사립대학의 지방세 과세 문제에 관한 연구 - 학생복지시설용 부동산을 중심으로 -

Abstract

Recently, local governments are showing a tendency to increase local taxation and tax audits on student welfare facilities to overcome financial difficulties. This is because it is not clear whether student welfare services are included in educational services, which are non-profit businesses. And at the end of 2011, the government established a new local tax exemption sunset clause for non-profit facilities, including private universities, and has maintained it to this day. This is because mechanical equity was intended without considering the unique characteristics of each non-profit business. This study first proposed that student welfare services be clearly defined in the corporate tax law as a non-profit business. The logic is as follows. First, the purpose of the student welfare service is student welfare, not the university's financial expansion. Second, consignment operation of student welfare services is not leasing in terms of controllability, expertise, and efficiency. Third, local taxation of student welfare facilities causes an increase in service fees for students, which runs counter to the government's policy of reducing students' education costs. Fourth, student welfare services are services that must be provided essential for educational services, so they are part of the educational project. Fifth, the Higher Education Act defines student welfare facilities as educational facilities, which runs counter to the taxation policy of local governments that view them as profit-making facilities. The logic for abolishing the local tax exemption sunset clause for educational services is as follows. First, exceptions in the field of religion based on freedom of religion are inconsistent with the field of education, which stipulates academic freedom. Second, exceptions must be recognized in the field of education, which stipulates legalism in education finance under the Constitution. Third, the government's policy of strengthening local taxation will lead to a weakening of the education sector. Fourth, the exception provision for the religious field, which appears to be conscious of strong opposition from religious groups, is not persuasive.