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
This paper involves the differences of tax consequences, depending on whether the transfer of financial assets by sponsor to securitization vehicles is characterized as a sale or a financing, and the tax standards distinguishing a sale from a financing. The conclusion to be drawn here is as follows:
The characterization of the transfer thereof as a sale or a financing influences the recognition of tax ownership, the characterization of gain from the transfer, the recognition of bad debt allowances, the deductibility of bad debt expenses, the limitations of foreign tax credits, the traceability of tax claims to successors and the applicability of ‘Securities Exchange Tax’.
The following standards will work as general tax standards of distinguishing a sale from a financing in the context of securitization transactions. First, the substantial burden and benefits of securitization assets should be shifted from sponsor to securitization vehicles. Second, sponsor may not have control of securitization assets after transfer. Third, the part of securitization assets or securitization assets pools may be transferred to securitization vehicles but the tax standards thereof should be applied to the transferred securitization assets on an entire basis.
The general tax standards thereof may well be transformed into concrete tax standards according to the following transaction patterns.
First, the transfer with no strings means the transfer after which the sponsor has no continuing links such as servicing agreements, make-up arrangements etc., which will be characterized as a sale.
Second, there may be servicing agreement, clean-up-call agreement or repurchase(or exchange) obligations due to breach of representations between sponsor and securitization vehicles as continuing links, which may not be against the sale treatment in general.
Third, credit enhancement arrangements in itself may not be against the sale treatment, unless sponsor is already in some serious delinquencies or other risk-related symptoms.
Fourth, the sponsor’s guarantees relating to prepayment and market value in itself may not be against the sale treatment, unless there is substantial certainty that the transferred assets will be back to the sponsor in case of guarantee relating to market value.
Fifth, the call option at the sponsor’s discretion under the specified condition in itself may not be against the sale treatment, unless the exercise of the call option is economically compelled at the time of transfer and the sponsor can exercise the option at his full discretion. And if the sponsor has the put option and call option under the same exercise price spontaneously, it will be appropriate to characterize the transfer as a financing.
Sixth, the sponsor may have substitution rights to substitute the similar assets for the securitization assets in the vehicles at his disposal, which will be characterized as a financing factor unless the substitution rights is for replacing the defective securitization assets with the similar assets.
Seventh, it will be easier to characterize the transfer with the sponsor’s retention of interest rate strips as a sale of the other interests than the transfer with put option relating to the risks of prepayment.
Eighth, if the amount of excess servicing beyond reasonable compensation represents a fixed number of basis points of interest on securitization assets, the amount will be recharacterized as stripped coupons, which may not be against the sale treatment. If not, the amount will be recharacterized as the sponsor’s continuing links with the securitization assets, which is likely to be a financing factor.
Ninth, there may be swap contract between the sponsor and securitization vehicles, which in itself may not be against the sale treatment, unless the payments under the swap contract are linked to those of securitization assets or the swap contract is characterized as total return swap.
The characterization of the transfer thereof as a sale or a financing influences the recognition of tax ownership, the characterization of gain from the transfer, the recognition of bad debt allowances, the deductibility of bad debt expenses, the limitations of foreign tax credits, the traceability of tax claims to successors and the applicability of ‘Securities Exchange Tax’.
The following standards will work as general tax standards of distinguishing a sale from a financing in the context of securitization transactions. First, the substantial burden and benefits of securitization assets should be shifted from sponsor to securitization vehicles. Second, sponsor may not have control of securitization assets after transfer. Third, the part of securitization assets or securitization assets pools may be transferred to securitization vehicles but the tax standards thereof should be applied to the transferred securitization assets on an entire basis.
The general tax standards thereof may well be transformed into concrete tax standards according to the following transaction patterns.
First, the transfer with no strings means the transfer after which the sponsor has no continuing links such as servicing agreements, make-up arrangements etc., which will be characterized as a sale.
Second, there may be servicing agreement, clean-up-call agreement or repurchase(or exchange) obligations due to breach of representations between sponsor and securitization vehicles as continuing links, which may not be against the sale treatment in general.
Third, credit enhancement arrangements in itself may not be against the sale treatment, unless sponsor is already in some serious delinquencies or other risk-related symptoms.
