비거주자·외국법인의 부동산 임대/양도소득에 대한 과세 : Taxation of Immovable Property Income and Capital Gain Derived by a Non-resident or a Foreign Corporation

Cited 0 time in Web of Science Cited 0 time in Scopus
Issue Date
서울대학교 법학연구소
법학, Vol.54 No.3, pp. 843-875
non-residentforeign corporationimmovable propertyrental incomecapital gain from alienation of immovable propertyreal property companyFIRPTA비거주자·외국법인부동산 임대소득부동산 양도소득부동산회사
Most, if not all, of the real world tax treaties permit an immovable or real property situs country to tax income and capital gain from the property, based on an intuitive and historical justification of the site countrys taxing power over an immovable property. The OECD Model does not and most, if not all, of the real world treaties do not elaborate the concept or scope of the income from immovable property. They do not address the specific method to tax such income or calculate the amount taxable income from immovable property, and leave the issue to domestic legislation.

Korean domestic law taxes immovable property income derived by a non-resident or a foreign corporation on net basis, i.e. tax it as if it were business profits attributable to a PE in Korea. Income from immovable property may easily satisfy the conditions of classification as business profits under a treaty, the income is governed exclusively by the immovable property clause and therefore taxable income is calculated according to domestic law. Most importantly, the treaty term of income derived from immovable property is comprehensive and includes the imputed income arising from the owners own use of the property, it is not so taxed under Korean domestic law because Korean laws ignore and do not seperately tax such imputed income. Regarding capital gain, the U.S. taxes the capital gain from selling shares in a real property company under FIRPTA overriding a treaty language that does not address a real property company and in effect classifies it as a gain arising from a personal property. In response to this treaty override and for reciprocity, the Korean National Tax Service assimilated such shares to real property in applying the U.S.-Korea Treaty and taxed the gain under domestic law. This practice, however, exceeds the linguistic boundary of the existing language of the Treaty. Mere reciprocity does not justify taxing the capital gain from the shares without amending the treaty or enacting a domestic law overriding the Treaty. 부동산소득은 원천지국의 과세권이 가장 공고히 인정되는 소득 중의 하나여서, 대부분의 조세조약은 부동산 소재지국에 부동산 임대소득과 양도소득의 과세권을 우선 부여하고 있다. 그렇지만 OECD 모델조세조약과 이를 따른 실제 조약들은 과세범위나 소득계산에 관해 자세한 내용을 정하고 있지는 않고, 그런 경우 부동산 소득의 과세는 결국 국내법에 의해 범위가 정해진다.

우리 국내법은 비거주자나 외국법인의 부동산 임대소득은 국내사업장이 있는 사업소득과 마찬가지로 순소득 기준으로 과세한다. 부동산 임대소득은 사업의 수준에 이르더라도 조약상으로는 사업소득이 아니고 부동산소득 규정의 적용을 받으므로 국내 법대로 과세하는 것이 옳다. 고정사업장에 속하는 내재적 임대소득은 조약상으로는 임대소득으로 따로 과세할 수 있지만 우리 국내법 해석상은 이를 따로 추려 과세할 수 없다. 미국의 FIRPTA 규정이 조약에 우선하여 부동산회사의 주식을 과세하기 시작한 이후 우리나라에서도 미국거주자나 미국법인의 부동산회사 주식에 부동산 조항을 적용하여 과세한 사례가 있으나 조약상 부동산소득으로 보는 것은 옳지 않다.
Files in This Item:
Appears in Collections:
College of Law/Law School (법과대학/대학원)The Law Research Institute (법학연구소) 법학법학 Volume 54, Number 1/4 (2013)
  • mendeley

Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.