This research attempted to derive the problems through the analysis of the actual state of local governments’ nontax revenue and operations of the imposition and collection systems of the charge system and, based on this, to prepare the improvement plan for the charge system to expand local nontax revenue.
The problems with local governments’ charge operation are as follows. First, when the financial revenue collected from the charge is paid, it should be closely connected with the reasons for charge imposition. However, the causal relationship between the charge imposition purposes and the use of the charge is insufficiently connected. Second, the current structure is such that the laws regarding the matters of overall operation of the charge system such as the calculation and operation of the charge are enacted and managed mainly for the central government. Accordingly, despite the fact that local governments are in charge of actual operation business of the charge, the collected charge does not contribute much to the local governments. Third, the regulations related to the imposition, collection, distribution systems of the charge are not established systematically. Fourth, local governments’ collection and delivery rate is very low. In 2013, 87.4% of the total charge belonged to the central governments’ financial resources, whereas only 9.3% belonged to local governments. Fifth, the size of the local governments’ charge differs greatly depending on the regions, and particularly, the size of the charge of the local governments whose local finance size is big is found to be big, showing that the gap between the rich and the poor in local governments’ financial operation is getting wider.
The improvement plans for efficient operation of the charge system are as follows. First, the regulations related to the charge need to be improved. In the law on which the charge is based, the regulations for securing the basic principles of the imposition of the charge such as ‘the legitimacy of the purpose of establishment’ of the charge, ‘securing fairness and transparency’, and ‘the prohibition of dual imposition’, and the more concrete and clearer regulations such as imposition requirements, calculation criteria, and calculation methods should be prepared. Second, in order for the charge system to be operated in line with original purposes, the charge imposition and distribution system should be improved. Third, considering that local governments actually bear the burden of charge, the charge distribution method needs to be improved so that it can make contributions to secure local governments’ finances. Fourth, gathering the opinions of interest parties in the process of the charge imposition needs to be strengthened.