법무시장개방과 조세

안경봉(Ahn Kyeong-Bong) 한국국제조세협회 2007 조세학술논집 Vol.23 No.2

My suggestion about tax issue regarding to liberalization of trade in legal services, can be summarized as follows: First, when partnership tax regime will be introduced into tax law, it needs to be applied to the law firms, law firms with limited liability and law firms association. Second, when any law firm reorganize itself into a law firm association, it is necessary to reduce or exempt from corporate tax on liquidation income. Third, in applying tax convention to foreign law firms assuming the form of partnerships, it is necessary to apply it depending upon whether the resident country of foreign law firms tax on its income or not.

지배종속회사간 거래와 법인세법

安慶峰(Kyeong Bong Ahn) 한국세법학회 2004 조세법연구 Vol.10 No.1

본 연구는 지배ㆍ종속회사간 거래에서 발생할 수 있는 가격이전문제에 대하여 그 대처방안을 비교법적으로 고찰하고 우리 법상 대안모색을 하는 것을 목적으로 하고 있다. 먼저, 지배ㆍ종속회사간 재화 및 용역의 거래에 있어 가격이전에 따른 법인세법상의 문제점을 살펴보고, 가격이전행위에 따른 1차 조정방안으로 독일의 숨은 이익처분(verdeckte Gewinnausschuttung)규정과 미국 내국세입법 제482조를 우리 법인세법상 부당행위계산 부인규정과 비교ㆍ검토하였다. 그러나 개별법인단위의 세액산정방식을 유지하면서 회사간의 가격이전을 방지함과 동시에 지배종속회사 전체를 통해 일회의 과세만에 그치도록 일단계의 조정조치를 취하는 방법은 대증요법에 지나지 않아 그 한계가 있으므로 지배종속회사를 하나의 단위로 하는 세액산정방식을 도입하자는 의논이 가능하다. 독일의 기관이론(Organschaft Theorie) 혹은 미국의 연결납세신고제도(consolidated tax return) 도입론이 바로 그것이다. 그러나 과세단위를 확장한다고 해서 모든 문제가 해결되는 것이 아니라 또다른 문제가 발생하게 된다. This study aims to see how to cope with transfer pricing problems between affiliated companies in tax law of other countries, mainly Germany and U.S., and then propose a solution for the same problem happened in our tax law. First of all, I will explore problems in regulating transfer pricing between affiliated companies in corporate tax law, and as a primary solution for the transfer pricing compare ‘verdeckte Gewinnausschuttung’ of Germany and IRC section 482 of U.S. with repudation of wrongful calculation in corporate tax law. The solution that prevent transfer pricing between affiliated companies and levy a tax once on all the affiliated companies with being based on individual company as taxable unit, is mere symptomatic treatment. That is why such regime as Organschaft Theorie(Germany) or consolidated tax return(U.S.), which levies a tax on all the affiliated companies as taxable unit, is being introduced in our tax law. However, this does not solve all the tax problems between affiliated companies.

상법의 관점에서 본 상법 회계규정과 기업회계기준의 조화

안경봉(Ahn Kyeong-Bong) 국민대학교 법학연구소 2006 법학논총 Vol.18 No.-

Corporate accounting is regulated by accounting provisions of Commercial Act and corporate accounting standards under Act on External Audit of Stock Companies. Most corporate accounting is managed by corporate accounting standards, which will be applied to mainly stock-listed corporation and the Company audited under Article 13 of Act on External Audit of Stock Companies. Accounting provisions of Commercial Act are not consistent with corporate accounting standards. It is not suitable that corporate accounting standards are based on Act on External Audit of Stock Companies. Moreover corporate accounting standards seem to be unconstitutional in that it entrust the power to make a rule to a private organization. Although article 29 paragraph 2 of Commercial Act accepts the generally fair and proper accounting practices as a kind of accounting rule, because of its supplementary characteristic this provision has a problem that it cannot coordinate the substantial difference between accounting provisions of Commercial Act and corporate accounting standards. In order to solve such problem, it need to reorganize legal system concerning corporate accounting with priority given to Commercial Act. Although basic and necessary things about corporate accounting should be provided in Commercial Act, paricular and technical things about corporate accounting need to be regulated by corporate accounting standards enacted by a private organization. In order to do this Commercial Act need to provide a p rovision, under which a private organization can be established. If legal system about corporate accounting will be reorganized with priority given to Commercial Act, accounting provisions of Commercial Act need to be supplemented as belows. Commercial Act should introduce statement of cash flow and capital specifications as financial statements of Commercial Act, and should provide how to write consolidated financial statements. It should include income statement in trade books. It should use the same accounting terminology as corporate accounting standards. It should have a provision about the valuation of treasury stock, and should introduce a market price basis valuation system, which can estimate a market price easily.

