인문학
사회과학
자연과학
공학
의약학
농수해양학
예술체육학
복합학
DBpia AI
AI 에이전트
AI 아이디어
AI 리더
AI 뷰어
Citeasy
크롬 서지관리 다운로드
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
This paper aims to analyze the case of 2005Hun-Ka4 which the Constitutional Court issued on July 27, 2006. The subject matters of review are 1)the old Succession Tax and Gift Tax Law Article 13 Paragraph 1 Subparagraph 2 which stipulates that the succession property including the property given the person other than the inheritor within 5 years before the start of succession should be taxation standard of Succession Tax, and 2)Succession Tax and Gift Tax Article 28 Paragraph 1 which stipulates that the gift tax amount on given property added to succession property should be deducted from the succession tax amount. The Constitutional Court ruled that the above articles are not unconstitutional.
The conclusions of this research are as follows.
First, the judging proposition of Succession Tax and Gift Tax Article 28 Paragraph 1 can not be recognized. Therefore it should be rejected. The reasons are as follows.
1) The above article just mitigates the unconstitutionality of Succession Tax and Gift Tax Law Article 13 Paragraph 1 Subparagraph 2, not infringing the fundamental rights of the plaintiffs in the original case.
2) If the above article is unconstitutional, the legal status of the plaintiffs weakens.
3) If the unconstitutionality decision is made on Succession Tax and Gift Tax Law Article 13 Paragraph 1 Subparagraph 2, all the objective of the plaintiffs in the original case can be achieved.
Second, Succession Tax and Gift Tax Law Article 13 Paragraph 1 Subparagraph 2 can be considered unconditional. The reasons are as follows.
1) Estate duty method itself is contradictory to equal taxation.
2) Succession Tax and Gift Tax Law Article 13 Paragraph 1 Subparagraph 2 includes the property given to the person other than the inheritor in succession property, therefore more unconstitutional than estate duty method.
3) Succession Tax and Gift Tax Law Article 13 Paragraph 1 Subparagraph 2 does not contribute much to equal taxation, while making taxpayers' tax burden and more additional burdens heavier.
4) The constitutional basis is that Succession Tax and Gift Tax Law Article 13 Paragraph 1 Subparagraph 2 is contradictory to equal taxation.
상세정보 수정요청해당 페이지 내 제목·저자·목차·페이지The conclusions of this research are as follows.
First, the judging proposition of Succession Tax and Gift Tax Article 28 Paragraph 1 can not be recognized. Therefore it should be rejected. The reasons are as follows.
1) The above article just mitigates the unconstitutionality of Succession Tax and Gift Tax Law Article 13 Paragraph 1 Subparagraph 2, not infringing the fundamental rights of the plaintiffs in the original case.
2) If the above article is unconstitutional, the legal status of the plaintiffs weakens.
3) If the unconstitutionality decision is made on Succession Tax and Gift Tax Law Article 13 Paragraph 1 Subparagraph 2, all the objective of the plaintiffs in the original case can be achieved.
Second, Succession Tax and Gift Tax Law Article 13 Paragraph 1 Subparagraph 2 can be considered unconditional. The reasons are as follows.
1) Estate duty method itself is contradictory to equal taxation.
2) Succession Tax and Gift Tax Law Article 13 Paragraph 1 Subparagraph 2 includes the property given to the person other than the inheritor in succession property, therefore more unconstitutional than estate duty method.
3) Succession Tax and Gift Tax Law Article 13 Paragraph 1 Subparagraph 2 does not contribute much to equal taxation, while making taxpayers' tax burden and more additional burdens heavier.
4) The constitutional basis is that Succession Tax and Gift Tax Law Article 13 Paragraph 1 Subparagraph 2 is contradictory to equal taxation.
정보가 잘못된 경우 알려주세요!
목차
- Ⅰ. 첫머리에
- Ⅱ. 헌법재판소의 결정 내용
- Ⅲ. 검토
- Ⅳ. 결론
- 참고문헌
- 〈ABSTRACT〉
참고문헌
참고문헌 신청최근 본 자료
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-360-018482535
