복지포인트의 소득과세 쟁점에 관한 小考

This paper reviews four cases to determine whether employees' welfare compensation is considered wage and salary income under the Income Tax Act. The four cases are as follows：Daejeon High Court Decision 2022Nu13617 (October 26, 2023), Gwangju High Court Decision 2023Nu10852(January 25, 2024, in relation to Supreme Court Decision 2024Du34122), Seoul High Court Decision 2023Nu36536(February 2, 2024, in relation to Supreme Court Decision 2024Du37459), and Seoul High Court Decision 2023Nu37843(February 2, 2024, in relation to Supreme Court Decision 2024Du37879). In particular, this paper scrutinizes major issues raised from the four cases ：① a legal systemic analysis of the legislative approach to Article 20, Paragraph 1 of the Income Tax Act, ② the characterization of Employees’ welfare compensation based on the legal features of wage and salary income derived from providing labor, ③ the establishment of a quid pro quo relationship in tax law and the tax legal relationship between ‘the position of providing the labor’ and ‘employees’ welfare compensation as fringe benefits,’ and ④ a legal analysis about the disposability and enforceable consumption of employees’ welfare compensation. First, this paper examines Article 20 of the Income Tax Act, which adopts an exemplified approach in defining the scope and conceptual features of wage and salary income in tax law. This interpretation is also supported by Constitutional Court’s Decision 2001HeonBa74(September 19, 2002). Second and third, wage and salary income under the Income Tax Act is composed of two key conceptual elements：‘the compensatory nature for labor provided by employees’ and ‘the payment made at the employe’s discretion.’ Specially, ‘the compensatory nature’ legally only requires to ‘a correlation between the compensation and the position requiring labor’, rather than ‘a direct compensatory relationship with the employees’ actual labor.’ The result of this legal analysis aligns with Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Framework Act on Labor Welfare, which states that ‘Labor welfare policy’ can encompasses and qualify working conditions excluding the fundamental working conditions. Finally, some examples can be observed in the designated usage of employees’ welfare points based on labor welfare policies, such as mandatory allocations for group insurance premiums. Such designated usage is considered part of the enforceable consumption of employees’ welfare compensation. From the legislative view, these parts does not meet the condition of ‘the concept of the income’ under tax law. Therefore, legislative amendments to categorize these portions as non-taxable income would enhance for the circumstances for employees’ labor welfare.