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
Enterprise should keep recording accounting books in order to clarify the situation of assets, profit, and loss through a bookkeeping method while carrying on business. In general, it has been executed by Commercial Act (Article 29, Clause ① and ②) based on the fair and valid accounting practices. Therefore, all enterprises are obliged to keep recording accounting books except a small business prescribed by Commercial Act, Article 9. Therefore, firms usually tend to entrust accounting experts through a contract of bookkeeping job regarding almost of all accounting matters that may happened or possibly occur later including small-medium sized businesses. However, because of a lack of ability to understand keeping books, it may cause troubles, by mistake or on purpose, about the bookkeeping concerned with tax-related affairs that may occur afterwards.
Meanwhile, accounting experts may use accounts with a vicarious purpose that have been entrusted to them, even though, mutually agreed by the enterprise, they book in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards (a view as is generally known in interpreting current legislation), which have been recognized as fair, valid accounting practices in interpreting Commercial Act and by Article 30, Section 1 of Commercial Act. However, the expense of settlement accounting services that requested to the enterprises who are the clients by the accounting experts in a token of "Tax Adjustment Fee" has become a problem always arising disputes between the enterprise and accounting expert. If this situation need to be comprehended just as a problem occurred in the course of concluding a contract between each party to the contract, it should not necessarily be the subject to be argued. But, at the bottom of such disputes or conflicts, there lies defects in legislation, moreover, such disputes have been premised on invisible intervention by the authority concerned. For this reason, there is nothing either enterprise or accounting expert can do but ends up with a unequal agreement between them. As long as the tax adjustment according to legal contentions has been pointed out as the cause of defects in legislation, such a case, by all means, can't be neglected at all.
The point is, first, among the items related to the expense of services for settlement of accounts requested by accounting experts, so called, "Tax Adjustment Fee", what is this for? why should they request this fee? In theory, it would be fine if enterprises keep the books pursuant to Commercial Act and Financial Accounting Standards as well, and make tax reports thereof based on the records in a sincere manner fulfilling tax obligation. However, in the practice of corporate accounting, since there are some differences in accounting policies between the one on the basis of Financial Accounting Standards and the other one according to tax accounting rules and standards. Enterprises are required to adjust such differences in closing their accounts, to wit, they would need tax adjustment procedures at the end of every financial term, and so they require additional efforts to settle the differences, and this cause them to call for services of accounting experts, thus, to compensate for tax adjustment services needed, accounting experts request for payment of "Tax Adjustment Fee."
From the this perspective of enterprises, if they post up accounts in accordance with Tax Accounting Rules and Standards, not Financial Accounting Standards, from the beginning, they may expect a relief from the burdens of tax adjustments. Enterprises, therefore, claim that the current legislation has only added extra burdens to businesses by dualizing accounting policy, and that it comes under the defects in legislation. Secondly, if the tax adjustment procedure is the process that enterprises must go through under the current legislative system, so then it is supposed to be left to autonomous discretion of enterprises. It has been pointed out, however, that new problems have arisen because of active inter vention by the authority concerned. As to the methods of tax adjustment now under enforcement, specifically it has been divided into self-adjustment (discretional adjustment) and external adjustment (forced adjustment). And, if the relevant enterprises have once equipped with ample terms and conditions as the businesses subject to "Report to the System of External Adjustment for Corporate Tax," pursuant to the guidelines of the National Tax Service, these enterprises, though they are fully capable to make self-adjustment, do not have any other choices but to be the subject to external adjustment (forced adjustment), which would bring pecuniary burdens to them. Accordingly, such enterprises will not be able to avoid unfavorable situations in running business but to endure their unequal positions from the beginning of the aforesaid contract. Therefore, it is claimed that there is nothing enterprises can do but to conclude the contracts in terms of unequal provisions. This is well known fact that these problematic areas, which have been emerged these days, are not the new topics at all. So then, why such problems could not be discussed in depth up until now, but set aside?
Giving a thought to the point, the case can be analyzed and explained that the parties concerned have tended to avoid any disputes or argues that would make the parties involved uncomfortable and troublesome anticipating fierce confrontations between academic disciplines over interpretation thereof on account of complexity of financial and tax accounting practices, including legal disputes, etc. And, we can also infer the reason from the fact that, in case of the advanced countries, they also don't present a solution in a clear-cut manner maneuvering frontal breakthrough against such problems, and that, even though there have occurred frequent conflicts between stakeholders over "Tax Adjustment Fee" at the place other than court, it hasn't developed as legal proceedings.
