동업기업의 손익배분에 관한 연구

이준규(Juneq Lee) 한국국제조세협회 2009 조세학술논집 Vol.25 No.2

This article evaluates and suggests ways to improve provisions on allocation of income or loss arising in a partnership as follows; First, under the current partnership taxation system, multiple rates for the allocation of income or losses arising in a partnership are not allowed. This measure aims to prevent tax avoidance, but is not considered to be suitable to accomplish the purpose and to reflect economic reality. This paper suggests that the allocation of income or losses arising in a partnership should be made according to the distribution rate agreed by partners. Second, for the purpose of preventing tax avoidance, the substantiality requirement should be introduced for respecting the allocation of income or losses according to the distribution rate agreed by partners. In detail, shifting allocation, transitory allocation and offsetting tax effect allocation should not be respected, but reallocation should be made by alternative distribution method with the same collective distribution results to partners.

수동적 동업자와 고정사업장

이준규(Juneq Lee),이상도(Sangdo Lee) 한국국제조세협회 2010 조세학술논집 Vol.26 No.1

In this article, we have discussed and proposed alternatives for the taxation of partnership whose partners are both (ⅰ) non-resident or foreign entities and (ⅱ) passive partners under the current partnership taxation rules of the Special Tax Treatment Control Act. The current rules provide, where a partnership has a permanent establishment (“PE”) in Korea, that a partner who is not a passive partner is to be regarded as also having a PE in Korea, while a passive partner is to be regarded as having no PE in Korea. As such, taxation on each passive partner is completed through an income tax withholding on a gross revenue allocated by and received from the partnership. Under the partnership taxation rules, a partnership is to be regarded as a non-resident or a foreign corporation when calculating the amount of income allocated to its non-resident or foreign corporation partners. Currently, there is no clear provision under the Korean tax law stipulating the method of calculating the amount of income allocated to passive partners for which two contrasting views may exist. One view is that the income of partnerships should be calculated in aggregate, taking into account all the revenue earned and expenses incurred by the partnership considering the fact that the partnership has a PE in Korea. This approach is problematic in that such aggregate income calculation method conceptually does not go well with a separate withholding taxation method and also in that neutrality in taxation may not be secured because different tax effects would result under this view compared with the cases where such partners operates their businesses individually. Another view is that the income of the partnership allocated to its passive partners should be considered and calculated separately by type of income generated at the partnership level as long as passive partners are regarded as not having a PE in Korea. This view may seem reasonable in that taxation on passive partners are completed through an separate income tax withholding rather than normal tax filings which considers all the Korean source revenue and expenses attributable to a PE in Korea. However, in that the income of passive partners and that of non-passive partners should be calculated separately and differently, this view does not match with the current partnership taxation rules which provide no difference between passive partners and non-passive partners in the calculation of the partnership income allocated to non-resident partners or foreign corporation partners. Both of the above views would raise issues, and the selection between these two would be a matter of policy. However, in case where a partnership income allocated to passive partners is calculated in aggregate taking into account all the revenue earned and expenses incurred by the partnership, the passive partner should, in principle, be taxed in the same way as non-passive partners who has a PE in Korea in connection with the partnership. On the other hand, to tax the passive partners through a separate withholding taxation, calculation method of the partnership income allocated to passive partners shall be designed in line with the separate withholding taxation system.

연결납세에 있어서 감면세액의 산정

이준규(Juneq Lee),박정우(Jungwoo Park) 한국국제조세협회 2010 조세학술논집 Vol.26 No.2

Under current consolidated return system, consolidated tax liability is determined by subtracting sum of tax exemption of each consolidated corporation from consolidated tax computed. That means consolidated tax exemption is calculated in accordance with the separate entity concept, but the single entity concept is partly adopted in the system by regulating that consolidated tax rate rather than individual tax rate of each consolidated corporation should apply. This paper reviewed and analyzed problems with the determination of consolidated tax exemption and suggested remedies as follows; First, for a consolidated corporation which has taxable income for the taxable year, tax effect of exempted income under current system is identical with that of adopting the single entity concept, whereas, for a consolidated corporation which has net loss for the taxable year, tax effect is identical with that of adopting the separate entity concept. This inconsistent application of the concepts resulted in the failure to reflecting economic reality of a consolidated group as an entity. Furthermore current method of determining consolidated tax exemption does not contribute to the simplicity of the system and works toward the excessive limitation. The remedy would be that the separate entity concept applies, however, exempted income of a corporation which has net loss or carryforwarded loss for the current taxable year and the preceding year is excluded in the computation of consolidated tax exemption. Second, in determining foreign tax credit and minimum tax, single entity concept should apply in case that consolidated tax exemption is being determined in accordance with single entity concept.

