지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
For the purpose of treaty shopping, Lone Star Fund III made Star Holdings, a paper company incorporated in Belgium, buy and sell the shares of Star Tower company, instead of Star Tower building itself, and consequently, shifted taxable incomes to favorable tax jurisdiction and converted the types of taxable incomes.
From the contractural perspective, tax planning of Lone Star Fund III deems to be successful in that it could save overall tax burdens up to more that 80 billion Korean Won without levying implicit taxes. However, because such tax planning creates various and huge non-tax costs such as agency cost, tax investigation cost and opportunity cost, it proves to hardly be the “effective tax planning”.
In view of tax laws, application of domestic tax laws to prevent aggressive tax planning is not treated as invalidating tax treaty in the overlapped area of them. Furthermore, with use of the “equality of tax burden principle” in the constitution and the “substance over form principle” in separate tax laws, aggressive tax planning could be effectively regulated even without any specific tax provisions for such purpose. As a result, tax imposition on Lone Star Fund III is expected to be proved legal in the Supreme Court judgement. However, it should be considered that such tax imposition could lower returns of inbound foreign investment funds and increase tax appliance costs and the possibility of double taxation and treaty overriding, and consequently discourage economic growth.
The probability that the Supreme Court maintains the lower court’s decision by imposing corporate income tax instead of canceling individual income tax makes Lone Star Fund III bear transaction risk, which also supports that its tax planning proves to be substantially far from being effective.
Alternative tax planning of Lone Star Fund III could be either (i) adjusting investment objects to escape regulation on real estates or (ii) adding “reversibility option” into the contract, whereas the tax authority could take advantage of (i) the “permanent establishment” theory or (ii) the “piercing corporate veil” theory to make the tax imposition more logical.
From the contractural perspective, tax planning of Lone Star Fund III deems to be successful in that it could save overall tax burdens up to more that 80 billion Korean Won without levying implicit taxes. However, because such tax planning creates various and huge non-tax costs such as agency cost, tax investigation cost and opportunity cost, it proves to hardly be the “effective tax planning”.
In view of tax laws, application of domestic tax laws to prevent aggressive tax planning is not treated as invalidating tax treaty in the overlapped area of them. Furthermore, with use of the “equality of tax burden principle” in the constitution and the “substance over form principle” in separate tax laws, aggressive tax planning could be effectively regulated even without any specific tax provisions for such purpose. As a result, tax imposition on Lone Star Fund III is expected to be proved legal in the Supreme Court judgement. However, it should be considered that such tax imposition could lower returns of inbound foreign investment funds and increase tax appliance costs and the possibility of double taxation and treaty overriding, and consequently discourage economic growth.
The probability that the Supreme Court maintains the lower court’s decision by imposing corporate income tax instead of canceling individual income tax makes Lone Star Fund III bear transaction risk, which also supports that its tax planning proves to be substantially far from being effective.
Alternative tax planning of Lone Star Fund III could be either (i) adjusting investment objects to escape regulation on real estates or (ii) adding “reversibility option” into the contract, whereas the tax authority could take advantage of (i) the “permanent establishment” theory or (ii) the “piercing corporate veil” theory to make the tax imposition more logical.
목차
I. 서론
II. 외국계펀드의 과세제도와 국가별 세법의 검토
III. 론스타펀드의 스타타워빌딩 매각거래 분석
IV. 스타타워빌딩의 매각과 관련한 세무계획 및 대안의 분석
V. 결론
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (5)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문과 연관된 판례 (7)
-
서울행정법원 2009. 2. 16. 선고 2007구합37650 판결
[1] 헌법상의 조세법률주의와 조약의 해석에 관한 기본원칙, 실질과세 원칙의 근거와 내용, `대한민국과 벨지움 간의 소득에 대한 조세의 이중과세회피와 탈세방지를 위한 협약’이 체결된 목적과 위 협약 제13조의 주식양도로 인한 소득은 양도인의 거주지국에서만 과세되도록 규정한 규정 취지 및 국세기본법 제14조 제1항 실질과세
자세히 보기 -
서울행정법원 2007. 11. 6. 선고 2007구합5349 판결
자세히 보기 -
서울행정법원 2009. 6. 26. 선고 2008구합16889 판결
자세히 보기 -
대법원 1991. 5. 14. 선고 90누3027 판결
원고와 갑이 서로의 토지를 교환하고 각자 교환취득한 토지를 다시 을 은행에 양도한 것이 과중한 양도소득세의 부담을 회피하기 위한 행위라 해도 위와 같은 토지 교환행위는 가장행위에 해당한다는 등 특별한 사정이 없는 이상 유효하다고 보아야 할 것이므로 이를 부인하기 위하여는 권력의 자의로부터 납세자를 보호하기 위한 조세법률주의의 법적 안정성 또
자세히 보기 -
서울고등법원 2010. 2. 12. 선고 2009누8016 판결
자세히 보기 -
대법원 2012. 1. 27. 선고 2010두5950 판결
[1] 외국의 법인격 없는 사단·재단 기타 단체가 구 소득세법(2006. 12. 30. 법률 제8144호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제119조 제8호 내지 제10호의 국내원천소득을 얻어 이를 구성원인 개인들에게 분배하는 영리단체에 해당하는 경우, 법인세법상 외국법인으로 볼 수 있다면 그 단체를 납세의무자로
자세히 보기 -
대법원 2009. 4. 9. 선고 2007두26629 판결
[1] 법인의 설립에 관한 민법과 상법의 각 규정에 의하면, 법인의 설립에는 기본적으로 설립행위와 설립등기가 필요하고, 법인은 설립행위를 거쳐 설립등기를 함으로써 성립함과 동시에 법인격을 취득하게 되어 그로써 법인의 설립은 완성되는 것이므로, 설립등기 없는 법인의 설립은 있을 수 없고, 일단 법인이 설립등기로써 성립한 이후에는 그 법인격이
자세히 보기
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0