이창희, "부동산 보유세의 회고와 전망", 조세법연구, Vol.30, No.3(2024), pp.91-163.
<국문초록>
재산세와 종합부동산세는 온갖정책나아가정치적색깔을담다보니법령의글귀와 짜임새가매우혼란스럽고여러가지무리가있다.이혼란을잘보이는보기가대법원 2023. 8. 31. 선고 2019두39796 판결로 현행 시행령에 따른 종합부동산세 과세처분을 인 정한판결이다. 이판결의전사(前史)로대법원2015.6.24. 선고 2012두7073 판결은 옛 시행규칙이법률과어긋난다고보고과세처분을취소했다. 그러자행정부는같은내용 을시행령에넣었다.기실이시행령내용은종래의대법원판결과어긋나고나아가법률 해석상불가능함에도불구하고2019두39796 판결은 시행령에따른과세처분을그냥유 지했다. 이 사건에서드러나듯재산세와종합부동산세에관해서는법률과명령이정하 고있는온갖내용이서로부딪히고헌법이나법률해석상가능한가라는문제가계속나 온다. 법률에 어긋나지않는한명령이나행정해석을따른다고(Chevron deference) 전 제하더라도그렇다.법률의글귀,입법목적과체계,헌법적제약,이런것을다따져서당 연하거나적어도가능한것과아예가능하지도않은것을따지고앞뒤가안맞는모순을 정리하는체계적해석론이불가피한시점에이르렀다.구체적으로이글의분석에서드 러난 시사점은다음과같이요약할수있다. 1) 종합부동산세를지방세로옮겨도위헌은아니고재산세를종합부동산세와통합해서 국세로옮겨와도위헌은아니다.헌법해석이나입법단계에서는지방세란없다.논점은그저기획재정부와국세청아니면행정안전부와지방자치단체,어느쪽에법안제 출 권한과관리권한을줄것인가의문제일뿐이다. 2) 종합부동산세를 지방세로 옮기자는 주장은 누진세를 폐지하자는생각을전제로한 것이 많다. 누진세를 폐지한다면 재산세로 충분하다. 3) 종합부동산세를 누진세로 유지한다면 지방자치단체가 공동으로 관리해서 종합부동 산세를부과하는것보다는국가가관리하는것이낫다. 이미지난역사에서실험은 끝났다. 지방세로 옮겨서행정안전부가종합부동산세액을계산하고부과만다시지 방자치단체로넘기자는생각도있지만행정안전부보다는국세청이훨씬잘할수있 는일이다. 4) 종합부동산세를전액부동산교부세로지방정부에넘겨주어서균형발전에쓰게한다 는것은실상종합부동산세와는무관하다.균형발전재원이필요하다면어떤세금에 서 충당하든아무차이가없다. 5) 재산세를 종합부동산세에서 전액공제않더라도당연위헌이아닌것이야당연하다. 한편현행법해석론으로는2중과세부담이남아도좋다는대법원판례와헌법재판소 결정은틀렸다. ‘재산세＝재산×세율’이라는식에서재산과세율을서로다른전제 하에계산한까닭이다. 재산은공정시장가액비율을곱해서줄인금액으로계산하고 세율은같은비율을곱하기전의재산가치로계산한까닭이다.논리의앞뒤가안맞 는다. 6) 보유세를통한부동산가격안정이란착시이거나눈속임일뿐이다.보유세든거래세 든세금은집없는사람들이집사는것을오히려막을뿐이다. 7) 다주택자라도합산면적이나가액이큰집하나정도라면다른사람에게미치는영향 은1주택자와같다. 돈많은사람이크고좋은집에사는것자체가헌법이보장하는 기본권이라면, 집여러채인사람도그정도범위안에서는중과세할이유를찾기어 렵다. 그 정도를 넘는다주택이라면중과세도일응정당화할수있다. 8) 종합부동산세의근거를공평특히수직적공평에서찾는것은자가당착이고,공평에 터잡자면순재산세내지부유세가맞다.부유세에서는부동산말고다른재산도과세 대상으로 삼아야하고채무는공제해주어야한다. 9) 현행 지방세법이나종합부동산세법및그에딸린명령에는앞뒤가엉키거나엄격해 석이라는잣대를대는순간허물어질내용이많다.법해석방법을총동원해서현행법 령의내용을옹호하더라도지금대로지키기는어렵다.어차피법령전체를정비할때 가되었다.
