. .
1. ‘ ’
2. ‘ ’
3.
. 1.
2.
. 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
.
* ,
: 2012. 10. 30 / : 2012. 11. 22 / : 2012. 11. 30
I.
1961 12 8 827
2011 1 1 , ,
. 3
. 5
( 261 295 )
,
.1)
, 9
,
2) 3)
4) ,
1) [ : 5 ( 261 295
)] ,
. 1982 1 1
5 1992 1 1
2009 12 31 3 , 2010 12 31
1 . 2011 1 1
. , ,
2010, 164 . .
2) 1996. 7. 12. , 96 22 .
3) 1998. 4. 30. , 96 62 .
4) · , “ · ”,
9 1 ( 21 ), , 2009. 3, 142 143 .
, “ ”, 15 ,
, 2000. 2, 152 154 .
.5)
,
.
, 6)
,
. 2
,
, , ,
7),
8),
5) 2010 12 31 9
,
,
‘ ’
. , 2011 , 122 138 .
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 57.6 54.8 56.3 57.2 56.2 54.4 53.6 53.9 53.6 52.2 51.9
6) , 2004 57.2%
, 2011 51.9% .
(www.kosis.kr) / e- .
< >
(%) = ( / ) × 100
7) 4 1 .
9)
.
244
10) 11)
, 244
.
.
117 1
. 9 2 1
, 22
.
8) 4 3 .
9) 4 6 7 .
10) 2012 7 1
2012 7 2
· .
11) 2011 1 1
, 10220 3 2 “
9
4
.” , 2010 12 31
2011 12 31
( : 5062 2 ,
3550 3 )
2012 1 1
.
117 1 22 ‘
’ ‘
’
12) 13) .
.14) .
117 1 22
.
.
2 .
, (
) 4 .
.
, < 1>
.
12) 2007. 12. 13. , 2006 52 ; 2003. 9. 23. , 2003 13
.
13) , “ ”, ( 37 ),
, 2009, 51 .
14) , , , 2009, 298 .
-
, ,
, -
13 28 2
106 1
4
25%
( 25% )
31 2
4
: 25%
: 50%
( 112 ) 100%
38 4
50% (
50% ) 54 1
-
50% ( 50%
)
50% ( 50%
)
71 4
2013 1 1 3
81 3
< 1>
-
: 1 150
500
:
1 300 1,000
92 2
-
100% .
,
100%
. ,
( 112 ) 100%
. ,
15 2
100% .
,
100%
. ,
( 112 ) 100%
. ,
63 4
, ,
75%
. , 75%
, ,
( 112 ) 75%
. ,
85 2
1 3
100% . ,
100% . ,
( 112 ) 100%
. ,
85 2
2
2 .
,
, ,
.15)
244 8 9 11
.
, < 2> < 3> .
< 2>
, ,
, ,
, ,
, - 16)
, 112
1 2 2
-
17)
,
15) 121 2 4 5 12 , 121 9 3
, 121 17 3 , 121 20 3 , 121 21 3 .
16) 9 .
< 3>
, ,
,
, ,
, ,
,
18)
,
, 2 3
,19) 8 2 4
,20) 8 1 3
21) 11
.
, 11
,
11 .
244 , 243
17) 11 .
18) 8 1 4 . 1995 12 6 4995
. ,
( 1 ), 1996, 420 .
19) 15 1 ,
5 2 .
20) 72 .
21) 12 1 .
22),
‘
’ .
.
,
‘
’
, .
1995 1 1
. 1994 12 31
23) , 1995 1 1
.24)
1995 1 1
22) 243 , ,
,
, · .
23) , 1994 12 31
,
8 . 8 1995 1 1
.
24) , “ ”, 8-1 ,
, 2008, 261 . , “ ”,
, 2007, 10 . ,
2011 , 122 . .
3
.
, 2012 1 1
. 198
, < 4> 5
41
.
