서울형 주택세제에 관한 소고 ― 도쿄 및 뉴욕과의 비교를 중심으로 ―

Abstract

This study aims to propose a reasonable housing tax system for Seoul by comparing the housing tax systems of Tokyo, Japan and New York, USA, which have similar population sizes, urban growth processes. These cities also have similar patterns of overheated housing market period and housing market recession period. By comparing the overall tax system for acquiring, holding, and disposing of housing with Tokyo and New York, this study analyzes the problems of Seoul's housing tax system and suggests the improvements. Tokyo imposes a real estate acquisition tax at the stage of house acquisition, and the tax base for the acquisition tax is the price registered in the fixed asset tax book, which is the tax base for the fixed asset tax. A general tax rate of 4% and a special tax rate of 3% are applied to houses. The house ownership tax is levied under the name of fixed asset tax, and the tax base is the valuation of fixed assets registered in the tax assessment book. The fixed asset tax is a proportional tax with a standard rate of 1.4%. When selling a house, the capital gains tax rate is based on a five-year holding period. New York imposes a real estate transfer tax and a mansion tax on real estate transactions. All transaction taxes are based on a simple progressive tax rate and provide a capital gains tax exemption for long-term single-family houses to protect house owners. For residential property taxes, real estate is classified into four types. The tax base is the assessed value minus deductions, which is calculated by multiplying the market value of the property by the levy rate set by the City. Tax rates are set annually by the New York City Council and are applied separately to each type of property. The gain on the sale of a house is subject to income tax at the federal, New York State, and New York City levels, and a tax deduction is available for the sale of a house used as a principal residence. However, the property must be owned for at least two years and lived in for at least two years. Seoul, Tokyo, and New York have all experienced periods of overheating and downturns in their housing markets. All three cities have responded flexibly to changes in the housing market. However, Seoul has experienced more complex tax changes than the other cities, including the hasty introduction and subsequent relaxation of tax penalties for multiple house owners, short-term house owners, and house traders in the metropolitan area. Based on the above, this study examines the housing tax systems of Seoul, Tokyo, and New York comparatively and suggests the following improvements. First, we propose to abolish the heavy tax rate of Seoul's house acquisition tax noting that Tokyo has a single proportional tax rate and New York has a simple progressive tax rate. The complexity of the acquisition tax bracket, which was introduced sharply during the housing market overheating period and then relaxed after the fact when adverse effects occurred, should be abolished. This will ensure that taxpayers' choices are not distorted for transactions involving multiple houses and houses in adjustment targeted area. Second, we propose to consolidate the comprehensive real estate tax into a property tax and apply a single proportional tax rate. Since property taxes are based on the benefit principle and have an in-kind component, it is reasonable to apply a single proportional tax rate, as in Japan and the United States. In addition, as the separate property tax and comprehensive real estate tax apply virtually the same taxation system, it is no different from operating a single tax system. Therefore, it is necessary to integrate the comprehensive real estate tax into the property tax and simplify the calculation of property tax. Finally, it is proposed to strengthen the actual residence requirement for the one-family one-housing capital gains tax exemption system to better align with the purpose of encouraging actual residence and long-term house ownership. Similar to New York's requirement of two years of residency for the deduction, non-adjustment targeted areas should also have a minimum 2 years of actual residence requirement. This study expects these improvements will encourage actual residence and long-term house ownership and discourage short-term speculation without complicating tax reform.