<주제어>
보유세, 재산세, 종합부동산세, 이중과세, 공평.
<Abstract>
Korean property tax system on real property consists of the two tiers of the local property tax and the national ‘comprehensive property tax’ assessed on the value of the sum of the real properties located anywhere in the nation. Incorporating various economic policies and even political motives, this two tier system is pervaded by confusing language and complicated and conflicting structures. A Supreme Court ruling of 2023, a de facto reversal of a 2015 ruling, demonstrates this problem. In 2015 the Court ruled that the full amount of the local property tax is creditable from the national tax, invalidating a ministry regulation to the contrary. In aftermath of the decision, the content of the invalidated regulation was revived in the presidential decree. In 2023, the Court upheld the decree even though the content of the decree is exactly the same as the invalidated regulation and, as argued in this paper, is contrary to the statutory language. As revealed in this episode, the current legal status of the local and national property tax system is in chaos. Rules are often inconsistent and the decrees and regulations are often beyond the boundary of the interpretive boundary of the statutes. A systematic review is unavoidable, as summarized in the following. 1. The Korean Constitution does not mandate that the comprehensive real property tax remain national tax, nor that the local property tax remain local government tax. The Constitution does not refer to the concept of a local government tax and any and all taxes are at the discretion of the statutory enactments by the National Assembly. The national versus local issue only concerns the administration of the tax, i.e., the choice between the Ministry of the Strategy and Finance and the National Tax Administration on the one hand and the Ministry of the Interior and Safety and the local governments on the other hand. 2, The argument for delegating the comprehensive real property tax to the local governments presupposes the abolition of the graduated rate of the tax. Without the graduated tax burden, it is not necessary to keep the tax at the national level. 3. With graduated tax rates on all properties in the nation, the comprehensive tax can be better managed by the National Tax Administration than the local governments in joint action or the Ministry of the Interior and Safety. History does not have to repeat itself. 4. Currently all revenue from the comprehensive national tax is transferred to the local governments. The revenue transfer is a separate issue from the design of the property tax system. Such transfer can be funded from any national tax. 5. Not crediting the full amount of the local property tax is not contrary to the Constitution. It is, however, contrary to the statutory language that the creditable tax is the full value of the property adjusted or reduced by a statutory percentage multiplied by the tax rate. The Court ruling and the Presidential decree are wrong in that they apply the adjusted value of the property to the tax rate defined by reference to the unadjusted full value of the property. This inconsistency unduly reduces the credit by the percentage of the adjustment. 6. The property tax statutes assumes that the tax will systematically reduce the market prices of the real properties and help the citizens acquire housing. It is a mis-perception confusing the tax-exclusive price with the actual acquisition cost or the tax-inclusive price. In terms of the tax-inclusive price, the property taxes and the transaction taxes work in the same way, and increase the market prices and hurts the buyers. 7. Owning multiple houses does not impair other potential buyer’s chance of buying a house any more than a single house to the extent the multiple houses in sum do not exceed the value or size of the single house. The Constitution guarantees that a person may live without culpability in the most expensive single house that he or she can afford. Given this guarantee, owing multiple houses also must be permitted within the size or value of the former’s single house. 8. Per the language of the statute, the comprehensive property tax is based on the idea of the horizontal and the vertical equity. It is a self-defeating idea. Equity will demand an alternative idea of a net wealth tax, uniformly covering real and other properties and deducting the debts of the taxpayers. 9. The property tax statutes, decrees and regulations are pervasively entangled with inconsistencies and many of the decrees and regulations can hardly be justified by the statutory languages. The whole system is vulnerable to challenges by a formal or legalistic interpreter.
<Keywords>
real property tax, local property tax, comprehensive property tax, equity.