< 4>
5 , , , ,
41
:
(12) :
(12) :
(17)
(www.elis.go.kr), (www.law.go.kr)
.
3
.25)
25) , , 140 141 ,
, 2009. 4, 44 45 .
46
. ,
.26)
( “ ” )
( )
.
27)
110
111 ,
112 1 2 50%
.
2012 1 1
, 100%
.28)
, 50%
105
26) , , , 2011. 10,
257 .
27) , 2011 , 44 .
28) 38 4 .
.
100%, 85%, 75%, 50%
, < 5> .
< 5>
/ 1
100% / 100%
2 100% / 50%
3 85% / 85%
4 75% / 75%
5 50% / 50%
22
2 14
8
6 1 3
5 4
5
18 8 4
1 5
3 1 6
14 1
14
6 8 1 2
5 18
18 1
1
(205) 74 105 5 1 20
( ) ( )
.
8, 16
.
.
,
.
.
,
( )
,
.
4 1
, , 2 2
106 1
29) .
106 1
29) ,
,
. , “
”, 13-3 , , 2007, 163~165 , “
( )”, ,
, 2009. 82~84 .
,
30) 31)
4
2 2 .32)
,
33)
. 106 1 1
. ,
106 1
30)
( 5 , 12 14 ), 4
( 6 2 ). ,
( 6 4
2 ).
31) ( 4 ).
32)
. 33)
( 6 1 ),
100% (
6 2 ).
.
. , 8
,
< 6> .
4 2
.
, 10
50%
.
4 1 ,
,
10
4 1 .34)
2 .
10 ,
4 1 , ,
.
,
4 1 .35)
34) 115 1 1 9 16
9 30
.
35) 4 6 7
, ,
.
< 6>
: 111
1 1 100 50
( 5 3 )
:
111 1 1
( 9 ) :
111 1 1
( 8 ) 58 2 2 36)
111 1 1
100 50 ( 7 )
: 111
1 1 100 50
( 9 2 )
: 111
1 1 ( 8 )
: 111 1
1 ( 9 )
8 1
111 1
( 6 1 )
8 1
111 1
( 7 1 )
36) 58 2( )
28 4
( 2
)
2013 12 31 .
1. ( )
2. 100
50 .
4 1 ,
.
2 .
( ) ,
. ,
. 17 8
, 1 3
1
( “ ” ) 2014 12 31 .
, 4 .
1 3 1 4
, 4
1 3
.37)
4
17 8 (
) 4 1
.38) , 4
.39) ,
.
38 3
, ,
85 2 ,
,
, < 7> .
,
, ,
, 100% 40) 2011
12 31 ,
75%41) , , ,
.
37) , , 2010. 2, 6 ,
2011 3 , 2010. 3, 396 522 .
38) , , “ ”,
, , 2012, 756
39) , ,
, .
40) , 2011 , 7, 9, 19, 20 .
41) , ,
100% .
< 7> , ,
( )
75%(75%
) ×
75%(75% )
×
75%(75%
) ×
100%(100% )
100%(100% )
100%(100% )
3
,
.42)
, 17
.
.
, 4 43)
42) , , 2011. 12, 3~5 .
43) 4 , 4 ,
5 , 4 .
, 2 44) ,
. 38 3 85 2
,
4 1 . 6
.
85 2 1 3
, 75%
, 75%
. 2
, 100% , 100%
.
244 ,
50% ,
(
) 50% ,
50% .45)
243
.
85 2 , 75%
100% ,
44) 8 , 10 .
45) 5 .
. ,
.46)
.
,
100% 150%
.47)
7 ,
100
50 2014 12 31 .48)
46) 2000 2.3 2009 15
2010 14.8 . , “
”, , , 2012, 18 .
14%
, 2011
. ,
, 2011. 9 (2011. 10. 21 )
.
47) 6 2
100%
,
.
48) 8 , 8 ,
8 , 8 , 8
, 7 , 7 ,
49)
5 100 50
, 4 3
2014 12 31
50% .50)
, .
