우리나라는 1997년 이전까지는 기업구조조정이 일반화 되어 있지 않았으나 외환위기를 거치면서 기업구조조정 세제를 체계적으로 제정하게 된 이후 꾸준히 개정되어 현재에 이르렀다. 특히2010년에는 법인세법 개정과정을 거치면서 합병과 분할을 비롯한 회사의 형태 조정에 대한 과세특례 제도를 대폭 정비하였다.
본 연구에서는 현행 우리나라의 기업구조조정 세제 및 입법과정의 변화와 미국, 일본, 독일의 기업구조조정 세제를 참고하여 우리나라 제도를 평가하고 향후 기업구조조정세제가 정비되어야 할바를 조망하고자 하였다. 본 연구의 범위는 우리나라의 1997년 이후 현재까지의 기업구조조정세제를 대상으로 하며 조세특례제한법상 주요 특례규정들을 포함한다.
우리나라의 경우 현행 세법은 기업구조조정으로서 합병, 분할, 주식의 포괄적 교환ㆍ이전, 자산의 포괄적 양도, 현물출자, 지주회사설립 등의 경우를 다루고 있다. 특히 합병과 분할의 경우 일정한 요건을 갖추면 적격합병, 적격분할에 해당하게 되어 자산의 이전가액을 시가가 아닌 장부가액으로 보면서 미실현이득에 대한 과세를 이연하는 특례를 주게 된다. 회사형태의 조정에 있어서 과세특례를 주는 근본적인 시각은 경제적 실질을 중시하여 회사 외형에만 변화가 있을 뿐 지배구조,소유관계 및 사업의 계속성 등이 동일하다면 기업의 연속성을 인정하는 것이다.
기업구조조정에 관한 현행제도는 우선 법적 안정성의 측면에서는 긍정적인 평가를 할 수 있을것으로 생각된다. 그러나 현행 구조조정세제의 경우 여러 세법에 흩어져 규정되어 있어 관리체계상 혼선을 초래할 수 있고 상시적이고 원활한 조세지원 측면에서도 아쉬움이 있다. 따라서 독일의경우처럼 독립된 세법(가칭 ‘구조조정세법’)으로 분법화하는 방안도 고려할 수 있을 것이다. 그리고 정책목표의 효과적인 달성을 위해서는 현행법과 같이 과세특례를 기업구조조정의 유형별로 규율하는 방법은 일정한 한계를 갖는다고 생각된다. 여기에는 현행 미국세법의 규율태도를 참고하여,기업구조조정의 포괄적인 요건을 설정하고, 유형별 세부 요건을 강화하는 방향의 규율방식을 검토해 볼 수 있다.
그리고 원활한 기업구조조정에 장애가 될 수 있는 포합주식에 대한 규제 요건, 불합리한 각종 사후관리 규정에 대해서는 과감한 손질이 필요하다고 본다. 반면 기업구조조정이 조세회피 목적 등으로 악용되지 않도록 입법적 보완이 필요한 부분도 있다. 특례요건의 실효성 확보를 위해 종업원승계요건 추가 등을 제안하였다. 그리고 부가가치세법상 비과세 대상인 사업 양도와 유사한 구조조정 형태에 대해서는 보다 명확하게 규정하여 적용 여부에 대한 혼선을 방지하여야할 것이며, 글로벌 시대에 조세정책 환경의 변화에 따른 국가간 구조조정에 따른 조세문제도 지속적인 논의와검토가 이루어져야할 것이다.
Before 1997, the corporate reorganization was not common in Korea, but the Korean Government enacted systematic tax rules governing corporate reorganization under the Foreign Exchange Crisis bailout program and continuously revised the regulations since then. Particularly,the two－pronged amendments to the Corporate Income Tax Act ("CITA") in 2010 implemented wide－ranging changes with respect to the special tax regime applicable to mergers, demergers,and other changes in corporate forms.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate our system and consider how the tax rules on corporate reorganization can be improved. The scope of this study includes the Korean tax rules on corporate reorganizations, as well as key tax benefits provided by the Special Tax Treatment Control Act ("STTCA") since 1997 to date.
The result of this study can be summarized as follows. The current law deals with merger,demerger, comprehensive transfer/exchange of shares or assets, in－kind contribution, establishment of a holding company, etc. as forms of corporate restructuring. In particular, merger and demerger satisfying certain requirements are treated as qualifying merger and qualifying demerger, which would be eligible for tax deferral on unrealized gains by treating the value of the transferred assets equal to their book value instead of their fair market value. Special tax treatment of corporate restructurings is fundamentally based on the notion that if a company's economic substance remains the same － i.e., its ownership and governance structure, continuity of business, etc. remain the same － the company's continuity should be respected.
In comparison to our tax system, the tax rules of the US and Japan recognize a much wider range of corporate restructuring types. In particular, the US comprehensively regulates the corporate reorganization by dividing companies into 7 types. In addition, while the Korean tax rules take a formalistic approach and require strict satisfaction of all requirements to be eligible for special tax benefits, the US rules evaluate the substance and purpose of the transaction concerned to determine its eligibility, granting the special tax benefits to all parties to the transaction if the requirements are met.
There also exist differences in terms of the contents of the special tax regime. The US and Japanese tax regimes tend to include a relatively smaller number of formulary requirements and do not mandate succession of employees, which could be subject to substantive restriction. Also,triangular mergers, which are proscribed in Korea, are dealt with more flexibly overseas. With respect to net operating loss ("NOL") carryforwards as well, Korea only allows deduction of NOL against profits generated by the transferred business, whereas the US and Japan do not impose such restriction at all or take a more indirect approach (pre－merger deduction ratio of NOL carryforward). Furthermore, while Korea provides tax deferral as the special tax treatment of qualifying restructurings, the special tax benefit provided by the US and Japan takes the form of non－taxation, which would make follow－up measures much simpler.
Based on the result of this study, it can be concluded that the current system on the corporate restructuring can be positively evaluated in terms of legal stability. However, it is necessary to remedy its shortcomings to implement a tax system conducive for more permanent and smooth tax support. In this regard, establishment of an independent tax system (referred to as the "Restructuring Tax Rules") similar to the German system could be an alternative solution.
Meanwhile, the special taxation regime based on specific types of corporate restructurings (as the current rules) has inherent limitations to achieve the policy objectives. Therefore, it is recommended to set out comprehensive requirements of corporate restructuring and reinforcing detailed requirements according to the types by referring to the regulatory attitude of the US tax systems.
Moreover, it is necessary to take decisive actions aimed at complete overhaul of the relevant rules related to the double taxation at the time of a qualifying demerger, excessive restriction on the combined stock, and unreasonable follow－up measures, all of which can deter active corporate restructurings by companies. Conversely, it is necessary to implement certain legislative measures to prevent tax avoidance attempts by taxpayers using corporate restructurings. For instance, solutions to address the issue of deemed dividends resulting from a merger or addition of employee succession requirement to secure effectiveness of eligibility requirements for the tax benefit should be considered. Lastly, rules applicable to corporate restructuring similar to a business transfer that is exempt from VAT should be clarified to avoid any confusion, and discussion and review of tax issues in relation to cross－border corporate restructurings in this global world should continue in the future.
