법인세법상 집합투자기구의 외국납부세액공제 특례에 관한 입법론적 고찰 (Legislative Consideration of the Special Regime of Foreign Tax Credit for Collective Investment Vehicles under the Corporate Tax Act)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 사법발전재단
· 수록지 정보 : 사법 / 1권 / 38호 / 3 ~ 36페이지
· 저자명 : 이재호

초록

직접투자와 집합투자의 형식에 따라 국외투자에 대한 세부담이 달라지는 과세불형평의 문제를 해소하기 위하여 2005년 말 법인세법 개정 시 법인세법 제57조의2(이하 ‘환급규정’)가 신설되었다. 환급규정의 핵심적인 내용은, 국외투자소득의 14% 한도로 그 국외투자소득에 대한 외국납부세액을 해당 집합투자기구에 환급해 주는 것이다. 입법부는 직접투자와 집합투자 간 세부담에 영향을 미치는 요소로 외국납부세액의 공제 여부에 초점을 맞추는 한편, 집합투자의 투자자로 거주자를 상정하였다. 그 결과로, 직접투자에서는 외국납부세액을 공제 받지 못하는 일부 투자자들도 외국납부세액을 환급받는 한편, 국고유출 내지 자원배분의 왜곡문제를 초래하였다. 이를 입법적으로 해결하기 위해서는 폐지안이 상책이나 현실적 제약이 있다면, 차선책으로 투자기구 단계가 아닌 투자자 단계로의 전면적 개편도 유력한 대안으로 고려해 볼 수 있다. 하지만 이러한 대안도 소득세법상 집합투자기구제도 등으로 인해 실행상 한계가 있을 수 있어 현실적으로 수용가능한 정비방안은 환급규정의 존치하에 위에서 든 문제점을 줄이는 것이다. 그 실천적 방안을 요약하면 다음과 같다.
첫째, 비회사형 집합투자기구의 경우 국외투자에 따른 소득의 원천지국과의 조세조약을 적용받지 못함에 따른 국고유출 내지 자원배분의 왜곡의 문제를 해소하기 위해 비회사형 집합투자기구도 회사형 집합투자기구와 마찬가지로 법인세법상 납세의무자인 법인의 범주에 넣고 법인세법 제51조에 따른 지급배당금소득공제를 적용받을 수 있도록 한다.
둘째, 국외투자의 방식에 있어서 혼성단체의 지분투자까지 장려하여 세제혜택을 부여할 정당성이 뚜렷하지 않은 점, 직접투자에서는 공제혜택을 받지 못하는 투자자들이 있어 혼성단체에 대한 외국납부세액공제는 엄격히 운영할 필요가 있는 점 등을 고려할 때, 환급대상 외국납부세액의 범위에 혼성단체 외국납부세액을 제외한다.
셋째, 집합투자기구가 국외투자를 행함에 있어서 원천지국에서의 세부담을 낮추어 국고유출이나 자원배분의 왜곡문제를 부분적으로나마 시정하기 위하여 현행 14%의 환급세액의 한도를 인하한다.

영어초록

At the time of the late 2015 amendment of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 57-2 of the Corporate Tax Act (hereinafter the “Instant Provision”) was newly enacted with a view to addressing tax inequity arising from the disparate tax burdens on outbound investments depending on whether it is direct or collective investment.
The gist of the Instant Provision is to refund taxes paid in foreign countries for foreign source investment income not to the investors but to the collective investment vehicle, up to 14% of the foreign source investment income. This stipulation is based on the following two legislative premises: (a) the availability of foreign tax credit is deemed a major factor affecting tax inequity between direct and collective investments; and (b) the collective investor is considered a resident.
However, the tax regime for such financial incomes as interests and dividends may also affect tax inequity. In this sense, foreign tax refunds to resident investors might not necessarily be imperative. Furthermore, one of the problems associated with the Instant Provision is that foreign tax refunds are given to non-resident and non-profit organization investors. This has resulted in some investors benefitting from undue foreign tax credits, while causing drain on national revenue and/or distortion in resource distribution. The best legislative option to resolve the issue would be to abrogate the Instant Provision altogether. In the event it is realistically unlikely, the second best option would be to seriously consider wholly amending the current provision to make foreign taxes refundable at the investor level, instead of the collective investment vehicle level. The revised provision would confine the scope of investors eligible for refund solely to residents. However, these options may still face practical challenges due to the collective investment vehicle regime under the Income Tax Act. The most realistically acceptable way to deal with the issue is to minimize the aforementioned problem while maintaining the Instant Provision. Practical means of doing so can be summarized as follows.
First, the scope of corporate income taxpayers under the Corporate Tax Act should include non-corporate type collective investment vehicles in the form of trust or partnership, making them eligible for tax credit for dividends paid under Article 51 of the Corporate Tax Act. This is to minimize any drain on national revenue or distortion in resource distribution due to non-corporate type collective investment vehicles’ ineligibility for tax treaties with the source country from which income is derived by their outbound investments.
Second, foreign taxes paid in outbound investments using hybrid entities should be excluded from the refundable foreign taxes, taking into account the following factors: (a) there is not enough justification for granting tax benefits even to hybrid entities’ equity investment as a form of outbound investment; and (b) in view of those investors ineligible for tax credit in direct investment, a strict application of foreign tax credit to hybrid entities is called for.
Finally, the 14% ceiling on refund rate should be lowered, as a means to address such issues as drain on national revenue and distortion of resource distribution, by offering incentives to reduce collective investment vehicles’ tax burden in the source country on their outbound investments.

참고자료

· 없음