합병시 이월결손금 및 대손충당금 한도 초과액 승계에 관한 조세전략 사례 연구 (A Case Study on Tax Planning Using Net Operating Loss and Non－Deducted Bad Debt Reserve on Merger)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국세무학회
· 수록지 정보 : 세무와회계저널 / 13권 / 3호 / 113 ~ 140페이지
· 저자명 : 이호용, 최원석

초록

지난 2003년 신용카드 부실사태로 인하여 신용카드회사는 거액의 손실발생과 유동성위기에 직면하여 존립이 위태롭게 되었으며, 2004년초 우리신용카드는 우리은행으로, 외환신용카드는 외환은행으로 흡수합병되었다. 두 은행 모두 합병 검토시에는 피합병법인의 이월결손금 승계요건을 충족하지 못하는 상황이었으나, 절세를 위해 우리신용카드는 추가 유상증자를 통해 이월결손금 승계요건을 충족하는 방안(1안)을, 외환신용카드는 대손충당금 손금산입 한도초과액을 발생시켜 이를승계하는 방안(2안)을 선택하였다. 본 사례연구는 유사한 상황에서 서로 다른 절세방법을 선택한두 회사의 사례를 효과적인 세무계획의 관점에서 비교.분석하였다.
우리신용카드 사례의 경우 우리금융지주가 우리신용카드와 우리은행의 지분을 100% 보유하고있어 ‘계약적 관점’ 및 ‘모든 세금’의 암묵세 관점에서 1안 선택으로 합병비율이 변경되어도 합병비율 변경이 없는 2안과 실질적으로 동일하며, 명목세 측면에서는 1안이 2안보다 3,610억원 유리하였다. ‘모든 비용’의 관점에서는 1안이 유상증자 자금에 대한 기회비용이 발생되는 점에서 불리하나 그 효과는 크지 않았다. 따라서 우리신용카드는 보다 더 효과적인 세무계획을 선택한 것이다.
외환신용카드 사례의 경우 외환은행이 외환신용카드의 지분을 68.6%만 보유하여 ‘계약적 관점’과 ‘모든 세금’의 암묵세 관점에서 합병비율이 변경되는 1안이 2안보다 불리하고, 명목세 관점에서는 1안이 2안보다 274억원 유리하였다. ‘모든 비용’의 관점에서 1안은 유상증자 자금의 기회비용이 명목세액 절감액을 초과하며, 추가적인 합병비용 증가를 초래할 수 있었다. 따라서 외환신용카드도 더욱 효과적인 세무계획을 선택한 것이다.
또한 본 사례는 계약적 관점에서 과세당국도 거래당사자 중 하나로 인식해야 하는 필요성을 보여준다. 두 사례에서 이월결손금 승계요건 중 충족하지 못한 지분율 10% 기준은 조세회피 방지를목적으로 제정된 것이나, 본 사례의 합병은 지분율 10%에 미달하지만 조세회피 목적이 아님은 분명하였으므로, 세법 개정을 통해 이월결손금을 승계하였다면 두 법인 모두 보다 더 효과적인 세무계획이 되었을 것이다.

영어초록

Many of Korean credit card companies were threatened with collapse due to their huge debts and deteriorating asset quality in 2003 when a credit bubble burst in Korea. In respond to liquidity problems of a credit card company, some of Korean banks were required to merge troubled credit card companies. As a result of it, Woori Banks merged Woori Credit Card and Korea Exchange Bank merged Korea Exchange Credit Card.
In both cases, at the initial phase of merger, two banks were not supposed to enjoy tax benefits stemming from a transfer of net operating losses incurred by two credit card companies because both cases did not meet the conditions stated in the Corporate Income Tax Law for net operating loss transfer to a merging entity. In order to maximize tax benefit from the merger, Woori Bank and Woori Credit Card chose to increase capital of Woori Credit Card before the merger with a view to meeting a key condition for net operating loss transfer (Option1) and Korea Exchange Bank and Korea Exchange Credit Card selected to transfer of non－deducted bad debt reserve of Korea Exchange Credit Card (Option2).
This study presents an analysis on two cases which two banks chose a different tax saving strategy in a similar situation and adopted a tax planning approach.
In case of Woori Credit Card, Woori Financial Holding Company owned 100% share of Woori Bank and Woori Credit Card so that there is no substantial difference, from a contractual perspective as well as an implicit tax perspective of all taxes, between Option 1 entailed a change in the merger ratio and Option 2 brought no change in the merger ratio. From a explicit tax perspective, Option 1 is more favorable by 360 billion Korean Won, whereas Option 1 is slightly less favorable owing to an opportunity cost arising from the increase of capital from an all cost perspective. Consequently, this study concludes that Woori Credit Card was successful in choosing a more favorable tax planning strategy associated with the merger.
In case of Korea Exchange Credit Card, Korea Exchange Bank owned 68.6% share of Korea Exchange Credit Card so that Option 1 subject to a change in merge ratio is less favorable from a contractual perspective and an implicit tax perspective of all taxes. On the other hand, Option 1 is favorable by 27.4 billion Korean Won from a explicit tax perspective. In Option 1, an opportunity cost resulting from an increase of capital exceeded a reduction in explicit tax amount if analyzed from an all cost perspective. Also there would have been an increase of the merge cost if Korea Exchange Bank had chosen Option 1. In this regard, Korea Exchange Credit Card is believed to choose more favorable tax strategy in connection with the merger.
Additionally, this case study suggests that a tax authority should be considered as one of participants in transaction. As a matter of fact, the conditions provided in the Corporate Income Tax Law for a transfer of net operation loss of merged entity were created for the purpose of preventing tax evasion using a merger of entity with net operating loss. So, it is likely that tax revision to change its conditions for transfer of net operating loss was acceptable as mergers in both cases was not designed to enjoy tax benefits by a transfer of net operating loss. Their tax planning related to mergers would have been more effective if they had been able to utilize net operating losses from two merged credit card companies.

참고자료

· 없음