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
Under domestic tax laws of many jurisdictions, collective investment funds are not taxed on the income received. They do not pay tax either on all income received or only on as much income as they distribute to the investors by dint of their legal characteristics. These traits as pass through entities under domestic tax laws of their establishment render themselves some significant problems when the issue of tax treaty application comes up. Their beneficial ownership under the provisions of tax treaties or substantial(economic) ownership in domestic tax laws as some corresponding concept to beneficial ownership to the income received by collective investment funds are usually questioned.
Under domestic tax laws of Korea collective investment funds are treated as such pass through entities. According to administrative rulings by tax authorities the investors to the funds are to be taxed and therefore tax treaty with the state of its establishment is not applied at all. Usually the investor to a fund is regarded as beneficial owner or substantial owner of the income received by the fund as far as attributable to the investor. The position taken by tax authorities have a very strong logical argument that tax has to be levied on person who has earned substantial economic gains, which is also supported by practices and interpretations by many countries and the OECD. However it causes uncertainty as to the issue who are to regarded as a beneficial owner(or substantial owner) and ensuing administrative difficulties to a significant degree.
Through our research in this article we could find out some very good examples including a system of tax treaties which deems a fund satisfying the requirements prescribed by tax treaties or domestic tax laws as a resident or beneficial owner. In regard to interest income earned by individuals the EU is now running a system within its jurisdiction by which interest income earned by individuals of member states is taxed by a state of each individual's residence. This system is supported by strengthened exchange of information. This system has been implemented only for a few years but seems to have increased certainty as to the taxation of interest income because it preempts the necessity of the application of tax treaties between member states. As a non-member state Korea may introduce the same system only on a bilateral basis, which is definitely to be pondered upon for its introduction though. Furthermore as a member state of the OECD, Korea may have to watch the movements as to the treatment of the collective investment funds in the Committee of Fiscal Affairs of the OECD. In this committee the treatment of collective investment fund as a resident or beneficial owner is being discussed now.
Under domestic tax laws of Korea collective investment funds are treated as such pass through entities. According to administrative rulings by tax authorities the investors to the funds are to be taxed and therefore tax treaty with the state of its establishment is not applied at all. Usually the investor to a fund is regarded as beneficial owner or substantial owner of the income received by the fund as far as attributable to the investor. The position taken by tax authorities have a very strong logical argument that tax has to be levied on person who has earned substantial economic gains, which is also supported by practices and interpretations by many countries and the OECD. However it causes uncertainty as to the issue who are to regarded as a beneficial owner(or substantial owner) and ensuing administrative difficulties to a significant degree.
Through our research in this article we could find out some very good examples including a system of tax treaties which deems a fund satisfying the requirements prescribed by tax treaties or domestic tax laws as a resident or beneficial owner. In regard to interest income earned by individuals the EU is now running a system within its jurisdiction by which interest income earned by individuals of member states is taxed by a state of each individual's residence. This system is supported by strengthened exchange of information. This system has been implemented only for a few years but seems to have increased certainty as to the taxation of interest income because it preempts the necessity of the application of tax treaties between member states. As a non-member state Korea may introduce the same system only on a bilateral basis, which is definitely to be pondered upon for its introduction though. Furthermore as a member state of the OECD, Korea may have to watch the movements as to the treatment of the collective investment funds in the Committee of Fiscal Affairs of the OECD. In this committee the treatment of collective investment fund as a resident or beneficial owner is being discussed now.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 본론
Ⅲ. 결론
〈참고문헌〉
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
『투자펀드를 이용한 國際投資時 발생하는 租稅上 問題點과 改善方案』
조세학술논집
2004 .02
-
조세조약의 남용 방지
조세학술논집
2006 .02
-
현행 펀드세제의 문제점 및 개선방안에 관한 연구
조세법연구
2010 .12
-
조세조약의 적용에 관한 소고 : 역외투자회사의 경우
조세학술논집
2006 .02
-
해외투자펀드에 대한 과세제도 현황 및 문제점
조세학술논집
2007 .02
-
스타타워빌딩 매각거래를 통한 론스타펀드III의 세무계획의 분석
조세학술논집
2012 .02
-
The Discrepancy between Statutory Tax and Real Tax Burden : The Case of Korea
Korea and the World Economy
2009 .04
-
Beneficial Ownership 개념과 실질과세원칙의 관계
조세법연구
2010 .04
-
해외 부동산투자와 조세문제
조세학술논집
2007 .02
-
국제세원관리의 문제점과 개선방안
조세학술논집
2011 .02
-
OECD모델조세조약주석상 “수익적 소유” 개념 해석지침에 관한 연구
조세학술논집
2020 .03
-
조세조약상 수익적소유자와 국내세법상 실질귀속자와의 관계
조세학술논집
2013 .02
-
국제조세법규 적용을 위한 소득구분 및 원천지 결정 - 과소자본세제 초과이자 및 미등록 특허사용료에 관한 판례를 중심으로 -
조세학술논집
2019 .06
-
세법상 거주자 개념
조세학술논집
2008 .02
-
조세조약상 고정사업장 과세
조세학술논집
2007 .08
-
현행소득과세제도와 조세공평주의
법학연구
2007 .06
-
외국계 펀드에 대한 과세 : 국제조세분야를 중심으로
조세학술논집
2005 .08
-
최근 세법의 동향
조세학술논집
2008 .08
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-329-015930359