「상속세 및 증여세법」상 신종금융상품 평가규정의 문제점 및 개선방안 (A Study on Problems and Improvement Measures on the Evaluation of New Financial Instruments in the Tax Act)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국세법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 조세법연구 / 25권 / 3호 / 485 ~ 527페이지
· 저자명 : 문성훈, 임동원

초록

현행 상증세법은 전통적 금융상품인 주식 및 채권에 대한 평가규정이 일부 존재하지만 신종금융상품에 대한 평가규정은 미비하다. 상증세법은 신종금융상품 중 일부에 대해서는 보충적 평가규정을 두고 있지만, 옵션, 선물, 스왑 등 일반적인 파생금융상품, ELS 등 파생결합증권에 대한 평가규정이 없다. 다양한 신종금융상품의 상속 또는 증여시 납세자의 예측가능성을 제고할 뿐만 아니라 조세회피를 방지할 수 있는 신종금융상품에 대한 상증세법상 구체적인 평가규정의 마련이 필요한 상황이지만, 상증세법상 신종금융상품의 평가에 대한 연구는 거의 없는 것이 현실이다. 이에 본 연구는 신종금융상품에 대한 이론적 연구 뿐만 아니라 실무상 평가방법 등 다양한 측면에서 검토하여 현실적 대안을 제시하려 했다.
연구결과에 따르면 파생결합증권 등 구조화상품에 대한 상증세법상 평가규정을 시행령에 신설하여 평가금액을 명확하게 제시할 필요가 있으며, 신종금융상품 관련 현행 상증세법상 평가규정의 개선방안은 다음과 같다. 첫 번째, 다양한 혼성금융상품에 대한 상증세법상 평가를 위해 자본시장법상 또는 상법상 금융상품의 정의 규정을 이용하여 평가하되, 법적인 형식보다는 혼성금융상품의 경제적 실질을 반영해서 경제적 실질이 유사한 금융상품은 동일하게 평가해야 한다. 두 번째, 신종금융상품을 포함해 상장되어 거래되는 모든 금융상품의 평가에 대해 상장주식과 같이 평가기준일 전후 2개월간 최종 시세가액의 평균 등으로 통일해야 한다. 세 번째, 상장되어 거래되지 않는 장외 파생결합증권 등에 대해서는 발행사나 채권평가회사의 평가모델에 따라 평가할 수 있도록 규정을 마련해야 한다. 네 번째, 전환사채, 신주인수권부사채 등 메자닌금융상품에 대한 현행 상증세법상 평가규정은 혼성증권이라는 경제적 실질을 반영하지 못하는 측면이 있기 때문에, 구조화금융상품과의 조세중립성 제고를 위해 메자닌금융상품과 구조화금융상품 평가도 통일시킬 필요가 있다. 중장기적으로는 신종금융상품에 대한 상증세법 평가는 일본 및 한국의 세부규정중심 접근방법보다는 미국의 원칙중심 접근방법을 취하는 것이 타당할 것이다.

영어초록

Tax evasion is a crime committed by evading taxes with fraud and other unlawful acts. While the “purpose to evade tax” is not required to determine the crime of tax evasion, which is a result of Tatbestand in the context of tax reduction, but the purpose to evade tax as an intent to deceive the National Tax Service-that is a necessary element of fraud and other unlawful acts- is required to constitute the crime of tax evasion. The Supreme Court also makes this clear by ruling that it does not constitute fraud and other unlawful acts where tax revenue has been reduced by opening an account under someone else’s name to defend management rights or to register for Initial Public Offering (IPO). However, how can we determine whether the act of concealment of income was intended to deceive the National Tax Service or with other intent? The Supreme Court did not rule on how to determine the method to determine the affirmative intent to conceal, which is the intent to deceive the National Tax Service. Thus, the paper scrutinizes the method to determine the affirmative intent to conceal when the defendant asserts he or she had other intent which resulted in tax reduction.
Without direct evidence to determine the affirmative intent to conceal, in order to determine the intent to deceive the National Tax Service with the circumstantial facts based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecutor must do the followings：1) the prosecutor needs to prove the hypothesis of affirmative intent to conceal beyond the reasonable doubt that the defendant concealed his or her income to deceive the National Tax Service；and 2) the prosecutor should be able to rule out reasonable doubts about the hypothesis on other intent that the concealment of income has been committed based on intent other than to deceive the National Tax Service.
The specific element of selectivity and blockability should be discussed as to how reasonable doubts about the hypothesis on the other intent can be ruled out if the other intent was asserted. We should look at whether there were options to choose other methods of concealing income to achieve the other intent, and whether the extent of income concealment and the effect of tax reduction have been increased by blocking the natural flow of the execution of the chosen method to conceal income. If the defendant only had one viable option to realize the other intent and had not blocked the natural flow in carrying out the option, then the chosen concealment of income was derived from within the range of realization of the other intent. Thus, the reasonable doubt about the hypothesis on other intent should not be ruled out. Therefore, the prosecutor should completely rule out reasonable doubts about the hypothesis on the other intent by providing circumstantial evidence such as the evidence that exceeds the extent of concealment of income which is within the range of other intent or indicators that are unrelated to the other intent.
But in practice, there is a tendency to find (one is guilty of) affirmative intent to conceal if any signs of concealment of income exists that resulted from assumed affirmative intent to conceal. The Court’s ruling that one’s act becomes fraud and unlawful only when affirmative intent to conceal is added only emphasizes that any reasonable doubt on the hypothesis about the affirmative intent to conceal should be ruled out. Thus, in addition, it is essential to exclude the reasonable doubt on the hypothesis about the other intent.

참고자료

· 없음