헌법적 관점에서 본 부동산관련 지방세제의 최근 논의와 시사점

In 2020, in response to skyrocketing Korean housing prices, the Korean government initiated tax reorganization scheme to dramatically increase both the real estate transaction tax and the property tax for the purpose of stabilizing housing price as well as protecting real demands. Major elements of the reorganization scheme include; “tax rate increase for the real estate acquisition made by multiple homeowners and corporates” regarding acquisition tax; “comprehensive real estate tax rate increase” in respect to ownership tax; and “capital gains tax increase along with additional residence term requirement for ‘special tax deduction for long-term holding’ regarding capital gains tax, which all them have been passed by the National Assembly after a month from the government’s announcement on its plan to resolve the issue. However, such a rapid tax scheme revision, with its insufficient expert review process and policy-centric conduct, faced criticism for infringing basic rights of individuals and compromising predictability. As the latest reorganization scheme results in significant reduction to the Special Tax Deduction rate due to its additional requirements, the scheme is likely to violate the property rights, residential stability rights, freedom of relocation, freedom of occupation, equal taxation principle, and principle of trust protection. Moreover, the provision in which the ‘high-grade houses’ are excluded from the tax exemption of single-householdsingle- house taxation condition would also violate property rights, residential stability rights, freedom of relocation, equal taxation principle. As the scheme includes a huge raise in acquisition taxes and acquisition by gift taxes imposed on multiple homeowners and corporates, which would take effect immediately upon its promulgation, it brings concerns of violating the principle of trust protection, equal taxation principle, and property rights as well. Furthermore, the policy for ‘realistic land value by public announcement’ has resulted in heavier tax burden for low-mid priced single-homeowners and unintended discrimination towards marital joint-owners of a real estates, which is also violation of property rights and article 36(1) of the Constitution. When a local government passed certain ordinance providing tax cuts for singlehousehold- single-house owners in response to comprehensive tax burden rise, a dispute arose as its superior government put a brake on passing of such ordinance. However, the said ordinance should not be decided as unconstitutional or illegal given the current COVID19 pandemic spread and that such tax cut ordinances are validated with its comprehensive delegation. It is not disputed that tax laws can serve policy purposes, but predictability must be guaranteed for the sake of saving social expenses in dealing with tax evasion, tax resistances and such tax system collapse due to taxpayers’ loss of good faith. In this light, any core violation in basic rights should be closely inspected before amending tax laws.