1997年 租稅法 判例回顧

安慶鳳(Kyeong Bong Ahn),申東昇(Dong Seung Shin) 한국세법학회 1998 조세법연구 Vol.4 No.-

단말기 보조금과 부가가치세법상 에누리

안경봉(Ahn, Kyeong Bong) 국민대학교 법학연구소 2017 법학논총 Vol.29 No.3

단말기 공급주체와 보조금 지급주체가 동일한 경우 이동통신사업자(MTO)와 판매 대리점 사이의 휴대전화(MP) 판매 계약 중에서 가장 주목할 만한 특징은 MP의 소유권 이전에 있다. 단말기 보조금 지급에 관한 계약 조건에 따라서, 대리점이 MP의 구매자인 반면, MTO는 MP의 판매자일 수도 있다. 그러나, 휴대전화 가입 계약에 따르면 최종 이동통신 사용자들에 대해서 MP의 판매자는 MTO이다. 불일치는 누가 MP의 판매자인지 하는 동일성 차원에서 일어나고 있다. 그러한 불일치는 부가가치세 과세표준에의 불포함을 위한 몇몇 조건들을 정의하고 있는 부가가치세법의 규정에 관한 해석 문제를 야기하고 있다. 문제는 가격 할인이 최종 사용자들을 위하여 MTO에 의해 단말기 보조금의 형태로 행해지는 반면, MTO가 MP 판매 대리점에 대해서 판매자라고 하는 계약상 사실이다. 그럼에도 불구하고 이 경우 MTO가 지급하는 단말기 보조금은 단말기 공급의 매출에누리에 해당하므로 부가가치세 과세표준에 포함되지 않는다는 것이 대법원 판례이다. 그러나 단말기 공급주체와 보조금 지급주체가 상이한 경우 MTO가 지급하는 단말기 보조금은 이동통신 용역거래가 아니라 단말기의 공급과 관련된 매출에누리이어서 MTO의 부가가치세 과세표준에 포함된다는 것이 하급심 법원의 판단이다. 이 경우 MTO가 지급하는 단말기 보조금은 이동통신 용역에 대한 반대급부가 아니라, 대리점의 고객에 대한 단말기공급의 반대급부를 감액하는 것이라는 점에서 이통통신서비스에 대한 판매장려금에 불과하다. In case that handset supply subject and subsidy disbursement subject are identical, the most notable feature of the sales contract between MTO and selling agent lies in the transfer of ownership of MP. According to the contract terms, the MTO may assume the seller status of MP, whereas the agent is the buyer of MP. However, it is the MTO who is the seller of MP against the end-users in the mobile phone subscription contract. A sort of discrepancy is occurring in the context of identification about who is seller of MP. Such discrepancy is invoking interpretation issues regarding the rules specified in the value added tax law ("VAT law") which defines some conditions for the non-inclusion of tax base benefit. The problem in this case lies in the contractual fact that the mobile telecom operators (“MTO”) is the seller against the sales agent. Nevertheless, under Supreme Court precedent, handset subsidy, which MTO pay, should not be included in VAT tax base, because it corresponds to sales allowance of handset supply. But, in case that handset supply subject and subsidy disbursement subject are not identical, under lower court precedent, handset subsidy, which MTO pay, should be included in VAT tax base, because it correspond to sales allowance related to handset supply, and not mobile communication services transaction. In this case, handset subsidy, which MTO pay, is just sales incentives relating to mobile communication services, in that it only reduces consideration about handset supply to agent’s customer, and not consideration about mobile communication services.

