초록 열기/닫기 버튼
교육세는 1982년 학교교육의 정상화를 기하는데 필요한 재원을 확보하기 위하여 신설되었고 1986년까지 5년간 한시적인 목적세로 운영하도록 하되 그 세수는 교육기반의 확충을 위한 학교시설과 교원처우개선에 우선적으로 충당하도록 제정되었으나 5년을 지나 현재까지도 폐지되지 않고 있다. 신설 당시 교육세는 과세주체가 중앙정부인 국세로서 부가세였으며 한시적인 성격을 가진 임시세였고 사용 목적은 학교시설과 교원처우개선의 두 영역으로 국한되어 있었다. 그러나 최근 본래의 목적에서 벗어난 과세원칙이현재 국세청과 금융 ․ 보험업자의 교육세와 관련된 논쟁이 되고 있다. 대법원은 최근 변액보험의 특별계정이 금융보험업자의 수익금액인지 여부와 관련된 의미 있는 판결을 선고하였다(이하 ‘대상판결’이라 한다). 우선, 대상판결은 순자산을 증가시키는 거래로 인하여 발생하는 수익금액으로서 교육세법 시행령 제4조 제1항에 해당하는 금융, 보험업자의 수익금액은 위 시행령 제4조 제2항에 해당하지 않는 이상 교육세 과세표준에산입되어야 한다고 판시하였다. 대상판결은 금융, 보험업자의 수익금액의범위를 명확히 하였다는 점에서 의미가 있다. 다음으로 대상판결은 변액보험의 특별계정과 관련된 보험료와 운용수익이 실질적으로 보험업자에게 귀속된다고 보았다. 보험계약에 기한 보험료가 납부된 후 보험사고의 발생 등보험계약상의 보험금 지급요건을 충족한 경우에 비로소 보험금으로 반환되며, 최저보장금액의 한도 내에서는 보험실적이 악화되어 손실이 발생하더라도 최저보장금액을 받을 수 있게 된다는 측면에서 대상판결은 타당하다. 다음으로, 대상판결은 관련법에 의하면 변액보험 특별계정은 투자신탁으로 간주되지만 조세법적으로도 투자신탁과 동일하게 취급할 필요는 없다고 보았다. 신탁재산에 대한 과세상 취급은 원칙적으로 민사적 권리관계에따라야 하고, 이와 달리 취급하기 위해서는 별도의 법령상 근거가 필요하다는 측면에서 타당하다. 교육세는 목적세임에도 과세대상에 금융·보험업자를 납세의무자로 규정하여 금융·보험업자가 교육세와 직접적인 관련이 있는지 불분명하여 수익자부담원칙이 존재하지 않는다는 점에서 비판을 받고 있다. 이러한 비판으로대표적인 목적세인 교육세의 위헌 논란까지 불거지고 있다. 대상 판결은 결론에 있어서는 타당하지만, 위와 같은 교육세에 대한 비판론적인 관점에서는 그 수익금액의 범위를 해석함에 있어서는 조심스러운 접근이 필요하다.
Educational tax had been established in 1982 in the form of earmarked tax for five years to obtain finances required to stabilize the educational system especially to improve the rights for teachers and the conditions of school facilities. The educational tax that was meant to be valid only for five years, however, still remains today. When the educational tax was first introduced, it was considered a national tax as well as a surtax that was meant to be a contingency tax, in which purpose of the usage was limited within the realm of improving school facilities and rights for teachers. Nonetheless, a policy on educational tax which had lost its initial purpose has recently become an issue between National Tax Service and finance, insurance company. The Supreme Court recently has ruled decision related to whether special account of variable life insurance are to be included and acknowledged as the revenue of the finance, insurance company('decision' below). The decision first acknowledged this revenue is a transaction that increases net assets, and any revenues of financial and insurance companies that are categorized by the Section 4 Clause 1 of the Educational Tax Law that are also excluded from Section 4 Clause 2 of the Educational Tax Law are to be taxed according to the rates of the Educational Tax Law. This decision is significant in that it clearly defines the boundaries of the revenues of financial and insurance companies. The decision also concluded that the insurances fees and operation revenues related to special account of variable life insurance were to be acknowledged as activities of the insurance companies. When the insurance product payout conditions are fulfilled such as an event of an accident covered by insurance after the term insurance payment has been paid during the insurance contract duration etc., in this case insurance payouts are made, and even when losses occur due to underperforming insurance products within the limits of the minimum guaranteed amounts, this decision is appropriate because it supports the payment of the minimum guaranteed amounts. Next, the decision concluded that while special account of variable life insurance were considered an investment trust according to related laws, the decision also viewed that special account of variable life insurance were not required to be treated according to the identical taxation laws of investment trust. The handling of taxation of investment trust, as a rule, must follow the civil laws pertaining to the trust, and this decision is appropriate in that it is necessary for additional legal basis in order to handle these cases differently. Criticism lies in the fact that a finance, insurance company is held responsible for the educational tax even though there exists no clear guideline as to whether the finance, insurance company has the responsibility to pay the educational tax. Because such criticism has resulted in a controversy over unconstitutionality about the educational tax, which is one of a major earmarked tax. Although the decision is valid in terms of the conclusion, critics may argue that a careful approach is needed for the analysis of profits range.
키워드열기/닫기 버튼
educational taxes, profits, finance and insurance company, variable life insurance, separate account, investment trust