In recent days, along with ongoing revisions of Financial Accounting Standards in a hasty fashion, which had been modified by Korea Accounting Institute, having neglected stipulations concerned with calculation prescribed by Commercial Act already effective, new problems have emerged, and amid such confusions, some research papers relative to tax law, in which revised provisions of Financial Accounting Standards have been quoted and reflected, argue that tax accounting should pursue and develope its independent identity free from Financial Accounting Standards. Researcher thinks that bystander-like or wait-and-see attitude of the commercial law circle should be withdrawn, rather the relevant academia is required to pursue fundamental resolution of problems by expressing their thought, and also clarifying their position firmly. In this context, this research paper aims at a review of tax adjustment issues, which have been indicated as problems in the respect of financial and tax accounting practices as mentioned above in a specific manner, and to devise methods of improvements thereof from institutional prospective.
Meanwhile, accounting experts may use accounts with a vicarious purpose that have been entrusted to them, even though, mutually agreed by the enterprise, they book in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards (a view as is generally known in interpreting current legislation), which have been recognized as fair, valid accounting practices in interpreting Commercial Act and by Article 30, Section 1 of Commercial Act. However, the expense of settlement accounting services that requested to the enterprises who are the clients by the accounting experts in a token of "Tax Adjustment Fee" has become a problem always arising disputes between the enterprise and accounting expert. If this situation need to be comprehended just as a problem occurred in the course of concluding a contract between each party to the contract, it should not necessarily be the subject to be argued. But, at the bottom of such disputes or conflicts, there lies defects in legislation, moreover, such disputes have been premised on invisible intervention by the authority concerned. For this reason, there is nothing either enterprise or accounting expert can do but ends up with a unequal agreement between them. As long as the tax adjustment according to legal contentions has been pointed out as the cause of defects in legislation, such a case, by all means, can't be neglected at all.
The point is, first, among the items related to the expense of services for settlement of accounts requested by accounting experts, so called, "Tax Adjustment Fee", what is this for? why should they request this fee? In theory, it would be fine if enterprises keep the books pursuant to Commercial Act and Financial Accounting Standards as well, and make tax reports thereof based on the records in a sincere manner fulfilling tax obligation. However, in the practice of corporate accounting, since there are some differences in accounting policies between the one on the basis of Financial Accounting Standards and the other one according to tax accounting rules and standards. Enterprises are required to adjust such differences in closing their accounts, to wit, they would need tax adjustment procedures at the end of every financial term, and so they require additional efforts to settle the differences, and this cause them to call for services of accounting experts, thus, to compensate for tax adjustment services needed, accounting experts request for payment of "Tax Adjustment Fee."
From the this perspective of enterprises, if they post up accounts in accordance with Tax Accounting Rules and Standards, not Financial Accounting Standards, from the beginning, they may expect a relief from the burdens of tax adjustments. Enterprises, therefore, claim that the current legislation has only added extra burdens to businesses by dualizing accounting policy, and that it comes under the defects in legislation. Secondly, if the tax adjustment procedure is the process that enterprises must go through under the current legislative system, so then it is supposed to be left to autonomous discretion of enterprises. It has been pointed out, however, that new problems have arisen because of active inter vention by the authority concerned. As to the methods of tax adjustment now under enforcement, specifically it has been divided into self-adjustment (discretional adjustment) and external adjustment (forced adjustment). And, if the relevant enterprises have once equipped with ample terms and conditions as the businesses subject to "Report to the System of External Adjustment for Corporate Tax," pursuant to the guidelines of the National Tax Service, these enterprises, though they are fully capable to make self-adjustment, do not have any other choices but to be the subject to external adjustment (forced adjustment), which would bring pecuniary burdens to them. Accordingly, such enterprises will not be able to avoid unfavorable situations in running business but to endure their unequal positions from the beginning of the aforesaid contract. Therefore, it is claimed that there is nothing enterprises can do but to conclude the contracts in terms of unequal provisions. This is well known fact that these problematic areas, which have been emerged these days, are not the new topics at all. So then, why such problems could not be discussed in depth up until now, but set aside?