상법개정안상 합자조합제도 및 유한책임회사제도 도입과 세법상 대응방안

안경봉(Ahn Kyeong Bong) 한국국제조세협회 2010 조세학술논집 Vol.26 No.1

Taxation system for partnerships is designed on the premise that it should be applied to association(조합) in Civil Law and the similar entity regulated by the Civil Law provision with respect to association. Therefore it is desirable that either taxation system for joint enterprises or taxation system for partnerships can be applied to the Limited Partnership in Commercial Law Draft selectively. Limited Liability Corporation in Commercial Law Draft will be subject to corporate tax, considering that the Commercial Law provision which the corporation is a juristic person. However if the corporate tax is levied by not legal personality, but the nature of business entity, taxation system for joint enterprises can be applied to the Limited Liability Corporation in Commercial Law Draft. From the point that the Limited Liability Corporation in Commercial Law Draft has unlimited partnership company(합명회사) element on one side, the taxation system for partnerships can be applied to the Limited Liability Corporation in Commercial Law. However since the fact that Limited Liability Corporation in Commercial Law has not the characteristics of the personal company is more important, the taxation system for partnerships cannot be applied to the Limited Liability Corporation in Commercial Law.

자본시장 발전을 위한 세제개혁방안

안경봉(Kyeong-Bong Ahn),오윤(Yoon Oh),최영렬(Young Real Choi),문성훈(Seong Hoon Mun),손영철(Young Chul Sohn) 한국증권법학회 2008 증권법연구 Vol.9 No.1

