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
According to the Inheritance and Gift Tax Law(IGTL), inheritance tax is imposed on the basis of residency of the deceased. If the deceased is a resident, the taxes are levied on the value of all the assets wherever situated. If he is a non-resident, the taxes are levied on the value of the assets situated in Korea only. Under this system double taxation may occur. To avoid double taxation, Korea adopted foreign tax credit articles in IGTL but no tax treaties yet, while countries like the United States and the Japan have tax treaties. Since non-residents have limited tax burden based on the situs of his properties, debt deduction allowed to non-residents is also limited to certain debts such as mortgage debt on the taxed property, etc. Japan also has similar provisions as to debt deduction of non-residents. In the United States, the estate of a non-resident can deduct that proportion of all debts, regardless of what type of debts they are, that the US situs assets are of worldwide assets.
In Supreme Court Decision 2008Du4275, the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for debt deduction. The plaintiff, an inheritor of a non-resident deceased, claimed that the deceased’s debt which is finalized in a court of Japan and based upon which the property in Korea is seized provisionally, should be deducted from the value of the property taxed. The Supreme Court ruled that IGTL Article 14 Paragraph 2 should be construed literally and should be interpreted as limited to what it enumerates.
The words of IGTL Article 14 Paragraph 2 makes it hard to interpret the article as including the debt based upon which the property in Korea is seized provisionally. Moreover, interpreting debt deduction article widely may cause risk of false debt deduction claims and difficulties in proving debts. Therefore, as far as the interpretation of current law is concerned, the Supreme Court’s conclusion is reasonable. High Court of Japan expressed the same opinion in a similar case on December 16, 2010.
However, in terms of prevention of double taxation and substantial capability to pay tax, the provision mentioned above has quite unconstitutional aspects since the taxpayer has no chance to avoid harsh double taxation even though the debt based upon which the property in Korea is seized provisionally is, in its character, similar to mortgage debt enumerated in the provision. The United States’ proportional system suggests a reasonable alternative, provided that it is supplemented by strict formalities to debt deduction and duty to report of taxpayers to protect tax revenue from false debt deduction claims.
In Supreme Court Decision 2008Du4275, the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for debt deduction. The plaintiff, an inheritor of a non-resident deceased, claimed that the deceased’s debt which is finalized in a court of Japan and based upon which the property in Korea is seized provisionally, should be deducted from the value of the property taxed. The Supreme Court ruled that IGTL Article 14 Paragraph 2 should be construed literally and should be interpreted as limited to what it enumerates.
The words of IGTL Article 14 Paragraph 2 makes it hard to interpret the article as including the debt based upon which the property in Korea is seized provisionally. Moreover, interpreting debt deduction article widely may cause risk of false debt deduction claims and difficulties in proving debts. Therefore, as far as the interpretation of current law is concerned, the Supreme Court’s conclusion is reasonable. High Court of Japan expressed the same opinion in a similar case on December 16, 2010.
However, in terms of prevention of double taxation and substantial capability to pay tax, the provision mentioned above has quite unconstitutional aspects since the taxpayer has no chance to avoid harsh double taxation even though the debt based upon which the property in Korea is seized provisionally is, in its character, similar to mortgage debt enumerated in the provision. The United States’ proportional system suggests a reasonable alternative, provided that it is supplemented by strict formalities to debt deduction and duty to report of taxpayers to protect tax revenue from false debt deduction claims.
#비거주자
#국제상속
#채무
#상속세
#이중과세
#nonresident
#international inheritance
#inheritance tax
#debt deduction
#double taxation
상세정보 수정요청해당 페이지 내 제목·저자·목차·페이지정보가 잘못된 경우 알려주세요!
목차
- 〈사건의 표시〉 대법원 2011. 7. 14. 선고 2008두4275 판결
- 〈연구〉
- 〈참고문헌〉
- 〈Abstract〉
참고문헌
참고문헌 신청최근 본 자료
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-329-003176511
