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
Japanese legal interpretation of tax statutes and administrative ordinances thereunder has some unique legal characteristics when compared with the interpretative methodologies of other countries. In this article, some of these traditional and new methodologies are analyzed with reference to the main Japanese academic views in this field.
The following is a list of possible legal sources for tax law interpretation: (1) the Constitution, (2) tax statutes themselves, in which tax wordings that are also used under statutes of other legal fields should follow the legal interpretation in those other fields, (3) judicial decisions and legal doctrines derived from judicial decisions including decisions in non-tax cases, (4) administrative interpretative circulars, although these have limited binding power only within administrations, (5) determinations of the National Tax Tribunal, for national tax matters, and (6) academic/theoretical doctrines and principles, as academic observations of tax laws sometimes influence legal interpretation.
In this article, there are methodologies for the interpretation of some subject, like interpretation of constitutional validity, constitutional interpretation or statutory interpretation, difference between the two institutions, relevance to the Korean legal system.
Japanese methodology for tax law interpretation follows basic methodologies for the legal interpretation of other laws. However, to control tax avoidance and abusive tax shelter issues, certain levels of discussion of substance over form are accepted by the courts, although there is an unclear line of limitation for the application of such judicial doctrine in tax practice.
The following is a list of possible legal sources for tax law interpretation: (1) the Constitution, (2) tax statutes themselves, in which tax wordings that are also used under statutes of other legal fields should follow the legal interpretation in those other fields, (3) judicial decisions and legal doctrines derived from judicial decisions including decisions in non-tax cases, (4) administrative interpretative circulars, although these have limited binding power only within administrations, (5) determinations of the National Tax Tribunal, for national tax matters, and (6) academic/theoretical doctrines and principles, as academic observations of tax laws sometimes influence legal interpretation.
In this article, there are methodologies for the interpretation of some subject, like interpretation of constitutional validity, constitutional interpretation or statutory interpretation, difference between the two institutions, relevance to the Korean legal system.
Japanese methodology for tax law interpretation follows basic methodologies for the legal interpretation of other laws. However, to control tax avoidance and abusive tax shelter issues, certain levels of discussion of substance over form are accepted by the courts, although there is an unclear line of limitation for the application of such judicial doctrine in tax practice.
목차
Ⅰ. Introduction
Ⅱ. Legal interpretative issues on tax matters in Japan
Ⅲ. Conclusion
References
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (5)
참고문헌 신청
1. [단행본] - Hiroshi Kaneko / 2013 / Tax Law (Sozei-ho)
2. [기타자료] - / 2004 / Supreme Court Decision of 13 July 2004, Hanreijiho No. 1874, 58
3. [기타자료] - / 2005 / Supreme Court Decision of 19 December 2005, Hanreijiho No. 1918, 3
4. [기타자료] - / 2011 / Supreme Court Decision of 30 September 2011, Hanreijiho No. 2132, 34
5. [기타자료] - / 1999 / Tokyo High Court Decision of 21 June 1999, Shomugeppo Vol. 47, No.1, 184
2. [기타자료] - / 2004 / Supreme Court Decision of 13 July 2004, Hanreijiho No. 1874, 58
3. [기타자료] - / 2005 / Supreme Court Decision of 19 December 2005, Hanreijiho No. 1918, 3
4. [기타자료] - / 2011 / Supreme Court Decision of 30 September 2011, Hanreijiho No. 2132, 34
5. [기타자료] - / 1999 / Tokyo High Court Decision of 21 June 1999, Shomugeppo Vol. 47, No.1, 184
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2015-320-002490306