지식재산소득에 대한 조세 지원 - Patent Box 제도 도입을 중심으로 -

안경봉(Ahn, Kyeong-Bong),하홍준(Ha, Hongjoon) 국민대학교 법학연구소 2022 법학논총 Vol.35 No.2

납세환경의 변화와 조세범처벌법상 사기 그 밖의 부정한 행위의 판단기준

안경봉(Ahn Kyeong-Bong) 한국세법학회 2015 조세법연구 Vol.21 No.1

2010년 개정된 조세범처벌법에서는 사기 그 밖의 부정한 행위를 “조세의 부과를 불가능하게 하거나 현저히 곤란하게 하는 적극적 부정행위”라고 명확하게 법문에서 규정하고 있다. 법문상 조세의 부과를 단순히 ‘곤란’하게 한 정도가 아니라 ‘불가능’혹은 그에 준하여 ‘현저히 곤란’하게 하는 정도에 이르러야만 조세포탈범으로 처벌될 수 있도록 구성요건을 명시한 이상, 과연 조세의 부과를 ‘현저히 곤란’하게 하는 정도에 이르렀는지를 엄격히 따져 그에 이르지 않는다면 형사처벌이 아닌 가산세 부과에 그쳐야 할 것이다. 조세의 부과는 납세자의 신고와는 별도로 과세관청에서 세법에서 정한 바에 따라 세무조사를 통해 점검함으로써 이루어지는 것으로, 조세범처벌법상 사기 그 밖의 부정한 행위에 해당하는지를 판단하기 위해서는 과세관청이 납세의무자의 신고에 대해 어떠한 방법으로, 어느 수준까지 점검할 수 있느냐를 먼저 살펴보아야 한다. 즉, 납세의무자가 일견 부정하다고 평가되는 행위를 하였다고 하여 사기 그 밖의 부정한 행위라고 함부로 판단해서는 안 되고, 과세관청이 과연 정상적인 세무조사를 하였더라도 납세의무자의 부정행위로 인해 과소신고 사실을 적발하는 것이 불가능하거나 현저히 곤란한지를 판단해야 한다. 2010년 해외계좌 신고 의무화, 2011년 법인사업자부터 순차적으로 적용대상이 확대된 전자세금계산서 제도의 도입, 2013년 ‘특정 금융거래정보의 보고 및 이용 등에 관한 법률 시행령’개정으로 국세청이 확보 가능한 금융정보가 확대되는 등 과세관청은 납세의무자의 신고에 의존하지 않고 여러 방면으로 납세의무자의 신고 내용의 적정성을 검증할 수 있는 정보를 수집할 수 있게 되었다. 과세관청이 통상적인 세무조사를 통해 납세의무자의 신고 내용을 검증할 수 있다는 점이 조세범처벌법상 사기 그 밖의 부정한 행위를 판단하는 출발점이 되어야 한다는 점에서 보면, 과세관청이 납세의무자의 신고 내지는 소득과 관련된 정보를 어느 정도 파악할 수 있는지도 중요한 고려요소가 된다. 특히 전산회계장부 작성이 보편화된 납세환경하에서, 전산회계장부가 세무신고와 구별되는 독자적 증거자료로서의 의미가 없다면, 전산회계장부의 허위 작성만으로는 사기 그 밖의 부정한 행위가 성립하지 않는다고 보는 것이 옳고, 실질적으로 세무조사에서 점검대상이 되는 거래 증빙 등 객관적인 증명서류를 조작하는 정도에 이르러야 조세의 부과를 불가능하게 하거나 현저히 곤란하게 하기에 이르렀다고 평가하는 것이 타당할 것이다. Under the 2010 amendment of the Tax Evasion Punishment Act(“TVSA”), the meaning of “Fraud and Other Unlawful Activities” is clearly stated as “(any) active acts which make the imposition and collection of taxes impossible or remarkably difficult”. Considering the amended wordings of the TVSA, specifically requiring the difficulty level of tax imposition and collection to be more than “mere difficult” butrather “impossible” or “remarkably difficult”, the interpretation of constituents of tax evasion crime should be strictly scrutinized. Therefore imposing penalty tax, instead of criminal sanction, should be enough in cases where the level of effect of a taxpayer’s act on the imposition and collection of taxes could not be evaluated to be higher than the threshold of the foregoing requirements. Imposition of taxes is different from taxpayer’s tax filing, since the imposition is executed in the course of tax investigation conducted by tax authority according to the relevant tax laws. Therefore, above all, in order to make a judgment if any acts constitute “Fraud and Other Unlawful Activities”, how and in what extent could the tax authority have had the opportunity to review the tax payer’s tax filing should be evaluated. In other words, merely identifying the fact that a certain taxpayer has committed an unjust act should not easily constitute “Fraud and Other Unlawful Activities” but rather need to be further looked into whether the tax authority was not able to uncover the underreporting of taxpayer due to the unjust act. Recently, the tax authority has gained and strengthened its access to various information databases, apart from tax filing and tax investigation, in order to verify the accuracy of taxpayer’s filing figures. The enactment of Mandatory Filing of Foreign Accounts in 2010, the introduction of Electronic VAT invoice in 2011, the amendment of Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information in 2013 are examples of those which enhanced the National Tax Service’s information access. Considering that the tax authority has the power and resources to verify taxpayer’s filing figures during the course of ordinary tax investigation, and that this should be the starting point of evaluating whether certain act of the taxpayer should constitute Fraud and Other Unlawful Activities, looking into how much the tax authority has had the chance to verify the tax filing is an important factor. Reflecting the above, in a new era of widespread electronic accounting books, mere act of preparing false electronic accounting books should not be interpreted as Fraud and Other Unlawful Activities since the electronic book itself should not have a separate evidential meaning apart from tax filing, and only to the extent where the substantive evidentiary document, which is the subject of verification in the course of tax investigation, manipulated should thereby constitute “active acts which make the imposition and collection of taxes impossible or remarkably difficult”.

