RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재

    종합부동산세와 재산세의 이중과세조정에 관한 소고(小考) - 대법원 2015.6.23. 선고 2012두2986판결을 중심으로 - = A Study on the Adjustment of Double Taxation in Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax and Property Tax - Based on the Supreme Court Judgement 2012두2986 -

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A104294842

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
      • URL 복사
    • 오류접수
    인용문이 복사되었습니다.

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    The intent of this study is to suggest the standard for the adjustment of double taxation by analyzing a recent Supreme Court Judgement 2012두2986 regarding comprehensive real estate holding tax and property tax. Since the object of comprehensive real estate holding tax is housing and land above a certain amount, and that of property tax is land, building, housing, aircraft and ships, the possession of housing and land above certain amount imposes both comprehensive real estate holding tax and property tax. Theoretically, this makes the adjustment of double taxation inevitable. However, in matters of deciding the means and level of adjustment should not be approached only on the theoretical perspective. Because the adjustment of the double taxation wholly depends of the discretion of lawmakers, and the problems regarding the means and level of adjustment cannot be illegal nor unconstitutional unless the it deviates from the discretion. Thus, the adjustment of double taxation in comprehensive real estate holding tax and property tax should be decided in the frame of the principle of no taxation without law nominally, unless it deviates from the lawmakers’ discretion. This study shows that the double taxation issue occurs because the court mistakes the revised tax base, which is “the amount that exceeds the tax base including housing multiplied by the ratio of FMV” for the obsolete tax base, which is “the portion that exceeds certain amount including housing multiplied by annual adjustment ratio. (80%)” Since the annual adjustment ratio is the temporary item employed to reduce the burden of comprehensive real estate holding tax, and was on the upward position, and the old tax base, which is “the portion that exceeds certain amount including housing”, had been designated as the object for double taxation adjustment, it became the object for comprehensive real estate holding tax (the declared value-certain amount) as well. Later, in attempt to permanently reduce the burden of comprehensive real estate holding tax, the government reduced the tax base for comprehensive real estate holding tax by multiplying the ratio of FMV(currently 80%) with the previous tax base in 2008, when the unconstitutionality debate regarding comprehensive real estate holding tax ended. Since the tax base for comprehensive real estate holding tax decreased, the government decreased the amount of double taxation adjustment as well, by defining the revised tax base as the old tax base multiplied by the ratio of FMV(80%). Since our lawmakers are adjusting double taxation of comprehensive real estate holding tax and property tax based on ‘tax base of comprehensive real estate holding tax,’ and this led to the adjustment in the content of double taxation adjustment, the arithmetic formula shown on the Enforcement Rule is completely identical to that of revised comprehensive real estate holding tax Enforcement Decree. When combining all the analysis data, the recent controversy regarding the double taxation adjustment of comprehensive real estate holding tax and property tax is due to 1) the wrong decision to apply obsolete regulations rather than revised regulations, and 2) the failure to notice the fact that the adjustment of double taxation is under the lawmakers’ discretion unless it goes outside the scope of their authority.
    번역하기

    The intent of this study is to suggest the standard for the adjustment of double taxation by analyzing a recent Supreme Court Judgement 2012두2986 regarding comprehensive real estate holding tax and property tax. Since the object of comprehensive rea...

    The intent of this study is to suggest the standard for the adjustment of double taxation by analyzing a recent Supreme Court Judgement 2012두2986 regarding comprehensive real estate holding tax and property tax. Since the object of comprehensive real estate holding tax is housing and land above a certain amount, and that of property tax is land, building, housing, aircraft and ships, the possession of housing and land above certain amount imposes both comprehensive real estate holding tax and property tax. Theoretically, this makes the adjustment of double taxation inevitable. However, in matters of deciding the means and level of adjustment should not be approached only on the theoretical perspective. Because the adjustment of the double taxation wholly depends of the discretion of lawmakers, and the problems regarding the means and level of adjustment cannot be illegal nor unconstitutional unless the it deviates from the discretion. Thus, the adjustment of double taxation in comprehensive real estate holding tax and property tax should be decided in the frame of the principle of no taxation without law nominally, unless it deviates from the lawmakers’ discretion. This study shows that the double taxation issue occurs because the court mistakes the revised tax base, which is “the amount that exceeds the tax base including housing multiplied by the ratio of FMV” for the obsolete tax base, which is “the portion that exceeds certain amount including housing multiplied by annual adjustment ratio. (80%)” Since the annual adjustment ratio is the temporary item employed to reduce the burden of comprehensive real estate holding tax, and was on the upward position, and the old tax base, which is “the portion that exceeds certain amount including housing”, had been designated as the object for double taxation adjustment, it became the object for comprehensive real estate holding tax (the declared value-certain amount) as well. Later, in attempt to permanently reduce the burden of comprehensive real estate holding tax, the government reduced the tax base for comprehensive real estate holding tax by multiplying the ratio of FMV(currently 80%) with the previous tax base in 2008, when the unconstitutionality debate regarding comprehensive real estate holding tax ended. Since the tax base for comprehensive real estate holding tax decreased, the government decreased the amount of double taxation adjustment as well, by defining the revised tax base as the old tax base multiplied by the ratio of FMV(80%). Since our lawmakers are adjusting double taxation of comprehensive real estate holding tax and property tax based on ‘tax base of comprehensive real estate holding tax,’ and this led to the adjustment in the content of double taxation adjustment, the arithmetic formula shown on the Enforcement Rule is completely identical to that of revised comprehensive real estate holding tax Enforcement Decree. When combining all the analysis data, the recent controversy regarding the double taxation adjustment of comprehensive real estate holding tax and property tax is due to 1) the wrong decision to apply obsolete regulations rather than revised regulations, and 2) the failure to notice the fact that the adjustment of double taxation is under the lawmakers’ discretion unless it goes outside the scope of their authority.

    더보기

    참고문헌 (Reference)

    1 홍정선, "행정법특강(제14판)" 박영사 2015

    2 삼일인포마인, "조세법전" 삼일인포마인 2015

    3 대법원, "선고 2012두2986판결"

    1 홍정선, "행정법특강(제14판)" 박영사 2015

    2 삼일인포마인, "조세법전" 삼일인포마인 2015

    3 대법원, "선고 2012두2986판결"

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

    학술지 이력

    학술지 이력
    연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
    2027 평가 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
    2021-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
    2018-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2015-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2011-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2009-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2007-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2004-01-01 등재 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
    2003-01-01 등재 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
    2002-01-01 등재 등재후보학술지 유지 (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
    1999-07-01 등재 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
    더보기

    학술지 인용정보

    학술지 인용정보
    기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
    2016 0.98 0.98 1.03
    KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
    1.37 1.48 1.713 0.03
    더보기

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