취득세와 취득 관련 등록세 통합에 대한 재검토

In 2010, The Local Tax system was reorganized, and the Acquisition Tax and The Registration Tax related to acquisition were integrated. However, even fifteen years after this integration, structural inconsistencies and practical confusion surrounding the Integrated Acquisition Tax continue to persist. This study reexamines whether the original goals of the reform - simplifying tax items and maintaining taxpayers’ burden - were actually achieved, identifies structural problems inherent in the current Integrated Acquisition Tax system, and proposes potential improvement strategies. The integration of Acquisition Tax and acquisition-related Registration Tax has resulted in several issues. First, simply combining the respective tax rates produced a complex and fragmented tax rate structure, and the introduction of the unique concept of the “standard rate for surtax” has further complicated the tax rate system. Second, in cases such as void transactions or unexecuted inheritance registrations, the intended objective of maintaining equivalent tax burdens before and after integration has not been realized, resulting in inconsistencies in tax liability. Third, the coexistence of both Acquisition Tax and Registration Tax characteristics within a single tax item has created structural contradictions, such as double taxation in deemed acquisitions by controlling shareholders followed by mergers. Fourth, a new provision requiring filing and payment of Acquisition Tax before registration has created interpretive conflicts with rules on determining the date of acquisition, thereby increasing confusion for both taxpayers and practitioners. Based on this analysis, This study presents two policy alternatives. The first is to separate the Acquisition Tax and the acquisition-related Registration Tax once again, restoring a system consistent with the inherent nature of each tax. This approach is expected to enhance tax item’s coherence, maintain tax burdens, and simplify the tax rate structure. The second alternative is to retain the current integrated system but pursue partial legislative revisions, including adjustments to the standard tax rate and heavy tax rate provisions, supplemental rules for registration tax in cases of void or cancelled transactions, and clarification of acquisition-date rules. In conclusion, despite the original intention of maintaining tax burdens, the Integrated Acquisition Tax has created greater complexity, double taxation, and interpretive challenges. To restore coherence and simplicity in the Acquisition Tax system, more fundamental structural reform is required. It is worth seriously considering a return to the previous tax structure by separating the Acquisition Tax and the acquisition-related Registration Tax, as such a reform would not only maintain the current level of tax burden but also enhance the conceptual coherence of the Acquisition Tax system and simplify the current overly complex tax rate system. This separation should not be viewed as a regression to the past, but rather as a forward-looking reform aimed at reestablishing the Acquisition Tax in accordance with its fundamental nature.