비거주자의 주식양도소득에 대한 원천징수의 한계
The limit of withholding obligation on capital gains from the disposition of a non-resident’s Korean shares
0
조회
0
다운로드
11
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Concerning so-called ‘Newbridge Capital case’ and similar case(hereinafter ‘subject case’), the gist of this paper can be summarized into the following two categories. First, when a withholding agent fulfills its obligation to withhold tax on capital gains from the disposition of Korean shares, it may violate the doctrine of proportionality case by case imposing duty on withholding agent to determine the beneficial owner of such capital gains. Second, to avoid unconstitutionality, it is reasonable to construe that the withholding agent is obligated to identify the beneficial owner only if it knew or should have known such beneficial owner. Then, is it legal or illegal for Korean tax authorities to impose on withholding agent the taxes which the beneficial owner is subject to? According to this paper, the legitimacy of tax on the withholding agent results in finding of facts whether the withholding agent knew or should have known the beneficial owner. In other words, it is legal to levy tax on the withholding agent when the withholding agent knew or should have known the beneficial owner. On the contrary, it is illegal imposing duty to identify the beneficial owner on the withholding agent if the withholding agent has no information on the beneficial owner. In subject case, it is possible that the withholding agent knew or should have known the conduit company is not the beneficial owner. However, it is against business practices or empirical rule to assume that the withholding agent knew or should have known hundreds of foreign investors in certain cases. Therefore, the latter is more appropriate.
Abstract
Concerning so-called ‘Newbridge Capital case’ and similar case(hereinafter ‘subject case’), the gist of this paper can be summarized into the following two categories. First, when a withholding agent fulfills its obligation to withhold tax on capital gains from the disposition of Korean shares, it may violate the doctrine of proportionality case by case imposing duty on withholding agent to determine the beneficial owner of such capital gains. Second, to avoid unconstitutionality, it is reasonable to construe that the withholding agent is obligated to identify the beneficial owner only if it knew or should have known such beneficial owner. Then, is it legal or illegal for Korean tax authorities to impose on withholding agent the taxes which the beneficial owner is subject to? According to this paper, the legitimacy of tax on the withholding agent results in finding of facts whether the withholding agent knew or should have known the beneficial owner. In other words, it is legal to levy tax on the withholding agent when the withholding agent knew or should have known the beneficial owner. On the contrary, it is illegal imposing duty to identify the beneficial owner on the withholding agent if the withholding agent has no information on the beneficial owner. In subject case, it is possible that the withholding agent knew or should have known the conduit company is not the beneficial owner. However, it is against business practices or empirical rule to assume that the withholding agent knew or should have known hundreds of foreign investors in certain cases. Therefore, the latter is more appropriate.
참고문헌 (26)
- Brown, Kimberly, "Tax Treaty Shopping and the GAAR: MIL (Investments) S.A. v. The Queen", U.T.Fac. L. Rev, 66, pp.33~ (2008)
- Doernberg, Richard L., "The Case Against Withholding", Tex. L. Rex, 61, pp.595~ (1982)
- H. David Rosenbloom, "Tax Treaty Abuse: Policies and Issues", LAW & POL’Y INT’L BUS, 15, pp.763~ (1983)
- China’s taxation of non-residents on capital gains from the disposition of Chinese shares, "interests under tax treaties", Qiu, Dongmei, 2010
- Simontacchi, Stefano, "Taxation of Capital Gains under the OECD Model Convention:With Special Regard to Immovable Property" (2007), Kluwer Law International
- 강남규, "원천징수제도의 개선방안―원천징수의무자의 부담 완화를 중심으로―", 조세법연구, 13(2), pp.77~113 (2007), 한국세법학회
- 金斗炯, "세법상 납세자의 협력의무", 조세법연구, 8(2), pp.7~49 (2002), 한국세법학회
- 김완석, "원천징수제도의 위헌 여부에 관한 고찰", 한국조세연구, 11 (1996), 한국조 세학회
- 김진웅, "외국투자가의 국내원천소득에 대한 수익적 소유자와 실질과세문제", 조세연구, 5 (2005), 한국조세연구포럼
- 김진웅, "국제거래에 있어 국내법상의 실질과세원칙과 조세협약의 취급방안", 조세연구, 9(3), pp.29~70 (2009), 한국조세연구포럼
- 박훈, "세법상 법인격부인의 법리와 실질과세의 원칙의 관계", 조세법연구, 16(1), pp.396~426 (2010), 한국세법학회
- 소순무, "조세소송" (2010), 영화조세통람
- 송상우, "외국계 투자펀드에 대한 조세조약의 적용과 과세문제", 조세법연구, 13(1), pp.219~248 (2007), 한국세법학회
- 오윤, "Beneficial Ownership 개념과 실질과세원칙의 관계", 조세법연구, 16(1), pp.346~395 (2010), 한국세법학회
- 윤지현, "국제조세조정에관한법률 제2조의 2 제3항의 해석에 관한 일고찰", 조세법연구, 12(2), pp.245~287 (2006), 한국세법학회
- 윤지현, "實質課稅의 原則과 假裝行爲에 관한 考察", 중앙법학, 9(2), pp.852~883 (2007), 중앙법학회
- 오윤, "국제조세법론" (2011), 한국학술정보
- 이재호, "원천징수와 실질과세 법률신문 제3858호(2010.7.19)", ~ (2010)
- 김태완, "세법강의" (2011), 세학사
- 주식양도차익 등 조세조약 개정방안 연구, "이창희", 재정경제부, ~ (2008)
- 이철송, "현행 원천징수제도의 문제점", 계간 세무사, (105) (2005)
- 이태로, "Treaty Shopping", 조세법연구, 1 (1995), 한국세법학회
- 한만수, "조세법강의 신정7판(2011년도판)" (2011), 박영사
- 한만수, "조세법강의 신정7판(2011년도판)" (2011), 박영사
- 최원, "원천징수의무자에 의한 세액 납부가 과세관청의 원천납세의무자에 대한 부과권을 소멸시키는지 여부 -대법원 2007.9.7 선고, 2005두5666 판결에 대한 평석-", 조세연구, 9(1), pp.177~208 (2009), 한국조세연구포럼
- 한 수 웅, "헌법 제37조제2항의 過剩禁止原則의 意味와 適用範圍", 저스티스, (95), pp.5~28 (2006), 한국법학원