• 1. 개 요 143
• 2. 외국계펀드에 관한 과세 144
• 3. 외국간접투자기구에 관한 과세 150
• 4. 문제점 153
• 제5장 신탁과세제도의 개선방안 157
• 제1절 과세원칙 157
• 1. 의 의 157
• 2. 과세의 중립성 159
• 3. 과세의 간소화 159
• 4. 국제조세와의 조화 160
• 5. 실질과세의 원칙 161
• 제2절 신탁과세구조에 관한 개선방안 162
• 1. 신탁에 관한 법적실체문제 162
• 2. 원본 및 수익의 구분․분배문제 167
• 3. 조세평등주의 저해에 관한 문제 169
• 제3절 신탁소득 과세에 관한 개선방안 170
• 1. 신탁유보이익에 관한 문제 170
• 2. 현물분배에 관한 문제 177
• 제4절 신탁 당사자 과세에 관한 개선방안 180
• 1. 수익자의 불특정 또는 부존재시의 문제 180
• 2. 복수수익자에 관한 문제 182
• 3. 수익자와 귀속권리자간 조세전가 문제 185
• 4. 공동수탁자에 관한 문제 188
• 제5절 집합투자기구 과세에 관한 개선방안 190
• 1. 집합투자기구 대주주의 양도소득과세에 관한 문제 190
• 2. 주식양도차익 비과세에 관한 문제 191
• 3. 배당소득 재투자에 관한 문제 195
• 4. 미국 택스오버행에 관한 문제 199
• 제6절 국제 간접투자기구 과세에 관한 개선방안 201
• 1. 투자펀드에 대한 조세조약의 적용 문제 201
• 2. 수익적 소유자 개념의 적용 문제 203
• 3. 역외펀드를 통한 조세회피에 관한 문제 204
• 제6장 결 론 206
• 참고문헌 212
• ABSTRACT 222