합병과 완전지배간 조세중립성

이준규 ( Juneq Lee ) 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 2012 조세와 법 Vol.4 No.S2

합병과 주식취득에 의한 완전지배는 그 경제적 실질이 유사하다. 따라서 조세의 중립성을 유지하기 위하여는 합병과 완전지배의 조세효과가 동일할 것을 필요로 한다. 본 논문은 이러한 관점에서 현행 세법이 합병과 완전지배 간 조세의 중립성을 유지하도록 하고 있는지 검토하고 이를 기초로 조세의 중립성을 유지하기 위하여는 어떠한 조치가 필요한 지에 대하여 논의하였다. 이에 관하여는 이미 선행연구가 있었으나 그 후 합병세제와 연결납세제도의 개편으로 재논의가 필요해졌으며 본 연구에서 선행연구와 달리 제시한 개선방안을 요약하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 연결납세에 있어서 과세방식이 달라지는 적격요건은 법인세법상 개정된 적격합병의 요건에 대응하여 수정되어야 한다. 둘째, 비적격합병시 피합병법인에 대한 합병평가차익 과세 및 자산의 시가 이내에서 임의의 가액으로 승계할 수 있도록 한 규정은 세법의 개정으로 폐지되었으므로 더 이상 문제점으로 지적될 수 없다. 셋째, 비적격 완전지배에 있어서 완전자법인에 대한 준 청산소득 과세는 합병세제의 개정에 따라 준 자산양도차익 과세로 수정하여야 한다. 넷째, 적격합병에 있어서 합병평가차익, 청산소득, 의제배당 과세는 합병세제의 개정으로 더 이상 문제점으로 지적될 수 없다. 다섯째, 연결납세에 있어서 실현내포손실의 손금산입제한은 비적격 완전지배에서는 자산이 장부가액이 아닌 시가로 승계되므로 적용될 필요가 없다. 여섯째, 연결납세에 있어서 연결법인간 거래에 대하여 부당행위 계산의 부인규정은 적용이 배제되어야 하지만 그에 앞서 조세회피를 방지하기 위하여 모든 연결법 인간 거래에서 발생하는 손익을 제거하도록 하여야 한다. 일곱째, 물적분할시 자산양도차익은 완전지배에서 주식양도차익에 대응되는 것이므로 조세의 중립성을 훼손하는 것으로 볼 수 없다. A merger and a complete control made by stock acquisition are similar each other in economic reality. Accordingly, it would be necessary to have identical tax effects between a merger and a complete control in order for the tax neutrality. From this point of view, this article reviews the current tax law and the preceding research to see whether the tax neutrality between a merger and a complete control is maintained or not and to suggest following modifications of the current tax law. First, requirements for a tax-free complete control suggested by the preceding research should be modified according to the changes in requirements for a tax-free merger under the current corporate tax law. Second, a valuation gain arising from a merger at both tax-free and taxable merger, deemed dividends and gain on liquidation at tax-free merger are no more problems, since their taxation have been abolished. Third, a taxation on a quasi-gain on liquidation for a taxable complete control should be replaced with a taxation on a quasi-gain on sales of assets. Fourth, the limitation on the deduction of a recognized built-in gain at a consolidated return is not necessary in case that a complete control meets the tax-free requirements. Fifth, unfair transactions between related parties should be recalculated at a consolidated return only if all gain or losses on intercompany transactions should be eliminated.