실질과세원칙의 조세조약에의 적용

安慶峰(Kyeong Bong Ahn),尹智炫(Ji Hyun Yoon) 한국세법학회 2007 조세법연구 Vol.13 No.1

외국법인이 조세피난처에 SPC를 설립하여 국내투자를 하고, 소득이 발생된 경우 내국법인이나 외국법인이 조세피난처에 설립한 SPC는 현지법령의 규정에 따라 허가나 인가를 받아 설립하기 때문에 조세피난처의 ‘거주자’로서의 요건을 갖추게 되는 것이 대부분이다. 그런데 OECD 모델조약을 기초로 하여 체결된 대부분의 조세조약은 일방체약국의 ‘거주자’의 부동산소득에 대하여는 원천지국에서 과세하도록 하고 있으나, 주식의 양도소득에 대하여는 거주지국에서 과세하도록 하고 있다. 이러한 이유로 타방체약국의 주식에 투자하기 위하여 일방체약국에 SPC를 설립한 기업들은, ⅰ) 국가간 조세조약에서 일방체약국의 ‘거주자’이기만 하면, 타방체약국에서 과세할 수 없고, ⅱ) 일방체약국에서 인정한 ‘거주자’의 지위를 타방체약국의 내국법상 실질과세의 원칙에 의하여 부인하고 조약상의 혜택을 박탈할 수 없다는 논리를 내세우고 있다. 이와 같은 경우 과세당국은 조세피난처에 설립된 SPC를 외국법인의 도관회사로 보고, 오히려 국내 세법상 실질과세의 원칙을 적용하여 주식양도소득의 실질귀속자로 보아 외국법인에게 법인세를 과세하는 것이 적지 않다. 이와 같은 과세청의 논리는 조약과 실질주의에 관한 규정을 분리하여 이해할 필요가 없다 하더라도 기존의 일반조항이 조약규정의 적용을 제약하는 효력은 가질 수 없다는 입장을 취하는 한 부정적으로 볼 수밖에 없다. 물론 2006.6월에 신설된 ?국제조세조정에 관한 법률? 제2조의 2의 적용 여부도 생각해 볼 수 있으나, 동 규정이 창설적 규정이라는 입장에 의하면 동법 부칙에 따라 2006년도부터 적용될 수 있을 뿐이므로 주식의 양도가 그 이전에 이루어진 경우는 적용하기 곤란하다. 과세청의 논리에 따라 국내 세법상 실질과세의 원칙을 적용한다 하더라도 여전히 남는 문제는 외국인투자펀드가 투자회사 혹은 투자신탁, 파트너십 형태를 취할 경우 이를 실질귀속자로 보고 우리나라에서 과세할 근거가 무엇인가 하는 것이다. If tax treaty has not “beneficial owner” clause, and “the property of the company consists not less than 50 per cent of immovable property” clause, can the substance over form rule be applied to counter the abuse of tax treaties? In my opinion, art. 14 of the Basic Act on National Tax and Art. 4 of the Corporate Tax Act cannot be applied as the basis for improper use of tax treaty, because these provisions do not spell out their purpose clearly enough, and treaty benefits have to be granted under the principle of “pacta sund servanda”. Can domestic legislation be enacted and adopted to bring in anti-abuse rules to be applied to treaties if such legislation spells out its purpose clearly enough ? Commentary para. 22 and 22.1 on the Article 1 of Model Tax Convention 2003 seem to keep open the possibility of application of substance over form. In other words the OECD commentaries, as amended in 2003, allowed the OECD member States to deal with the problem of treaty shopping by using its domestic law principles such as the doctrine of substance?over?form. Thus Art. 2.2 of the Law for the Coordination of International Tax Affairs(“LCITA”) (Substance over Form Rule in International Transactions) was newly inserted in May 2006. The questions concerning Art. 2.2 of LCITA are as follows: What is “for the purpose of using a tax treaty or this law improperly”? What does “Economic Substance” mean?, and Is Art. 2.2 of LCITA creative provision or reiteration of existing rule? First of all, in interpreting Art. 2.2. Para. 3 of LCITA, it is not proper to refer to such provision as Art. Para.4 of IGTC for two reasons. First, the theory or the precedent concerning this provision is not established as yet. Second, there is the difference between “improperly reduced” in Art.2 Para.4 of Inheritance and Gift Tax Act(“IGTA”) and “for the purpose of using a tax treaty or this law improperly” in Art. 2.2. Para. 3 of LCITA. Commentary Para. 9.5 on the Articles of Model Tax Convention hereunder will be useful in interpreting Art. 2.2 of LCITA. It is important to note, however, that it should not be lightly assumed that a taxpayer is entering into the type of abusive transactions referred to above. A guiding principle is that the benefits of a double taxation convention should not be available where a main purpose for entering into certain transactions or arrangements was to secure a more favorable tax position and obtaining that more favorable treatment in these circumstances would be contrary to the object and purpose of the relevant provisions. According to this guiding principle, it will be important for the court to investigate the subjective intent of the party concerned. But because this subjective approach , in which the tax result is decided upon the subjective intent, is not familiar to the Korean court as yet, it will be very interesting for the court whether to decide according to this approach or not. LCITA adopts “economic substance” concept. But it is questionable about how to look for the “economic substance”. The courts may not be bound by the forms in which a transaction has been cast under all circumstances, but may look to some underlying transaction. But cases where the Korean Supreme Court has looked to the substance without the relevant provisions, or in spite of the transaction not being sham/simulation, have been infrequent. Is Art. 2.2 of LCITA creative provision or Reiteration of Existing Rule? In my opinion, Art. 2.2 of LCITA cannot be applied on a retroactive basis, because it has the character of creative provision.