이창희, "부동산 보유세의 회고와 전망", 조세법연구, Vol.30, No.3(2024), pp.91-163.
<국문초록>
재산세와 종합부동산세는 온갖정책나아가정치적색깔을담다보니법령의글귀와 짜임새가매우혼란스럽고여러가지무리가있다.이혼란을잘보이는보기가대법원 2023. 8. 31. 선고 2019두39796 판결로 현행 시행령에 따른 종합부동산세 과세처분을 인 정한판결이다. 이판결의전사(前史)로대법원2015.6.24. 선고 2012두7073 판결은 옛 시행규칙이법률과어긋난다고보고과세처분을취소했다. 그러자행정부는같은내용 을시행령에넣었다.기실이시행령내용은종래의대법원판결과어긋나고나아가법률 해석상불가능함에도불구하고2019두39796 판결은 시행령에따른과세처분을그냥유 지했다. 이 사건에서드러나듯재산세와종합부동산세에관해서는법률과명령이정하 고있는온갖내용이서로부딪히고헌법이나법률해석상가능한가라는문제가계속나 온다. 법률에 어긋나지않는한명령이나행정해석을따른다고(Chevron deference) 전 제하더라도그렇다.법률의글귀,입법목적과체계,헌법적제약,이런것을다따져서당 연하거나적어도가능한것과아예가능하지도않은것을따지고앞뒤가안맞는모순을 정리하는체계적해석론이불가피한시점에이르렀다.구체적으로이글의분석에서드 러난 시사점은다음과같이요약할수있다. 1) 종합부동산세를지방세로옮겨도위헌은아니고재산세를종합부동산세와통합해서 국세로옮겨와도위헌은아니다.헌법해석이나입법단계에서는지방세란없다.논점은그저기획재정부와국세청아니면행정안전부와지방자치단체,어느쪽에법안제 출 권한과관리권한을줄것인가의문제일뿐이다. 2) 종합부동산세를 지방세로 옮기자는 주장은 누진세를 폐지하자는생각을전제로한 것이 많다. 누진세를 폐지한다면 재산세로 충분하다. 3) 종합부동산세를 누진세로 유지한다면 지방자치단체가 공동으로 관리해서 종합부동 산세를부과하는것보다는국가가관리하는것이낫다. 이미지난역사에서실험은 끝났다. 지방세로 옮겨서행정안전부가종합부동산세액을계산하고부과만다시지 방자치단체로넘기자는생각도있지만행정안전부보다는국세청이훨씬잘할수있 는일이다. 4) 종합부동산세를전액부동산교부세로지방정부에넘겨주어서균형발전에쓰게한다 는것은실상종합부동산세와는무관하다.균형발전재원이필요하다면어떤세금에 서 충당하든아무차이가없다. 5) 재산세를 종합부동산세에서 전액공제않더라도당연위헌이아닌것이야당연하다. 한편현행법해석론으로는2중과세부담이남아도좋다는대법원판례와헌법재판소 결정은틀렸다. ‘재산세＝재산×세율’이라는식에서재산과세율을서로다른전제 하에계산한까닭이다. 재산은공정시장가액비율을곱해서줄인금액으로계산하고 세율은같은비율을곱하기전의재산가치로계산한까닭이다.논리의앞뒤가안맞 는다. 6) 보유세를통한부동산가격안정이란착시이거나눈속임일뿐이다.보유세든거래세 든세금은집없는사람들이집사는것을오히려막을뿐이다. 7) 다주택자라도합산면적이나가액이큰집하나정도라면다른사람에게미치는영향 은1주택자와같다. 돈많은사람이크고좋은집에사는것자체가헌법이보장하는 기본권이라면, 집여러채인사람도그정도범위안에서는중과세할이유를찾기어 렵다. 그 정도를 넘는다주택이라면중과세도일응정당화할수있다. 8) 종합부동산세의근거를공평특히수직적공평에서찾는것은자가당착이고,공평에 터잡자면순재산세내지부유세가맞다.부유세에서는부동산말고다른재산도과세 대상으로 삼아야하고채무는공제해주어야한다. 9) 현행 지방세법이나종합부동산세법및그에딸린명령에는앞뒤가엉키거나엄격해 석이라는잣대를대는순간허물어질내용이많다.법해석방법을총동원해서현행법 령의내용을옹호하더라도지금대로지키기는어렵다.어차피법령전체를정비할때 가되었다.