,
5
50% ,
2014 12 31 50%
1 3
.51) ,
5 50% ,
52)
50%
.
8 , 7 , 8 ,
9 , 8 , 8 ,
8 , 7 .
49) 1008 14 .
50) 151 2
.
51) , 2012 (6 1 )
3 50% , 2013 (6
1 ) 2 50%
, 2014 (6 1 ) 1
50% .
52) 2014 12 7 2014 12 31
2017 12 31 .
7
.
,
2 .
( : 5
) 53),
( : 2014 12 31 )
.54)
7
( : 3
55))
.
, .56)
53) 16 , 58 3 , 59 3 , 75 , 78 3 2 ,
79 1 , 80 1 , 81 1 .
54) 11 2 , 12 1 , 14 1 3 , 23 , 19 2
, 52 1 .
55) 4 1 3
3
. , 52)
5 . 5
, 3
. 56)
‘ ’ 50% 3
< 8> .
< 8> 7
7 ( )
100 50 2014 12 31
.
7 ( )
2014 12
31
3
100 50 .
2011 1 1 10220
3 2
2011 12 31
2012 1 1
.57)
, 2011 12 31 11138 2012 1 1
,
.
( ) .
5 , 6 , 12 , 13 .
57) 11) .
, ,
.
2012 1 1
. 2012 7 1
‘ ’ 243
, < 9> .
< 9> 243
(2012. 9. 30 ) (2012 )
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9
(16) 3 8 4 1
(227) 37 15 25 43 34 50 12 3 8
(243) 40 15 33 47 35 50 12 3 8
2012. 1. 1.
2012. 7. 1.
, 2012 1 1
40 , 195
2012 1 9
, 2012 9 30
8 .
.
, 2011 1 1 10220
3 2
2011 12 31
,
.
, 2012 1 1 9 30 195
2012 1 1
.58)
2012 1 1
2 .
,
.59)
60)
58)
. ,
1995. 12. 28. 95 196 1983. 4. 26. 81 423
. 59)
,
‘ ’
.
60) “
,
.” , , 2012, p. 29.
,
.
61)
< 10> (
) 12 1 1
.
< 10> 5
2011 2011. 10. 21 2011. 12. 30 2011. 12. 31 2012. 1. 1 2010 2010. 11. 8 2010. 12. 8 2010. 12. 27 2011. 1. 1 2009 2009. 9. 30 2009. 12. 31 2010. 1. 1 2010. 1. 1 2008 2008. 10. 15 2008. 12. 13 2008. 12. 31 2009. 1. 1 2007 2007. 9. 28 2007. 12. 28 2007. 12. 31 2008. 1. 1
62) ( : 3 1 2
),
2 .63)
,
. , “ ”, (vol.
527), , 2000. 8, 227 .
61) 2011 1 1 .
62) 1 1 12 31 ( 6 ).
63) , , , 2012, 106 .
, ,64)
.
, 3 1
.
90
, 30 65)
.
ⳕ đ ು
. 244 ,
. 5 41
,
,
64) ,
. 15 , 64 76 .
65)
90 . 54 2 .
. ,
. ,
4
. ,
,
4 .
,
, 243
.
. ,
,
.
, 12 1 1
30
.
, ,
,
4 1
.
244
.
.
, , , 2012.
, “ ”,
15 , , 2000.
, “ ”,
, , 2012.
, ( 1 ), 1996.
, “ ”, ( 37 ),
, 2009.
, , ,
2011.
, “ ”, (vol. 527),
, 2000.
, , 2012.
, “ ”,
, 2007.
, “ ”,
, , 2012.
, “ ”,
8-1 , , 2008.
, “ ”,
13-3 , , 2007.
, “ ( )”,
, , 2009.
, “ ”,
9 1 , , 2009.
, , , 2009.
, , 2011.
___________________, , 2010.
___________________,
, 2009.
, , 2011.
