소득세법상 차익거래 및 헤지거래 과세의 문제점 검토

Being as profits from arbitrage and hedge transactions are profits from trading, it is reasonable to be taxed on the basis of capital gains. However, the article 16 (1) 13 and 17 (1) 10 of the Income Tax Act are taxed as interest income or dividend income when arbitraging or hedging transactions of interest-bearing and dividend-based products directly developed or sold or intermediated by financial institutions. The reason for the taxation is to prevent the tax avoidance using the new financial products. But, arbitrage or hedge trading is a transaction to take profits or eliminate the risk of price fluctuation by taking the abnormal phenomenon of the basic asset price as an investment opportunity and there is no reason to regard it as a tax avoidance. This is because the Japanese-Yen Swap Deposit, which became the legislative opportunity of this regulation, is also a fairly simple form of buying arbitrage, in order to gain risk free profit by taking the abnormal phenomenon of exchange rate as investment opportunity. Therefore, the article 16 (1) 13 and 17 (1) 10 of the current Income Tax Act shall be deleted as it is reasonable to impose taxation on the transfer income according to the nature of the arbitrage or hedge transaction. And it is reasonable to newly define it in the article 94 (1) 5 of the Income Tax Act. The income from Sell Arbitrage Trading should also be included in the scope of taxation, and risk-free arbitrage transactions not involving financial institutions need to be included in the taxable income. Such legislation would be reasonable with the spot exchange taxation. If the legislation of comprehensive taxation regulation on arbitrage and hedge transactions as mentioned above is difficult in the short term, it is reasonable to transfer the provisions of the article 16 (1) 13 and 17 (1) 10 of the Income Tax Act to the article 94 (1) 5 of the Income Tax Act and prescribe them as transferable income.