본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

종합부동산세제의 문제점에 관한 고찰 - 헌법 측면을 중심으로 -

Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax: A Study From a Tax Policy and Constitutional Perspective

0

조회

0

다운로드

4

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

The formative and inducive function of today’s taxation is clearly undeniable. Nevertheless, it has been held in all ages that the nature of taxation lies in the delivering of expenses in running a nation, with other policy derived objectives as only subsidiary purposes, such as the redistribution of wealth, encouraging or supressing of particular economic activities, or achieving social equality. However, Korea has seen great tendencies to use taxation for policy derived purposes or even worse, as a means of expressing political beliefs, with Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax being the most representative case. On November 13, 2008, the Constitutional Court ruled Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act partially unconstitutional and partially incompatible with the Constitution, which seemed to put an end to the controversy surrounding the issue on the surface. Nevertheless, the conclusion and the underlying reasoning of the court requires further examination, not to mention that Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax pose several questions for consideration, including the nature and function of taxation. Whatever the legitimacy or justification for the purposes of government pursued policies, the means to an end should not be discrepant from the principles of the Constitution or the basic principles of tax law. In this sense, Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax is an irrational taxation that is against the nature of theories or policies of taxation, as well as one that goes against the legal principles of the Constitution or the tax system. Due to the aforementioned grounds, it is only right that Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax be abolished. Should there be a need for the strengthening or revision of Real Estate Holding Tax, such need should be satisfied by reforming Property Tax under Local Tax, but not through abnormal tax policies such as Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax.

Abstract

The formative and inducive function of today’s taxation is clearly undeniable. Nevertheless, it has been held in all ages that the nature of taxation lies in the delivering of expenses in running a nation, with other policy derived objectives as only subsidiary purposes, such as the redistribution of wealth, encouraging or supressing of particular economic activities, or achieving social equality. However, Korea has seen great tendencies to use taxation for policy derived purposes or even worse, as a means of expressing political beliefs, with Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax being the most representative case. On November 13, 2008, the Constitutional Court ruled Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act partially unconstitutional and partially incompatible with the Constitution, which seemed to put an end to the controversy surrounding the issue on the surface. Nevertheless, the conclusion and the underlying reasoning of the court requires further examination, not to mention that Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax pose several questions for consideration, including the nature and function of taxation. Whatever the legitimacy or justification for the purposes of government pursued policies, the means to an end should not be discrepant from the principles of the Constitution or the basic principles of tax law. In this sense, Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax is an irrational taxation that is against the nature of theories or policies of taxation, as well as one that goes against the legal principles of the Constitution or the tax system. Due to the aforementioned grounds, it is only right that Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax be abolished. Should there be a need for the strengthening or revision of Real Estate Holding Tax, such need should be satisfied by reforming Property Tax under Local Tax, but not through abnormal tax policies such as Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax.

참고문헌 (18)

  1. "국세와 지방세의 조정에 관한 법률(1961. 12. 2. 제정 법률 제780호) 제정"[URL]
  2. 김대영, "부동산보유세개편방안", pp.10~ (2003), 경제정의실천시민연합
  3. 김두형, "종합부동산세법의 헌법 위반․불합치 결정에 관한 법리적 평가", 토지공법연구, 44, pp.177~208 (2009), 한국토지공법학회
  4. 김상우, "구 종합부동산세법 제5조 등 위헌소원 등, in 헌법재판소 결정 해설집", pp.509~ (2008)
  5. 김성수, "부동산 보유과세 개편에 대한 입법과제 ―종합부동산세와 가칭 “통합재산세”를 중심으로―", 공법연구, 33(2), pp.351~379 (2005), 한국공법학회
  6. 김완석, "주택세제 관련 법제, 정책?입법 평가", 토지공법연구, 35, pp.91~120 (2007), 한국토지공법학회
  7. 문병효, "헌법재판소의 종합부동산세 세대별 합산과세의 위헌결정에 대한 비판", 민주법학, (39), pp.237~279 (2009), 민주주의법학연구회
  8. 박정우, "종합부동산세가 지방재정 등에 미치는 영향 및 문제점에 대한 실증분석", pp.97~ (2005), 전국 시장ㆍ군수ㆍ구청장 협의회
  9. 박종수, "종합부동산세에 관한 조세법적 검토", 부동산법학, 11
  10. 박훈, "종합부동산세법안의 내용과 문제점, in 부동산세제의 현안과 과제", 한국토지공법학회 제43회 학술대회 발표논문집, pp.25~26 (2004)
  11. 종합부동산세 신설논의와 지방자주재원 확보방안에 관한 연구보고서, "옥무석", 한국지방자치법학회, 84~ (2004)
  12. 이동식, "구 종합부동산세법 제7조 등 위헌소원사건에 대한 평석", 헌법재판실무연구회, 2009. 11. 6. 발표문, pp.31~ (2009)
  13. 이동식, "종합부동산세의 헌법합치성에 관한 연구", pp.36~52 (2006), 한국세법학회
  14. 김태완, "세법강의", pp.316~ (2011), 세학사
  15. 임주영, "부동산보유세제의 합리적개편방안에 관한 연구" (2004), 지방세 연구소
  16. 2006년 종합부동산세 개편에 따른 부동산 관련 보유세 부담수준 분석, "최명근", 한국경제연구원, 30~32 (2006)
  17. 종합부동산세 도입정책에 대한 평가 및 정책 제언, "최명근", 한국경제연구원, ~, pp.한국경제연구원 정책보고서 2004-06 (2004)
  18. 주요국의 세대단위 합산과세 폐지 사례로 본 한국 종부세의 문제점, "최명근", 한국경제연구원, 34~36 (2006)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (37건)