이 글은 우리나라의 실질과세원칙과 같은 일반적 남용방지규정(GAAR)에 관한 국제적 논의동향을 검토하여 조약편승을 비롯한 조세회피행위에 대한 GAAR의 적용 범위를 비교법적으로 고찰하는 것을 목적으로 한다.
연구의 결과를 요약하면 다음과 같다.
역사적으로 조약편승을 비롯한 조세회피행위의 방지 노력은 국내법과 조세조약의 이분적 구조로 논의가 전개되었다. 그러나 2000년대 들어 OECD를 비롯한 각국의 입법과 판례가 국내법상 GAAR을 조세조약의 해석에도 적용할 수 있다고 보면서 이와 같은 이분법은 그 의미를 대부분 상실하였다. 이에 따라 수익적소유자 같이 조세조약상 남용방지 규정으로 인정되던 각종 개념들이 그 독자적 의미를 상실하고 조약남용 방지의 역할을 국내법상 GAAR에 내어주게 되었다.
각국의 국내법상 GAAR 규정은 그 나라의 사법전통에 따라 다양한 궤적을 밟아 오늘에 이르고 있다. 오늘날 각국에서 GAAR 적용대상이 되는 남용적 조세회피행위의 범위와 방식 또한 나라마다 상이하다. 하지만 큰 흐름에서 볼 때 목적론적 해석의 경향이 뚜렷하다. 조약의 남용에 대한 OECD의 태도변화와 BEPS로 상징되는 국제적 노력이 영향을 미치고 있음을 부인하기 어렵다.
OECD의 태도변화와 각국의 GAAR 도입에 영향을 받아 도입된 국세기본법 제14조 제3항은 실질과세원칙에 대한 법원의 엄격해석의 전통을 입법적으로 극복하고자 한 것으로서 국제적 논의흐름을 반영한 적절한 조치로 평가할 수 있다. 2012년 간주취득세 전합 판결은 신설 규정의 적용과는 무관하게 법원의 전통적 입장에서 벗어나 실질과세원칙의 적용범위를 조세회피행위의 부인으로 넓힌 것으로서 그 역사적 의의가 크다.
신설 규정이나 전합 판결은 세계 각국의 GAAR 논의의 흐름과 조화한다는 측면에서 긍정적으로 볼 수 있으나, 조세법령의 예측가능성을 확보하고 과세당국의 남용을 방지하기 위해서는 구체적인 요건이나 논리구조를 더 다듬을 필요가 있다. 향후 법원과 입법부의 노력이 기대된다.
The purpose of this article is to review the scope of the application of the Korean general anti-avoidance rule(GAAR) such as actual assessment rule in a fashion of the comparative law. The result of the study is as follow:Historically the efforts for the prevention of the tax avoidance such as the treaty shopping have been performed at the level of domestic laws and tax treaties separately. Recently, however, such dichotomy has come to an end since most leading OECD countries took the view that the domestic GAAR might be applied to the interpretation of tax treaty provisions. Accordingly anti-abuse provisions under the tax treaties such as beneficial owner and limitation on benefits lost its independent roles and turned over its role for the prevention of the tax avoidance to the domestic GAARs. Each GAAR of OECD leading countries has been established through a variety of historical paths reflecting its own judicial tradition. As a result, the scope of the abusive tax avoidance to which the GAAR is relevant looks quite different country-by-country. Seeing in the whole picture, however, it looks clear that the purposive approach rather than the literal approach is now getting strong in the interpretation of the tax law provisions in a global sense. It is anticipated that such trend would keep going for a time-being largely due to the adamant counteractions of OECD and G20, including, inter alia, the introduction of the anti-abuse provisions in the Commentaries on the OECD Model Convention and BEPS Project(Action Plan 6). The Korean GAAR provision, Article 14-③ of the Framework Act of National Taxes, was newly introduced in 2007 in order to overcome the traditional literal approach of the Korean Supreme Court by reflecting such changed position of OECD and other leading OECD countries in a timely manner. Thus the new legislation was proper and consistent with those of other countries. Also the landmark Supreme Court decision(2008du8499 en banc) in 2011 would be affirmatively evaluated since it expanded the scope of the application of the traditional Korean judicial GAAR, i.e. actual assessment rule, for the prevention of the tax avoidance behaviors even before the enforcement of the new legislation. Notwithstanding the noticeable merits of both the new legislation and the landmark decision, it still needs to sharpen the details of the requirement for the application of Korean GAAR judicially and legislatively in order to secure the predictability and prevent the abuse of GAAR by tax authorities. It’s expected that both Korean courts and legislature would do their best efforts to that end.
The purpose of this article is to review the scope of the application of the Korean general anti-avoidance rule(GAAR) such as actual assessment rule in a fashion of the comparative law. The result of the study is as follow:Historically the efforts for the prevention of the tax avoidance such as the treaty shopping have been performed at the level of domestic laws and tax treaties separately. Recently, however, such dichotomy has come to an end since most leading OECD countries took the view that the domestic GAAR might be applied to the interpretation of tax treaty provisions. Accordingly anti-abuse provisions under the tax treaties such as beneficial owner and limitation on benefits lost its independent roles and turned over its role for the prevention of the tax avoidance to the domestic GAARs. Each GAAR of OECD leading countries has been established through a variety of historical paths reflecting its own judicial tradition. As a result, the scope of the abusive tax avoidance to which the GAAR is relevant looks quite different country-by-country. Seeing in the whole picture, however, it looks clear that the purposive approach rather than the literal approach is now getting strong in the interpretation of the tax law provisions in a global sense. It is anticipated that such trend would keep going for a time-being largely due to the adamant counteractions of OECD and G20, including, inter alia, the introduction of the anti-abuse provisions in the Commentaries on the OECD Model Convention and BEPS Project(Action Plan 6). The Korean GAAR provision, Article 14-③ of the Framework Act of National Taxes, was newly introduced in 2007 in order to overcome the traditional literal approach of the Korean Supreme Court by reflecting such changed position of OECD and other leading OECD countries in a timely manner. Thus the new legislation was proper and consistent with those of other countries. Also the landmark Supreme Court decision(2008du8499 en banc) in 2011 would be affirmatively evaluated since it expanded the scope of the application of the traditional Korean judicial GAAR, i.e. actual assessment rule, for the prevention of the tax avoidance behaviors even before the enforcement of the new legislation. Notwithstanding the noticeable merits of both the new legislation and the landmark decision, it still needs to sharpen the details of the requirement for the application of Korean GAAR judicially and legislatively in order to secure the predictability and prevent the abuse of GAAR by tax authorities. It’s expected that both Korean courts and legislature would do their best efforts to that end.