Fourth, the sponsor’s guarantees relating to prepayment and market value in itself may not be against the sale treatment, unless there is substantial certainty that the transferred assets will be back to the sponsor in case of guarantee relating to market value.
Fifth, the call option at the sponsor’s discretion under the specified condition in itself may not be against the sale treatment, unless the exercise of the call option is economically compelled at the time of transfer and the sponsor can exercise the option at his full discretion. And if the sponsor has the put option and call option under the same exercise price spontaneously, it will be appropriate to characterize the transfer as a financing.
Sixth, the sponsor may have substitution rights to substitute the similar assets for the securitization assets in the vehicles at his disposal, which will be characterized as a financing factor unless the substitution rights is for replacing the defective securitization assets with the similar assets.
Seventh, it will be easier to characterize the transfer with the sponsor’s retention of interest rate strips as a sale of the other interests than the transfer with put option relating to the risks of prepayment.
Eighth, if the amount of excess servicing beyond reasonable compensation represents a fixed number of basis points of interest on securitization assets, the amount will be recharacterized as stripped coupons, which may not be against the sale treatment. If not, the amount will be recharacterized as the sponsor’s continuing links with the securitization assets, which is likely to be a financing factor.
Ninth, there may be swap contract between the sponsor and securitization vehicles, which in itself may not be against the sale treatment, unless the payments under the swap contract are linked to those of securitization assets or the swap contract is characterized as total return swap.
#유동화
#매매
#차입거래
#실질적 부담과 효익의 이전
#유동화 자산에 대한 지배권
#관리용역계약
#크린업 콜
#신용보강약정
#보증
#콜옵션
#풋옵션
#대체권
#이자율 스트립스
#스왑
#토털리턴스완
#securitization
#sale
#financing
#the shift of substantial burden and benefits
#control of securitization assets
#servicing agreements
#clean-up-call
#credit enhancement arrangements
#guarantees
#call option
#put option
#substitution rights
#interest rate strips
#swap
#total return swap
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 유동화금융자산의 양도에 관한 세법 및 기업회계 상 취급
Ⅲ. 세법 상 매각거래 및 차입거래의 구분실익
Ⅳ. 유동화금융자산의 매각여부 판정에 관한 일반적 기준
Ⅴ. 유동화금융자산의 매각여부 판정에 관한 거래형태별 검토
Ⅵ. 결론
〈참고문헌〉
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (23)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
자산유동화의 대상자산의 확대
재산법연구
2006 .01
-
자산유동화법에 의한 자산유동화의 한계와 이를 극복하기 위한 수단으로서의 비정형유동화에 관한 고찰
증권법연구
2003 .06
-
중국의 자산유동화세제에 관한 연구
조세학술논집
2012 .08
-
자산유동화와 진정한 매매의 법리
비교사법
2007 .09
-
부동산 개발신탁 수익권의 유동화 가능성 : 시행사의 의식을 중심으로
주거환경
2008 .12
-
부동산개발신탁수익권의 유동화에 대한 시공회사의 인식
한국지역개발학회지
2008 .12
-
지적재산권의 수익자산화와 금융구조에 대한 소고
외법논집
2011 .01
-
Research on the Micro-Motivations of Enterprise Asset Backed Securitization : Based on Panel Data of Chinese Listed Companies
산업경제연구
2018 .04
-
자산유동화를 통한 기업자금조달의 구조 및 특성에 관한 연구
전문경영인연구
2014 .01
-
미국주택담보대출의 증권화와 주택가격버블
사회경제평론
2009 .01
-
자산유동화 : 동방이동통신 부동산 유동화 사례
Korea Business Review
2006 .01
-
지식재산권의 신탁과 유동화 방안
증권법연구
2006 .12
-
자산유동화와 모니터링 유인간의 관계
한국경영과학회지
2012 .06
-
조세채권의 유동화에 따른 법적 과제
조세학술논집
2015 .02
-
방송저작권 유동화의 활성화에 관한 소고
일감법학
2014 .01
-
How to Mobilize the Asian Savings within the Region: Securitization and Credit Enhancement for the Development of East Asia’s Bond Market
[KIEP] 연구보고서
2003 .03
-
지정학, 안보화(securitization), 자연 : 평화의 댐 건설을 사례로
대한지리학회 학술대회논문집
2015 .11
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2012-329-003687706