초록 열기/닫기 버튼
실질과세 원칙은 헌법의 조세부담 평등 원칙을 적용하고 조세법률주의를 보완하기 위해 형식이 아닌실질에 따라 과세한다는 원칙이다. 관세법은 헌법과 다수의 판례에 의하여 실질과세가 적용됨을 확인하였으나, 실질과세에 관한 현재 명문화된 규정이 없어, 헌법상 조세법률주의 위배, 국민의 재산권 침해뿐만아니라, 납세자의 예측 가능성 및 법적안정성 결여, 과세 관청의 행정권 남용 등 법적 위배 소지가 있다. 본 연구는 관세법상 실질과세의 입법 및 일반규정의 신설을 위한 실질과세의 일반조항에 관한 법리 검토및 관세법의 특성을 반영한 입법 방안을 제시하는 것을 연구 목적으로 한다. 이를 위해 국내 및 주요 선진국의 판례, 국세기본법 등 조세법의 실질과세와 관련된 문헌 연구를 통하여 관세법에서의 실질과세 원칙의 적용 가능성에 관한 법리를 검토하였다. 관세를 비롯한 조세는 법률에 따라 납세의무를 성립시키는과세요건과 조세의 부과·징수 절차에 따라 결정되며, 신고납부 원칙에서 수입물품에 대한 수입신고 및신고수리 사실행위의 발생으로 과세요건 및 납세의무가 성립하므로 사실행위의 특성상 조세 회피 목적을위해 필요한 의사(意思) 자체가 존재하지 않으므로 실질과세 원칙이 적용이 제한될 수 있다. 향후 관세법상 다국적기업의 과세표준 적정성 여부에 관한 연구와 법률행위로서의 부과고지에서의 실질과세 적용에관한 추가 연구가 필요하다.
The constitution of the Korea provides for the obligation of citizens, represented by their elected officials, to pay taxes. Taxes, including customs duties, are determined in accordance with the law, which establishes the obligation to pay taxes and the procedures for imposing and collecting taxes. The principle of substantive taxation was introduced to prevent the harmful effects of tax inequality and to supplement the principle of taxation within constitutional law regarding interpretation and application of tax legislation. Although the constitution and several precedents have confirmed that substantive taxation applies to customs laws, there are no current regulations on substantive taxation, which may violate the constitutional principle of no taxation without representation and infringe on people's property rights, as well as legal violations such as lack of predictability and legal stability for taxpayers and abuse of administrative power by tax authorities. The purpose of this study is to review the jurisprudence on the general provisions of substantive taxation in the National Taxation Law and to propose legislative measures in the customs act in order to establish legislation and general provisions on substantive taxation in the customs act. To propose legislative measures for the introduction of substantive taxation in the customs act, this study conducted a literature review of precedents in Korea and major developed countries and related tax law provisions. The study also analyzed the general provisions on substantive taxation in Article 14 of the current National Tax Act to examine the jurisprudence on the applicability of the principle of substantive taxation in customs law. According to the results of the study, the general rule of substantive taxation could be inserted in Chapter 1, Article 2 of the customs act, which states that“if the attribution of imported goods or transactions subject to taxation is only in name and there is a separate person to whom the goods are actually attributed, this law shall be applied with the person who imports the goods as the tax obligor”. On the other hand, the customs act has no gaps between form and substance, so there is no room for substantive taxation, unlike national income tax based on taxable income, as the taxable event is determined, and the tax obligation is established at the time the declarant declares the importation to the customs office. In addition, the customs act determines the taxable event and the tax obligation by the occurrence of factual events such as import declaration, acceptance of declarations, and release of imported goods, so there is no room for the principle of substantive taxation, as the intention necessary for the purpose of tax evasion does not exist due to the nature of the factual event. This study provides a jurisprudential review of the general provisions of substantive taxation in the national tax act and proposes legislative measures in the customs act in order to establish legislation and general provisions of substantive taxation in the customs act. It differs from existing studies by analyzing the Korean Supreme Court’s precedents on the application and scope of substantive taxation and proposes legislative measures through jurisprudential review.
키워드열기/닫기 버튼
Act of Fact, Customs Law, National Tax Law, Taxpayer, Substance over form Doctrine, Principle of No Taxation without Representation
