현행 가산세 제도의 문제점과 개선방안에 관한 연구 (A Study on the Problems and Improvement of Additional Tax)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국공법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 공법연구 / 39권 / 1호 / 393 ~ 425페이지
· 저자명 : 이전오

초록

가산세란 세법에서 규정하는 의무의 성실한 이행을 확보하기 위하여 세법에 따라 산출한 세액에 가산하여 징수하는 금액을 말한다. 가산세는 세법상의 의무이행을 간접적으로 강제하는 유효한 수단이지만, 현행 가산세 규정은 여러 가지 문제점을 안고 있으므로 다음과 같이 고쳐야 한다.
첫째, 가산세에 공통된 사유를 규정한 「국세기본법」규정 이외에, 각 개별세법에서 수많은 가산세 관련 규정을 두고 있다. 그런데 개별세법마다 가산세 부과사유와 가산세율이 구구각각이라서 세무전문가라 할지라도 그 내용을 파악하기 어렵다. 이런 상태에서 납세자가 의무를 게을리하였다고 하여 제재를 가하는 것이 과연 타당한지 의문이다. 전체적으로 가산세 규정들을 재검토하여 폐지할 것은 폐지하고 남은 것들은 가능한한 모든 세목에 공통되게 규정하는 것이 바람직하다.
둘째, 국세를 납부기한까지 납부하지 아니한 경우에는 「국세징수법」에 따라 가산금이 징수되는데, 가산금 외에 납부불성실 가산세 제도를 추가로 둘 필요가 있는지 의문이다. 납세자의 무신고나 과소신고가 있게 되면 납부불성실 즉 무납부 또는 과소납부는 필연적으로 따라오는 결과이지 납세자의 별도 행위를 필요로 하지 않는다. 납세자의 별개 행위가 따로 없는데도 신고불성실 가산세 외에 납부불성실 가산세를 추가로 부과하는 것은 타당하지 않다. 따라서, 납부불성실 가산세는 폐지하고 이것을 가산금에 통합시키는 것이 옳다고 생각하며, 납부불성실 가산세를 그대로 두는 경우에도 현재의 계산비율(연 10.95%)은 은행 금리에 비추어 보면 지나치게 높으므로 이를 낮추어야 한다.
셋째, 「국세기본법」 제49조가 일정한 가산세에 대하여 의무위반의 종류별로 1억원의 한도를 설정한 것은 바람직하나, 이것 이외에 모든 종류의 가산세를 합산한 금액이 원래 납부하여야 할 세액의 특정 비율(가령 50%)을 넘을 수 없다는 한도 규정을 둘 필요가 있다.
넷째, 개별세법에는 여러 가지 종류의 가산세가 있는데 그 중에는 같은 의무위반 행위에 대하여 중복 제재를 가하는 게 아닌가 하는 의심이 드는 규정들이 있다. 예컨대, 「소득세법」과 「법인세법」에서 원천징수의무 불이행 가산세와 지급명세서 부제출 가산세를 별도로 규정하고 있기 때문에 두 가지 가산세를 모두 부과하는 데 이것은 중복과세로서 불합리하다. 둘 중에서 큰 금액에 해당하는 가산세만 적용하도록 법을 고쳐야 한다.
결론적으로, 현재의 가산세 제도는 지나치게 혼란스럽고 또 가혹하므로 현행 가산세 규정 중에서 너무 불합리한 것은 폐지하고, 수정하거나 보완할 규정들은 하루 속히 정비하여야 할 것이다.

영어초록

Additional tax is the amount collected in addition to the amount of tax calculated in accordance with the tax law, for the purpose of assuring the faithful fulfillment of duties provided by the tax law.
The current provisions on additional tax holds several problems and should be revised as follows.
First, in addition to the Framework Act on National Taxes, which provides the common ground for additional tax, individual tax laws also have various provisions concerning additional tax, as is in the case of Income Tax Law, Corporation Tax Law, Value Added Tax Law, Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Law, Restriction of Special Taxation Law, or Local Tax Law. However, the grounds for and rates of additional tax is so varied and different for each individual laws that it is difficult even for a tax-specialist to fully understand their contents. At this point, it is doubtful whether it is reasonable or appropriate to inflict the legal punishment of additional tax upon a taxpayer for neglecting his or her duty. Therefore, provisions on additional tax should be reviewed in general and provisions that need to be abolished should be done so, while the remaining provisions should be revised so that they would be applied equally on possibly all tax items.
Second, when a taxpayer does not pay his or her national tax by the deadline, the person is levied additional dues. Then, it is doubtful whether the system of Additional Tax on Insincere Payment is really necessary, in addition to the already levied additional dues. When a taxpayer practices non-filing or under-reported return, Insincere Payment, or non-payment or under-payment, is only the natural and inevitable outcome that follows and does not require a separate action by the taxpayer. Then, it is illogical to levy Additional Tax on Insincere Payment in addition to the additional tax on non-filing or under-reported return, when there was no separate or additional action by the taxpayer. Therefore, the system of Additional Tax on Insincere Payment should be abolished and should be merged into the system of additional dues. Also, even in the case when Additional Tax on Insincere Payment should stay in force, the current calculation rate of 10.95% per year should be lowered, as it is excessively high compared to bank interest rates.
Third, it is ideal that fixed additional taxes provided by the Framework Act on National Taxes has an upper limit of 100 million won by the type of violation concerned. Nevertheless, there should be an additional provision stating that the sum of every type of additional taxes cannot surpass beyond a certain rate of the original amount of tax to be collected, the desirable rate being perhaps 50%.
Fourth, while individual tax laws have various types of additional tax, there are several provisions which raise the doubt of double-punishment for actions that violate the duty of tax. For example, if a person or a corporation liable to withholding fails to pay the amount of tax collected or to be collected, or has paid it insufficiently, the person or the corporation is charged additional tax. Also, when any person or corporation liable to submitting a payment record fails to submit the relevant payment records, additional tax is levied. However, when most of those who are liable to withholding under Income Tax Law or Corporation Tax Law also carry the duty to submit payment records, it is only natural that when a person or a corporation fails to pay the withholding tax, the person or the corporation cannot submit the relevant payment records as well. Then, it is unfair to the taxpayer to pay both of Additional Tax for Unfaithfulness in Withholding, Collection and Payment, and additional tax on failing to submit a payment report, which are separately provided by Income Tax Law and Coportaion Tax Law. Therefore, the provision should be revised so that only the larger amount of the two is levied on the taxpayer.
In general, the current additional tax system is too severe. Thus, provisions in force that are overly unreasonable or unfair should be abolished, while those that need to be revised or improved should be done so as soon as possible.

참고자료

· 없음