가입자망의 설비제공대가 산정방안에 대한 연구

강병민 ( Byung Min Kang ),이준규 ( Juneq Lee ) 정보통신정책학회 2010 정보통신정책연구 Vol.17 No.1

사립대학 재정운용 문제의 세제적 해결방안

박정우 ( Jeong Woo Park ),이준규 ( Juneq Lee ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2012 法學硏究 Vol.22 No.4

연구논문 : 순부유세 도입 시 문제점에 관한 연구

김영훈 ( Young Hoon Kim ),박성욱 ( Sung Ook Park ),이준규 ( Juneq Lee ) 한국회계학회 2014 회계저널 Vol.23 No.5

순부유세는 주로 유럽의 OECD 국가들에서 오랫동안 시행되어온 경험을 가지고 있으며, 2012년현재 프랑스, 아이슬란드, 스페인, 스위스, 노르웨이, 룩셈부르크 등 6개국에서 시행되고 있다. 유럽OECD 국가들의 사례에 의할 경우 순부유세는 일반적으로 주로 개인이 보유한 동산·부동산 등의 자산에서 관련 부채를 차감한 순자산가액을 과세표준으로 하여 부부 내지 세대별로 합산을 통해 매년정기적으로 부과되는 조세를 의미한다. 본 논문에서는 순부유세를 도입한다고 가정할 경우 예상되는도입목적상의 문제점과 법률상의 문제점에 대해 연구하였다. 우리나라에서 순부유세 도입을 주장하는 사람들이 도입목적으로 공통적으로 주장하는 것은 소득계층간의 조세형평성을 높여 부와 소득의 불균등을 완화하고 순부유세로 조달된 재원을 사회복지의재원으로 사용하자는 것이다. 하지만, 순부유세를 도입한 경험이 있는 OECD 국가들의 사례에서 순부유세는 낮은 조세수입에 비해 높은 세무행정비용과 조세순응비용을 요구하고 있으며, 일부 국가에서는 오히려 순부유세 도입기간 중 부의 불공평성이 심화되고 경제성장에 부정적인영향을 미쳤다(Hansson 2002; Klevmarken 2004; Jaantti 2004; Hansson 2005; Duran-Cabre and Esteller Moree 2011). 라서 우리나라에서 순부유세 도입 시 그 도입목적이 달성될 수 있는 지에대해 높은 불확실성을 가지고 있다. 법률상의 문제점은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 과세표준을 구성하는 각 자산에 대해 공평하고도 정확한 평가 방법이 사전에 준비되어 있지 않을 경우 미실현이득에 대해 과세하는 순부유세 도입 시 위헌논란이 발생할 가능성이 높다. 둘째, 부부 및 세대별로 합산하여 과세하는 방식으로 도입할 경우 위헌의 여지가 있다. 셋째, 동일한 재산적 가치를 갖는 과세대상 자산 간에 차별과세의 문제점이 발생하게 되어 조세평등주의 원칙에 위배될 가능성이 높다. 넷째, 재산세와 종합부동산세와의 관계, 양도소득세와의 관계에서 이중과세의 문제가 발생할 수 있다. 이상에서 살펴본 문제점으로 인해 순부유세 도입여부에 대해서는 신중한 판단이 요구된다. 따라서부자증세를 통한 부의 불균등완화라는 정책 목적 하에 미실현이득에 대해 과세하는 순부유세를 전면적으로 도입하는 것보다는 실현된 자본이득과 관련하여 기존에 연구된 우리나라 자본이득과세의 문제점을 개선하는 방향으로 접근하는 것이 타당할 것이다. The net wealth tax has been levied in OECD countries in Europe for a long time. As of 2012, six countries including France, Iceland, Spain, Switzerland, Norway and Luxembourg have the net wealth tax. In the case of these OECD countries in Europe, the net wealth tax is levied annually on the asset value of properties and other assets net of liabilities to individuals or households. Proponents of the net wealth tax in Korea argue that providing welfare with revenues on the net wealth tax will reduce income inequality and increase tax fairness. However, the OECD countries that introduced the net wealth tax report high costs of tax collection and tax compliance in contrast to the low tax revenues. In some countries, there was greater inequality and lower economic growth during the period when net wealth tax was levied (Hansson 2002; Klevmarken 2004; Jaantti 2004; Hansson 2005; Duran-Cabre and Esteller Moree 2011). Thus, the effect of the net wealth tax in Korea is highly uncertain. The legal issues are as follows. First, without full preparation of a fair and accurate valuation method, taxes on unrealized gains can be determined unconstitutional. Second, net wealth tax on households or married couples can be determined unconstitutional. Third, different tax rates on assets with the same property value can be in violation of the principle of tax equality. Fourth, there are issues of double taxation in addition to property tax, capital gain tax, and comprehensive real estate holding tax. Due to the problems discussed above, introduction of the net wealth tax requires careful judgment. Thus, for the purpose of reducing inequality, we recommend improving problems in the current capital gains tax rather than imposing the net wealth tax on unrealized gains.