상속에 따른 취득세 개선방안 연구: 납세의무 및 신고기한 개선을 중심으로

This study aims to examine the problems of unreasonable acquisition tax reporting deadlines due to inheritance, focusing on the distinction between comprehensive and specific gifts prescribed by those liable to pay acquisition tax under the Local Tax Act. The problems of the acquisition tax obligation and reporting procedure for inheritance stipulated in Article 7 of the Local Tax Act were examined. Since 1995, the Local Tax Act has classified comprehensive and specific gifts to stipulate tax obligations, and accordingly, the tax rate and the acquisition tax filing deadline were operated differently. However, there is a problem that the inheritance procedure is not fully considered when the acquisition tax filing deadline is different in the process of acquiring property following inheritance. Considering the procedure of the inheritance process, there is a problem of the effectiveness of distinguishing between comprehensive and specific gifts. The acquisition tax is taxed by recognizing the power of courage to acquire real estate, and it is not of great benefit to distinguish between specific and comprehensive gifts, assuming the power of courage to transfer real estate. A 6-month acquisition tax filing deadline is applied to the procedural comprehensive gift, and a 3-month acquisition tax filing deadline is applied to the specific gift. This difference is considered as a gift for some specific gifts in the process of large-scale inheritance, and setting the reporting deadline of 3 months is lacking in procedural aspect. It takes sufficient time for the inheritance relationship to be organized, and it is unreasonable to separate only a specific legacy and report it within 3 months while setting a system for reporting within a period of 6 months. In order to improve this, it is desirable to give the minimum reporting period necessary for the arrangement of property, since a bequest occurs due to a cause of death. It seems necessary to set the deadline for reporting acquisition tax following inheritance in consideration of the taxpayer's process of handling inherited property. In other words, it seems reasonable to not distinguish between specific and comprehensive bequests, and to unify the reporting deadline for bequests at 6 months. Under the current local tax law, it is necessary to consider revising the tax obligation for inheritance in the long term. The gift acquisition tax rate is applied to specific gifts, but as seen in the previous civil law discussion, it seems desirable to include specific gifts in inheritance under the local tax law for systematicity under the tax law, considering that the actual benefit of applying the tax law to distinguish between specific gifts and comprehensive gifts is weak, and that the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act includes both comprehensive and specific gifts in the category of inheritance.