__________, , 2010.
__________, 2011 .
__________, 2011 3 , 2010.
, 151 2
.
Zhicheng Li Swift, Hana Polackova Brixi, and Christian Valenduc, “Tax Expenditures: General Concept, Measurement, and Overview of Country Practices,” Tax Expenditures: Shedding Light on Government Spending through the Tax system, The World Bank, 2004.
, , , 2002.
, I , , 2005.
, , , 2001.
________, , , 1979.
< >
2011 1 1 ,
.
, . 244
, 2
. 46
,
,
. ,
, .
,
4 .
, 85 2 ·
, 243
.
· . ,
( : 3 )
.
, 12 1 1
.
Journal of Legislation Research / 43th Issue
A Study on the Legislative Evaluation and Improvement of the Municipal Ordinances of the Local Tax Reduction and
Exemption
Kim, Chang-Beom*66) On January 1, 2011, the Local Tax Act was divided into three separate laws:
the Framework Act on Local Taxes, the Local Tax Act and the Act on Restriction of Special Local Taxation.
Under the Act on Restriction of Special Local Taxation, the prior approval from the Minister of Public Administration and Security is no longer required for the municipal ordinances on the local tax reduction and exemption. As a result, 224 local governments are granted the legal authority to enact the municipal ordinance related to the local tax reduction and exemption.
There are positive changes in two aspects when comparing the new municipal ordinances on local tax reduction and exemption in 244 local governments, with the municipal ordinances under the previous Act. First of all, 46 local governments shifted from the previous monolithic, blanket approach to a concrete, individual approach in the application of the sunset clause. Secondly, the diversity and creativity were exhibited at the local community level in the enactment of its municipal ordinances on local taxes. For example, local governments applies varying property tax rates when religious foundations establish medical institutions and directly run them for such medical purposes.
Despite such positive effects, the existing legal system for local tax exemption and reduction has several problems in terms of the basic principles of local autonomy laws and enactment of tax laws. The issues and measures for improvements are summarized as follows:
First, under the current legal system, property tax can be reduced or exempted by treating the land, which is subject to global aggregate taxation or separate aggregate taxation, as land subject to separate taxation. In addition, the extended scope of eligibilities for reduction and exemption is even greater than that under
* Legislation Research Fellow, Korea Institute of Local Finance. Legislative Officer, Ministry of Government Legislation.
Abstract
the Act on Restriction of Special Local Taxation, or tax items are newly included for tax reduction and exemption. In fact, such changes are in violation of the provisions of Article 4 of the Act on Restriction of Special Local Taxation, and therefore should be abolished.
Second, under the Article 85-2 of the Act on Restriction of Special Local Taxation, local government has the authority to cut down on the rates of the local tax reduction or exemption for the public corporation or public agency in accordance with the municipal ordinance. However, 243 local governments except for the Jeju Special Self Governing Province have so far not enacted the provisions of municipal ordinances for scaling back the reduction or exemption rates. To secure the fiscal soundness of local governments, it is necessary to provide some incentives to encourage local governments voluntarily to lower the tax rate for reduction and exemption under the self-regulating system.
Third, the tax equity in local tax exemption and reduction should be improved and the issue of the extended sunset dates leading to continuous local tax reduction and exemption should also be resolved. For example, when setting up the deadline of sunset clause for real estate of a specific use, it should be set up based on the acquisition date of the real estate instead of the date of the termination of local tax reduction and exemption. In addition, property tax should be reduced or exempted for the real estate obtained within the period of the sunset, during a certain period of time(e.g. three years) after tax liabilities are established.
Lastly, the issue of a legislative vacuum due to delayed enactment or revision of municipal ordinances. Currently, the Act on Restriction of Special Local Taxation is revised at the end of December every year and enters into force on January 1 of the following year. Consequently, the enactment or revision of municipal ordinances is delayed, which causes the legislative vacuum in local governments. To resolve such issue, the date of revision of the Act on Restriction of Special Local Taxation should be advanced.
:
