지식재산권과 관련된 현행 조세제도의 문제점 및 개선방안

With the advent of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the creation and utilization of intellectual property has become critical determinants of national competitiveness. In response, the government has been operating IPR systems to revitalize the invention and creation, as well as individuals and corporations are actively striving to create and secure IPRs. However, the current tax system related to IPRs is neither rational nor systematic. This thesis analyzes the Taxation problems faced by taxpayers across the lifecycle of IPRs—acquisition, holding, and transactions—focusing on the 「Corporate Tax Act」 and the 「Income Tax Act」. It also proposes measures for improvement. First, the current tax law excessively restricts the scope of IPRs recognized as assets. Only patent right, utility model right, trademark right, and design right can be clearly recognized as assets under the 「Corporate Tax Act」 and the 「Income Tax Act」. This scope is significantly narrower compared to accounting standards and legislative practices in major foreign countries. Furthermore, it is unclear whether copyright and emerging forms of IPRs can be classified as assets under the current tax law. Given the importance of IPRs, it is proposed to amend the current tax law to include IPRs under the 「Framework Act on Intellectual Property」 in the list of intangible assets in the tax law. Second, the current tax law limits the amortization of IPRs to only five or seven years of useful life and the straight-line method without any rational reason. This may affect taxpayers' accounting treatment, causing taxpayers to determine the useful life and the amortization method of IPRs based on tax law rather than economic reality. This will lead to distortion of accounting net profit and taxable income. Therefore, it is suggested that the useful life under the tax law be amended to “useful life selected according to the economic substance of the IPR, not exceeding the legal duration of the IPR” and the amortization method be amended to “the taxpayer can choose between the straight-line method and the declining balance method” to minimize tax adjustments while increasing taxpayer choice. Finally, under the 「Income Tax Act」, income from trading in IPRs by individuals is categorized as either “other income” or “business income” based on the vague criterion of “continuity and recurrence”. However, as the tax burden varies significantly depending on the classification, the lack of clear guidelines for determining continuity and recurrence greatly undermines taxpayers’ ability to predict their tax obligations. Therefore, I suggest that the tax law should establish criteria for determining continuous and recurring activities using the number of transactions, duration, and amount of income as indicators. To help determine specific figures, this study summarizes recent court decisions. Additionally, given the difference between Ordinary income and Capital income, gains from the temporary and contingent disposition of ownership rights in IPR should be taxed as “capital gains” rather than “other income”.