資産流動化 課稅制度에 관한 硏究

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Asset-backed securitization(ABS) is utilized to raise funds from the capital market by issuing securities based on the pool of assets of low liquidity. Originators need not rely on the traditional debt financing. Under this scheme, the ownership of the underlying assets is transferred to a special legal entity called "SPV". Thus, the originators can improve their financial status including the capital adequacy ratio, since they reduce the handsome amount of risk-weighted assets from their balance sheets.
In order to cope with the unprecedented foreign exchange crisis, the Korean government established a special law to facilitate asset-backed securitization of debt-ridden financial institutions and corporations. References to the law and practices in the United States as well as the new legislation of Thailand and Japan were made. Based on the plan to promote the impending financial restructuring of the Ministry of Finance and Economy in April 1998, a task force was established to prepare a special law on asset-backed securitization. A few months later, the Act on Asset-Backed Securitization(usually referred to as the "ABS Act") was passed by the National Assembly, and put into force on September 16, 1998(Law No.5555), as amended thereafter. Since its implementation, the ABS scheme has been the main tool in the capital markets to raise funds by securitizing non-performing assets.
For the efficient use of structured financing scheme, such obstacles as legal, accounting, tax and administrative regulations should be eliminated in line with the global standards. Though it is said that the ABS scheme came out of bankruptcy courts rather than tax offices, tax considerations dominate all aspects of ABS transactions. So from the beginning, every kind of tax affairs should be thoroughly put into consideration. In determining the amount of various expenses related with this financing scheme, tax considerations play a key role. Because the asset-backed securitization is quite different from other financial transactions, without plentiful tax benefits, obviously this kind of transaction would not take place. Therefore, from the tax perspective, the current tax regimes in Korea should be conducive to ABS financing practices.
In the United States, the Tax Reform Act was enacted in 1986 as a result of strenuous lobbyists' efforts toward Congress. The Tax Reform Act has got rid of the double-taxation issue of mortgage-backed securities (MBS). The Act gave birth to the so-called real estate mortgage investment conduit(REMIC). By utilizing REMICs, the MBS markets have been dramatically expanded because of the time-efficient and tax-saving characteristics. As a result, it is possible to resale mortgage loans by means of credit creation, and accordingly it is possible to buy a house with a small amount of purchase price. Though such tax regime contributes a lot to the growth of MBS markets, we have to resolve some tax matters in view of the relatively short history of structured financing in Korea.
The purpose of this research is to present policy alternatives for the improvement of the tax system in Korea with respect to asset-backed securitization. In this regard, references to tax laws and practices of advanced countries will be made.
Chapter 2 will discuss the general theories on the structured financing or asset-backed securitization. Chapter 2 will focus on the relationship between ABS and the tax system. Chapter 3 will survey the tax systems of foreign countries, and analyze various tax benefits of ABS. The tax regime of the United States, in particular, will be scrutinized. Japan and the European Union, especially the Netherlands, will be visited. Through this survey, the characteristics of the tax system of Korea will be discussed and some suggestions for an improved tax system will be made accordingly.