<주제어>
보유세, 재산세, 종합부동산세, 이중과세, 공평.
<Abstract>
Korean property tax system on real property consists of the two tiers of the local property tax and the national ‘comprehensive property tax’ assessed on the value of the sum of the real properties located anywhere in the nation. Incorporating various economic policies and even political motives, this two tier system is pervaded by confusing language and complicated and conflicting structures. A Supreme Court ruling of 2023, a de facto reversal of a 2015 ruling, demonstrates this problem. In 2015 the Court ruled that the full amount of the local property tax is creditable from the national tax, invalidating a ministry regulation to the contrary. In aftermath of the decision, the content of the invalidated regulation was revived in the presidential decree. In 2023, the Court upheld the decree even though the content of the decree is exactly the same as the invalidated regulation and, as argued in this paper, is contrary to the statutory language. As revealed in this episode, the current legal status of the local and national property tax system is in chaos. Rules are often inconsistent and the decrees and regulations are often beyond the boundary of the interpretive boundary of the statutes. A systematic review is unavoidable, as summarized in the following. 1. The Korean Constitution does not mandate that the comprehensive real property tax remain national tax, nor that the local property tax remain local government tax. The Constitution does not refer to the concept of a local government tax and any and all taxes are at the discretion of the statutory enactments by the National Assembly. The national versus local issue only concerns the administration of the tax, i.e., the choice between the Ministry of the Strategy and Finance and the National Tax Administration on the one hand and the Ministry of the Interior and Safety and the local governments on the other hand. 2, The argument for delegating the comprehensive real property tax to the local governments presupposes the abolition of the graduated rate of the tax. Without the graduated tax burden, it is not necessary to keep the tax at the national level. 3. With graduated tax rates on all properties in the nation, the comprehensive tax can be better managed by the National Tax Administration than the local governments in joint action or the Ministry of the Interior and Safety. History does not have to repeat itself. 4. Currently all revenue from the comprehensive national tax is transferred to the local governments. The revenue transfer is a separate issue from the design of the property tax system. Such transfer can be funded from any national tax. 5. Not crediting the full amount of the local property tax is not contrary to the Constitution. It is, however, contrary to the statutory language that the creditable tax is the full value of the property adjusted or reduced by a statutory percentage multiplied by the tax rate. The Court ruling and the Presidential decree are wrong in that they apply the adjusted value of the property to the tax rate defined by reference to the unadjusted full value of the property. This inconsistency unduly reduces the credit by the percentage of the adjustment. 6. The property tax statutes assumes that the tax will systematically reduce the market prices of the real properties and help the citizens acquire housing. It is a mis-perception confusing the tax-exclusive price with the actual acquisition cost or the tax-inclusive price. In terms of the tax-inclusive price, the property taxes and the transaction taxes work in the same way, and increase the market prices and hurts the buyers. 7. Owning multiple houses does not impair other potential buyer’s chance of buying a house any more than a single house to the extent the multiple houses in sum do not exceed the value or size of the single house. The Constitution guarantees that a person may live without culpability in the most expensive single house that he or she can afford. Given this guarantee, owing multiple houses also must be permitted within the size or value of the former’s single house. 8. Per the language of the statute, the comprehensive property tax is based on the idea of the horizontal and the vertical equity. It is a self-defeating idea. Equity will demand an alternative idea of a net wealth tax, uniformly covering real and other properties and deducting the debts of the taxpayers. 9. The property tax statutes, decrees and regulations are pervasively entangled with inconsistencies and many of the decrees and regulations can hardly be justified by the statutory languages. The whole system is vulnerable to challenges by a formal or legalistic interpreter.
<Keywords>
real property tax, local property tax, comprehensive property tax, equity.