신축주택의 양도소득세 감면 특례규정의 체계적 해석에 관한 연구

A Study on Systematic Interpretation of Special Provision for Transfer Income Tax Reduction of New Housing

신축주택 취득자에 대한 양도소득세 감면에 관한 구 조세특례제한법 제99조의3 제1항에 대한 해석과 관련하여 서울고등법원 2012.12.21. 선고 2011누45193 판결에서는 신축주택 취득일로부터 5년이내에 발생한 양도소득만이 감면되는 것이고, 과세관청이 일부 납세자에게 양도소득세 전액을 감면하였더라도 비과세관행은 아니라고 한다. 이에 따라 동 판례에서는 먼저 신축주택 취득일로부터 5년이내 또는 이후에 양도하는 경우에 대해 신축주택 취득일 전날까지 발생한 양도소득 전액이 감면되는지의 여부를 검토하기 위하여 ‘엄격해석의 원칙’, 과세요건 명확성의 원리, 자신이 신축한 1세대 1주택에 대한 비과세규정과의 연관성, 기타 이 사건 특례조항의 입법배경 및 입법체계를 신중하게 검토된다. 한편 과세관청은 특정 납세자들에게 신축주택 취득일 이전의 양도소득에 대하여 감면해 주었던 사례가 있었고, 동 판례의 사건 역시 특례조항의 적용을 경정청구하여 차액을 환급받았다가 다시 과세처분을 받은 사건이라는 점에서 ‘비과세 관행’ 및 ‘감면에 대한 과세관청의 공적 표명’의 성립여부와 관련하여 ‘소급과세금지원칙’ 또는 ‘신뢰보호원칙’의 위반여부와 가산세에 대한 정당화 사유의 유무도 문제된다. 특히 서울고등법원 2013.5.31. 선고 2012누8931 판결에서는 주택재건축조합의 조합원인 원고가 당해 조합에 구주택을 제공하고 관리처분계획에 따라 취득한 신축주택을 5년 이내에 양도하여 이 사건특례조항 제1항 전단이 적용되는 사건에서 동법 시행령 제40조 제1항의 계산식을 준용하여 감면되는 양도소득금액을 계산한 과세처분은 위법한 것으로 판단하였다.

With regard to the interpretation of Article 99－3, paragraph (1) of the Old Restriction of Special Taxation Act on transfer income tax exemption of new－home acquirer, the Korean court ruled that ① only the transfer income tax generated within 5 years from the date of acquisition of new housing could be reduced, ② the total reduction of transfer income tax given by tax authorities to some taxpayers was not a non－taxation practice(Seoul High Court 2011Nu45193, December 21, 2012). In the judicial precedent, first, concerning the transfer of a newly constructed house within or after five years of the date of acquisition, in order to review whether the total amount of capital gains occurring up to the day before the date of acquiring the newly constructed house is reduced, the ‘principle of strict interpretation’, the principle of clarity of tax requisition, the correlation to tax free regulations regarding 1 house constructed by 1 household, and other legislative backgrounds and systems of the special clause of this case will be carefully reviewed. On the other hand, there have been instances where the taxing authority has reduced taxes concerning capital gains prior to the date of acquisition of the newly constructed house for certain taxpayers, and the fact that the same case of the judicial precedent was a case where the difference was refunded after a claim for reassessment by stating an application of the special clause but was then again ruled for taxation brings into question the reason for justification and the violation of the ‘prohibition of retroactive taxation principle’ or the ‘confidence protection principle’ regarding whether the ‘tax－free custom’ and ‘public expression of the taxing authority on tax reduction’ are established. In particular, the 2012Nu8931 sentence by the Seoul High Court judged that the plaintiff who is a member of the housing reconstruction association violated the taxation which calculated the amount of capital gains reduced by applying the formula of clause 1, article 40 of the same enforcement ordinance in a case which applied the former part of the clause 1 of the special clause of this case by transferring a newly constructed house within 5 years, which was acquired according to the management disposal plan after supplying the old house to the same association(Seoul High Court 2012Nu8931, May 31, 2013). Therefore this dissertation unfolds a critical view regarding the ‘principle of strict interpretation’, the principle of clarity of tax requisition, the retroactive taxation principle, the confidence protection principle, the justification reasons on additional tax and the tax balance of the application objects.