주택 관련 종합부동산세의 문제점과 개선방안에 대한 연구

The ratio of the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax relative to tax revenue was 2%. Since the persistent rise of real state prices, the amount of tax and the number of tax payers has been increased every year. As a result, tax payers have been overburdened. Since its introduction in 2005, the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax has been revised several times due to the change of the Korean government's real estate policy. The significant inflection points were the establishment of the Individual Taxation Principles according to the decision of the Constitutional Court of Korea (2006 Hun-Ba 112, Nov 13, 2008) and the introduction of the Tax Credits. Recently, however, several issues have been raised with this policy. Firstly, in terms of fair taxation, differentiation in taxation depending on the purposes and types of holding and the issue of conformity with other laws have been pointed out. Secondly, in the process of calculation, the formulation of the assessment standard tax base and the upper limit are unreasonable. Moreover, the tax-bearing capacity of the taxpayers is not considered. To improve the impartiality of the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax, the status of residential and non-residential should be classified by the purposes and types of holding. In doing so, the government should provide benefits to resident housings and impose a heavy tax on non-resident housings. With the purpose of maintaining consistency with other laws, the benefits of temporary two-homeowners should be equally applied to that of Capital Gains Tax. Moreover, in the long term, real-owners should receive benefits by deducting the Property Tax and Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax from the Capital Gain Tax. A number of things should be considered to improve the issues related to the tax calculation process. First, a new reevaluating method could be introduced based on price of acquisition when calculating the base of taxation in the process of tax calculation. Second, the upper limit of the tax burden should be determined based on the amount of tax paid. Comparative method of minimum tax should be applied in the process of imposing tax to the new buildings that do not have tax paid in the previous year. Third, the regulation of the deferment of Payment should consider the tax-bearing capacities of the taxpayers. If one owns a property with a loan, charging a certain rate of interest during the deferral period should be considered.