Chapter 4 will describe briefly the current tax regime related with ABS in Korea, and some issues will be put on the list for the institutional improvement as well. The structured financing scheme will be examined from the various viewpoints of the originators(asset holders), special legal entities(SPVs), investors and international tax authorities. We will think of possible tax measures with respect to tax-evasion purpose offshore SPVs and other interpretational issues in Chapter 5. Finally, in conclusion, some policy matters for the further development of ABS scheme and related financial products will be presented.
In this regard, it should be noted that a company type SPV, i.e., SPC is not an ordinary company whose purpose is to make profits through business operation. Therefore, it is desirable that an SPC should be recognized as a conduit and be exempted from corporate taxes in view of a REMIC or FASIT in the United States. It would be helpful to the development and growth of ABS markets in this country by minimizing expenses arising out of ABS transactions, and to the establishment of the tax-neutral principles. In doing so, we could achieve tax equality among such various vehicles as ordinary ABS-SPC, MBS-SPC i.e., the mortgage-backed securitization company, and trust.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 目次
• 第1章 序論 = 1
• 第1節 硏究의 目的 = 1
• 第2節 硏究의 方法과 範圍 = 4
• 1. 硏究의 方法 = 4
• 2. 硏究의 範圍 = 5
• 第2章 資産流動化制度의 一般理論 = 7
• 第1節 資産流動化의 意義 = 7
• 1. 資産流動化의 槪念 = 7
• 2. 資産流動化의 沿革 = 10
• 3. 資産流動化의 效用 = 12
• 4. 다른 資金調達手段과의 比較 = 13
• 第2節 資産流動化의 構造와 課稅問題 = 16
• 1. 資産流動化의 基本構造 = 16
• 2. 資産流動化의 當事者 = 17
• 3. 流動化 對象資産 = 23
• 4. 流動化證券의 形態 = 25
• 第3節 流動化資産의 眞正한 讓渡와 稅法上의 意義 = 30
• 1. 資産流動化와 稅務上의 危險 = 30
• 2. 眞正한 讓渡 = 32
• 3. 詐害行爲 또는 詐欺的 讓渡 = 33
• 4. 眞正한 讓渡의 稅法上의 意義 = 34
• 第4節 우리나라의 資産流動化制度 = 36
• 1. 資産流動化制度와 住宅抵當債權流動化制度의 比較 = 36
• 2. 資産流動化에 관한 會計制度 = 39
• 第5節 綜合的 硏究方法의 必要性 = 46
• 第3章 各國의 資産流動化 課稅制度 = 47
• 第1節 外國 課稅制度의 意義 = 47
• 第2節 美國의 資産流動化 課稅制度 = 48
• 1. 制度의 槪觀 = 48
• 2. 流動化專門機構에 대한 課稅 = 49
• 3. 資産保有者에 대한 課稅 = 66
• 4. 投資者에 대한 課稅 = 70
• 第3節 日本의 資産流動化 課稅制度 = 72
• 1. 制度의 意義 = 72
• 2. 資産保有者에 대한 課稅 = 74
• 3. 特定目的會社에 대한 課稅 = 77
• 4. 投資者에 대한 課稅 = 79
• 第4節 유럽聯合의 資産流動化 課稅制度 = 81
• 1. 制度의 槪要 = 81
• 2. 네덜란드의 資産保有者에 대한 課稅 = 83
• 3. 네덜란드의 流動化專門機構에 대한 課稅 = 85
• 4. 네덜란드의 投資者에 대한 課稅 = 88
• 第5節 各國의 資産流動化 課稅制度의 比較 = 89
• 第4章 現行 資産流動化 課稅制度와 문제점 = 90
• 第1節 稅制整備의 필요성 = 90
• 第2節 資産保有者 및 投資者에 대한 課稅制度 = 91
• 1. 資産保有者에 대한 課稅 = 91
• 2. 投資者에 대한 課稅 = 97
• 第3節 流動化專門會社에 대한 課稅制度 = 99
• 1. 制度의 意義 = 99
• 2. 法人稅 = 100
• 3. 附加價値稅 = 105
• 4. 資産取得關聯 租稅支援 = 106
• 5. 資産保有關聯 租稅支援 = 108
• 6. 問題點 = 109
• 第4節 國外 流動化專門會社에 관한 課稅制度 = 111
• 1. 制度의 意義 = 111
• 2. 國內事業場이 있는 外國法人 = 111
• 3. 國內事業場이 없는 外國法人 = 112
• 4. 문제점 = 113
• 第5節 信託會社에 대한 課稅制度 = 116
• 1. 課稅制度의 類型 = 116
• 2. 信託留保利益에 대한 課稅問題 = 117
• 第6節 現行 資産流動化 課稅制度의 檢討課題 = 118
• 第5章 資産流動化 課稅制度의 改善方案 = 120
• 第1節 課稅原則과 資産流動化 課稅 = 120
• 1. 課稅의 中立性 = 121
• 2. 效率 및 簡便性 = 121
• 3. 國際的 稅務會計基準과의 調和 = 122
• 4. 實質課稅의 原則 = 123
• 第2節 國內 流動化專門機構에 대한 課稅問題 = 123
• 1. 流動化專門會社에 대한 二重課稅問題의 解決方案 = 123
• 2. 信託會社에 대한 課稅問題 = 133
• 3. 信託抵當債權流動化會社에 대한 課稅問題 = 140
• 4. 其他 資産流動化機構에 대한 租稅法上 取扱問題 = 141
• 5. 파트너십 課稅制度의 導入과 流動化專門機構 = 142
• 6. 納稅者選擇制度의 導入問題 = 148
• 7. 流動化專門機構에 대한 課稅方案 = 149
• 第3節 資産保有者 및 投資者段階의 課題 = 151
• 1. 稅法上 眞正한 讓渡에 관한 判斷基準의 導入 = 151
• 2. 先·後順位 信託受益權者에 대한 信託損益 分配問題 = 152
• 第4節 資産流動化 信用補强裝置에 대한 課稅問題 = 156
• 1. 先·後順位構造 = 157
• 2. 超過擔保 = 159
• 3. 스프레드計定·現金準備計定 = 160
• 4. 保證·融資 = 160
• 第5節 國際租稅問題 = 162
• 1. 資産流動化에 대한 國際租稅의 意義 = 162
• 2. 國外 流動化專門會社의 設立形態 = 163
• 3. 國外 流動化專門會社의 資産管理者의 租稅法上 地位問題 = 164
• 4. 國外 流動化專門會社와 源泉徵收問題 = 170
• 5. 國外 流動化專門會社의 國內支店의 利子損金算入問題 = 177
• 6. 過少資本稅制 適用問題 = 180
• 7. 外國信託인 流動化專門機構에 대한 課稅問題 = 183
• 8. 移轉價格稅制의 適用問題 = 189
• 9. 租稅避難處 稅制의 適用問題 = 193
• 10. 流動化專門會社의 外國納付稅額控除 問題 = 200
• 第6節 會計制度 問題 = 204
• 第6章 結論 = 206
• 參考文獻 = 210
• ABSTRACT = 220