Giving a thought to the point, the case can be analyzed and explained that the parties concerned have tended to avoid any disputes or argues that would make the parties involved uncomfortable and troublesome anticipating fierce confrontations between academic disciplines over interpretation thereof on account of complexity of financial and tax accounting practices, including legal disputes, etc. And, we can also infer the reason from the fact that, in case of the advanced countries, they also don't present a solution in a clear-cut manner maneuvering frontal breakthrough against such problems, and that, even though there have occurred frequent conflicts between stakeholders over "Tax Adjustment Fee" at the place other than court, it hasn't developed as legal proceedings.
In recent days, along with ongoing revisions of Financial Accounting Standards in a hasty fashion, which had been modified by Korea Accounting Institute, having neglected stipulations concerned with calculation prescribed by Commercial Act already effective, new problems have emerged, and amid such confusions, some research papers relative to tax law, in which revised provisions of Financial Accounting Standards have been quoted and reflected, argue that tax accounting should pursue and develope its independent identity free from Financial Accounting Standards. Researcher thinks that bystander-like or wait-and-see attitude of the commercial law circle should be withdrawn, rather the relevant academia is required to pursue fundamental resolution of problems by expressing their thought, and also clarifying their position firmly. In this context, this research paper aims at a review of tax adjustment issues, which have been indicated as problems in the respect of financial and tax accounting practices as mentioned above in a specific manner, and to devise methods of improvements thereof from institutional prospective.
목차
Ⅰ. 問題의 提起
Ⅱ. 企業의 會計處理와 관련된 商法의 思想
Ⅲ. 企業會計와 稅務會計의 法的關係 및 稅務調整
Ⅳ. 結語
참고 문헌
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (12)
참고문헌 신청
1. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 왕순모 / 2003 / 기업회계법의 구축과 전망(1)-「기업회계」기준의 법적 지위- / 상사법연구 21 (4) : 4 ~ 149
2. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 李愚澤 / 2003 / 稅法상 企業會計 準用 規定의 問題點과 改編方案에 관한 연구 / 硏究報告書
3. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 徐聖浩 / 2006 / 상법 제9조 소상인의 해석론에 관한 연구 / 商事判例硏究
4. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 안경봉 / 2006 / 상법 회계관련규정의 개정과 세법 / 2006년도 한국세법학회 제87차 정기학술발표자료
5. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 박정우 / 2001 / 기업경영투명성확보에 관한 연구 / 상사법연구
2. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 李愚澤 / 2003 / 稅法상 企業會計 準用 規定의 問題點과 改編方案에 관한 연구 / 硏究報告書
3. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 徐聖浩 / 2006 / 상법 제9조 소상인의 해석론에 관한 연구 / 商事判例硏究
4. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 안경봉 / 2006 / 상법 회계관련규정의 개정과 세법 / 2006년도 한국세법학회 제87차 정기학술발표자료
5. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 박정우 / 2001 / 기업경영투명성확보에 관한 연구 / 상사법연구
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
기업회계기준위반(분식회계)에 대한 법적 고찰
법학연구
2005 .06
-
세무회계분야의 연구동향과 발전과제
계명대학교 산업경영연구소 단행본
2010 .05
-
세무회계분야의 연구동향과 발전과제
경영경제
2010 .05
-
이용자 전산능력 및 국세통합시스템(TIS) 품질이 TIS 성과에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구
국제회계연구
2003 .10
-
업적평가회계에 관한 소고
경영학연구
1972 .12
-
국가회계기준의 개선에 관한 연구
경영법률
2012 .01
-
중국 회계법률제도 현황 및 개선방안 연구
경영법률
2019 .01
-
The Present Situation of Accounting Standards and the Development Tendency in China
한국경영교육학회 학술발표대회논문집
2011 .12
-
상법의 관점에서 본 상법 회계규정과 기업회계기준의 조화
법학논총
2006 .02
-
회계정보의 투명성 제고방안에 관한 연구
국제회계연구
2003 .10
-
法人稅配分方法의 적정성
국제회계연구
2003 .05
-
기업회계기준과 세법의 조화방안
조세법연구
2005 .07
-
Past, Current, and Prospect, of Korean Financial Accounting Standards for Financial Reporting
회계정보리뷰
1995 .12
-
중소기업회계입법에 대한 한독비교연구
기업법연구
2013 .06
-
회계 기준의 국제화와 세무회계
경영경제
2014 .05
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-366-014826539