2000년대 들어 저금리 기조가 지속되자 시중의 풍부한 유동성이 부동산시장으로 유입되어 부동산 시장이 과열되었고, 투 기심리가 만연하였다. 이에 참여정부는 부동산 시장을 안정시키기 위해 부동산 과다보유자들을 겨냥한 종합부동산세제를 신설하여 보유세 부담을 늘리는 동시에 1세대 다주택에 대한 양도소득세율을 혁신적으로 높임으로써 양도소득세 부담도 크게 증가시켰다. 이와 같은 조세환경에서 부동산 과다보유자들이 절세전략으로서 선택할 수 있는 가장 단순한 방법은 제 도 시행 직전 보유부동산을 양도하는 것이다. 본 연구는 종합부동산세제와 1세대 다주택에 대한 양도소득세 중과제도가 부동산 과다보유자들의 양도를 촉발하여 매매거래를 증가시켰는지 실증적으로 조사하였다. 본 연구는 2001년 8월부터 2008년 4월까지의 월별 부동산 매매등기건수를 분석하였으며, 주요한 실증결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 종합부동산세제의 최초 시행을 앞두고 수도권에서는 버블7 지역에서만 부동산 매매거래가 유의적으로 증가하였고, 6대 광역시 중에서는 부 산?울산에서만, 도(道)별로는 전남?경남/북?충남/북?경기남부 지역에서만 부동산 매매거래가 유의적으로 증가하였다. 둘째, 1세대 3주택 이상에 대한 양도소득세 중과제도가 시행되기 직전에는 버블7을 포함하는 수도권 전역과, 6대 광역시 중 부산?광주?대구에서 주택의 매매가 유의적으로 증가하였다. 셋째, 1세대 2주택 양도소득세 중과제도 시행 직전에는 강남3구(강남, 서초, 송파구)를 제외한 수도권 전 지역과, 6대 광역시 중 인천, 광주, 울산에서 주택의 매매거래가 유의 적으로 늘어났다. 이러한 결과는 동일세대가 투자목적으로 소유하고 있는 다량의 부동산이 주로 위에 언급한 특정지역들 에 소재함을 시사한다. 이와 같이 본 연구는 부동산세제가 지속적으로 강화되어 온 조세환경에서 절세전략으로서의 부동 산 양도가 실제로 광범위하게 활용되었음을 확인하였다.
As the IT bubble had burst in the stock market in the early 2000, the Korean government lowered the interest rate and supplied plenty of liquidity to the market. In the course of the governmental macro-economic policy, the real-estate market became inordinately heated. In an attempt to cool down the market, the Participatory Administration (the nick name for the former President Rho’s Administration) initiated a variety of tax policies, among which were the Comprehensive Real-Estate Holding Tax(CREHT) and a drastic increase in the tax rates for the capital gains (CG) from transferring the second house (and beyond) owned by a single household. These newly-enacted tax policies sharply augmented the tax burden of the households holding multiple houses for investment purposes. This opens up the possibility that the multiple-house owners could save a considerable amount of taxes by liquidating part of their real-estate investment portfolio prior to the effective date of the adverse tax policies. The main purpose of this study is to empirically investigate if the CREHT and/or the policy of abnormally high CG tax rates for multi-house owners triggered the sale of real estate properties (houses, in particular). As a matter of fact, the financial media and tax practitioners had often recommended the sale of real estate as a means of coping with the radical increase in the real estate tax burden during the Rho’s Participatory Administration. Further, most of the real-estate investors were believed to be aware of the recommended tax strategy. Yet, there has been no academic research conducted to verify that this strategy has been indeed substantiated by multi-house investors. This study contributes to the extant tax literature in that it confirms if real-estate transactions take place because multi-home owners attempt to reduce the number of houses in order to mitigate the real-estate tax burden. In addition, this study makes further contribution in that it examines the economic ramifications of the real-estate tax policies initiated by the Participatory Administration. Prior research directly related to this study is Jung et al.(2008), who analyze the impact on real-estate gift transactions of the CREHT and the sharp rise in the CG tax rate for multi-house owners. Jung et al. note that the taxpayers who own an excessive number of real-estate properties could lower the CREHT burden by transferring some of their properties by gift to related parties such as spouses because the CREHT in its original form imposes the real-estate holding taxes on the aggregate monetary amount of the real estate held by an individual taxpayer rather than held by a single household. Jung et al. find that during the six months prior to the initial implementation of the CREHT, gift transactions increase significantly in both the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan areas. Further, the gift of real estate property to a spouse raises the tax base of the property, and its subsequent sale will generate a substantially reduced amount of capital gains. Jung et al. also document that immediately before the sharp increase in the CG tax rate for the households owning more than three houses, real-estate gifts in the metropolitan areas significantly increase. Besides Jung et al.’s study, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there is no prior research investigating the effect of tax policies on the real-estate transactions. This study examines whether real-estate sales volume has significantly increased immediately before a radically increased CG tax rate applies to the households who sell the second house (and beyond). It is also examined if the initiation of the CREHT has caused real-estate sale transactions to increase prior to its effective date. The sample data for this study is monthly real-estate sale transactions over the period of August 2001 and April 2008. It is acquired from the Registration Office through an information disclosure request. This is the most suitable data one can practically obtain for the study because the buyers of real-estate properties register their properties at the Office immediately after the purchase. The main results of the study are as follows: First, the geographical locations where a significant increase in transactions is observed prior to the CREHT include: ① so-called the Bubble Seven Region in the Metropolitan Seoul that encompasses Gangnam District, Seocho District, Songpa District (i.e., the Three Gangnam Districts), Yangcheon District(Mok-Dong in particular), Boondang District, Ahnyang City(Pyong-Chon in particular) and Yong-in City, ② the Expanded Cities of Busan and Ulsan among the six Expanded Cities, and ③ South Cholla Province, the two Gyungsang Provinces, the two Choongchung Provinces and the southern region of Gyunggi Province among the eight Provinces. In particular, the Bubble Seven Region, South Cholla Province, and the two Gyungsang Provinces witness a remarkable increase in the real-estate sale transactions prior to the CREHT. In contrast, no significant increases in the real-estate transactions are observed in the Metropolitan Seoul other than the Bubble Seven Region, the Expanded Cities of Incheon, Daejun, Daegu and Gwangju, and the Provinces of Gangwon, North Cholla, Jeju and the northern region of Gyunggi Province. It indicates that the impact of the CREHT is limited to certain geographical areas rather than nation-wide. It also implies that the multi-houses owned by single households for investment purposes are mostly located in these particular geographical areas. Other empirical results of this study are that the drastic increase in the CG tax rate for the third house (and beyond) triggers significant sale transactions in the entire Metropolitan Seoul (including the Bubble Seven Region), the Expanded Cities of Busan, Gwangju and Daegu, and that the radical increase in the CG tax rate for the second house causes significant sale transactions in the Metropolitan Seoul other than the Gangnam Three Districts, the Expanded Cities of Incheon, Gwangju and Ulsan. These empirical results indicate that the real-estate tax policies of the Participatory Administration have inflicted a profound impact upon the real-estate market.