부동산담보신탁의 부가가치세 납세의무자에 관한 검토- 서울고등법원 2012. 9. 6 선고 2012누2421 판결을중심으로 - = Tax Payer of Value-Added Tax at the Real Estate Collateral Trust - Focusing on the High Court Decision 2012Nu2421 -

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This paper discusses who should be the tax payer of the Value-addedTax when real estate in trust is transferred in reference to a court case. Thesituation of the court case was that a trustor, who owned some commercial realestate, entered into a collateral trust agreement with the real estate trustcompany (the trustee) and received a certificate of beneficial interest in return.
The trustor used the certificate as collateral to the nominated bank (the primarybeneficiary) in order to get a loan for paying money of above buildings. Thetrustor defaulted the loan and the trust company sold the trust property to theprimary beneficiary paying the debts to the creditor with the proceeds. In suchtransaction of the trust property, the Tax Tribunal decided that the trustor shouldpay the value-added tax, however the high court ruling was that the primarybeneficiary should pay the tax. Tax Tribunal's decision is based on thereasoning that in the case, the collateral trust was agreed for the collateral of theloan, therefore the transfer of the practical control to the building occurs on theday of the transfer of the building ownership after paying the debt, not on theday of the trust registration. Supreme Court's decision was the establishedposition from the preceding cases that the primary beneficiary of the transfer of the trust property should be the tax payer to the extent of being covered by hisbeneficial interest in case of 'trust where a third party beneficiary receivesbenefits from trust,' while in case of 'trust where the trustor himself receivesbenefits from trust,' the trustor should be the tax payer. The high courtconcluded that the type of trust of the case is the collateral trust and 'trustwhere a third party beneficiary receives benefits from trust,' therefore the primarybeneficiary should be the tax payer.
This article analyzes the decision of the Tax Tribunal and the HighCourt's judgment and raises two questions. First, the reference case in thedistrict court decision is management·disposal trust, not collateral trust in theforementioned case. The type of trust is different in character and content.
Second, a certificate of beneficial interest can be issued on collateral trust, noton management·disposal trust. As the structure and type of real estate trustvaries depending on the trust goals, the decision on who should be the taxpayer in the case of the transfer of the trust property needs detailedinterpretation of the trust contract.
The high court ruling gives a preview as follows : First, 'trust where thetrustor himself receives benefits from trust' exists in the collateral trust. Second,it does not conform to the fundamental nature of the value-added tax which isthe multi-stage tax. Third, trustor makes unfair profits as there is no supply ofgoods to the primary beneficiary.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이석환, "투자신탁수익권의 특징과 보호관계" (58) : 2006

2 정찬형, "주석 금융법(Ⅲ)〔자본시장법1〕" 2013

3 백승재, "신탁재산의 관리처분상 부가가치세 납세의무자"

4 이재호, "신탁부동산의 양도와 부가가치세법상 납세의무자" 법학연구소 13 (13): 797-830, 2012

5 임채웅, "신탁법연구" 박영사 2009

6 법무부, "신탁법 해설"

7 최동식, "신탁법" 법문사 2006

8 조철호, "부동산신탁에 있어서 신탁부동산의 처분에 대한 부가가치세 납세의무자" 108 : 2005

9 김상용, "부동산담보신탁제도개발의 필요성과 법적 문제점 검토" 5 : 1992

10 이성식, "부가가치세법 해설"

11 국세청, "부가가치세 집행기준, 2009. 12"

12 금융감독원, "금융투자 검사매뉴얼, 2013. 9"

13 국세청, "국세법률정보시스템의 질의회신, 심사청구, 심판청구의 세무실무사례"

14 한원식, "信託稅制에 대한 硏究 : 納稅義務者를 中心으로" 서울시립대학교 세무전문대학원 2013

15 김형환, "2013개정판 부가가치세 실무해설" 세경사 2013