우리나라는 1977년 소비세제를 개혁하면서 일반 소비세인 부가가치세를 도입하였다. 일반 소비세인 부가가치세는 통상적으로 부담의 역진적 성격을 가지고 있다는 것이 당연히 받아 들여졌으며, 특히 우리나라의 부가가치세제의 경우는 도입시부터 단일비례세율구조로 대표적인 역진적인 세제로 자리 잡고 있다. 이러한 부가가치세의 역진성을 완화하기 위하여 저소득층의 소비에 큰 비중을 차지하고 있는 기초생활필수품과 의료서비스ㆍ주거서비스공급에 대해서는 면세를 하고 있으며, 또한 고소득자의 소비 비중이 높은 사치품 등에 대해서는 별도로 개별소비세를 부과하고 있다.
본 논문은 응능부담의 관점에서 현행 단일비례세율구조로 되어 있는 부가가치세제의 현황과 내용을 기존의 문헌 및 외국의 사례 등을 통하여 비판적으로 분석ㆍ검토하여 문제점을 찾아내고, 그에 관한 차등비례세율 도입방안을 제시하였다. 즉 부가가치세제의 단일비례세율구조에 따른 부담의 역진성, 역진성 완화를 위해 도입된 면세제도 및 개별소비세의 문제점을 지적하고 차등비례세율의 도입방안을 제시하면서 그 효과를 분석하였다.
현행 부가가치세제의 단일세율구조의 문제점과 응능부담 관점에 의한 차등비례세율의 도입방안은 다음과 같다.
첫째, 현행 우리나라 부가가치세의 단일세율구조에서 차등비례세율로 전환하면서 현행 세율 10%를 표준세율로 설정하고 면세대상 거래에 대하여는 부가가치세의 과세범위에 포함시켜 경감세율을 적용하는 것이 바람직하다.
둘째, 세율구조를 차등비례세율구조로 전환하면서 현행 면세대상거래인 기초생활필수품에 대하여는 영세율을 적용받도록 하여야 한다.
셋째, 개별소비세의 문제점을 해결하기 위하여 개별소비세의 체계전환이 요구되고 있으며, 이는 부가가치세의 차등비례세율로 전환하면서 동시에 체계전환을 모색하는 것이 바람직하다 할 것이다.
한편, 현행 부가가치세의 단일비례세율구조를 차등비례세율로 전환하는 경우에는 다음과 같은 효과가 발생할 것이다.
첫째, 현행 면세거래로 분류된 부분을 경감세율을 적용한 과세거래로 적용한다면 일반세율보다 세율격차도 크면서 동시에 사업자의 경우에는 매입세액공제를 받아 환급이 허용되므로 면세거래보다 세부담의 감면효과가 더 크게 될 것이다.
둘째, 차등비례세율로 전환하는 경우 현행 간이과세자 또는 면세사업자에게 경감세율을 적용하게 됨으로서 영세한 사업자 또는 기초생활필수품 등에 대한 혜택을 주기 위한 입법취지도 훼손하지 않으면서 비록 낮은 세율이더라도 매입세액의 공제도 허용되어 전단계세액공제 방식 또한 유지된다.
셋째, 현행 간이과세자 또는 면세사업자가 일반적으로 세금계산서를 발행할 의무가 없어 과세거래의 혼란을 초래하였다. 그러나 차등비례세율의 도입으로 간이과세자 또는 면세사업자가 과세사업자로 전환되면서 세금계산서의 수수의무를 지므로 과세거래의 혼란을 제거하는 효과를 낳는다.
With the consumption tax being reformed in 1977 in Korea, the value added tax, which is a general consumer tax, was introduced. Value added tax, a general consumer tax, was naturally received to normally be a regressive responsibility, and especially in the case of value added tax systems in Korea, since its implementation, it has established itself as a common regressive tax system due to its uniform proportional tax rate structure. In order to soften the regressive nature of value added tax, basic everyday necessities, medical services, and residential service supplies that take up a big part of consumption for the lower-income bracket are tax-exempt, while individual consumption taxes are added to luxury goods that take up a big deal of consumption for higher-income earners.
This study, based on the perspective of the ‘ability to pay’ principle, critically analyzes and reviews the current status and contents of the value added tax system that is currently uniform proportional tax rate structure through literary materials and overseas cases to search for problems, and to suggest plans to introduce the proportional and differential tax rates for this. In other words, problems with the regressive nature of responsibilities according to the uniform proportional tax rate structure of the value added tax system, and the tax-exemption policies and individual consumption taxes set in place to soften such regressive nature was pointed out, while suggesting plans for introducing the proportional and differential tax rates, while analyzing its effects.
Issues of the uniform tax structure of the current value added tax system and plans for implementing the proportional and differentiated tax rates from the ‘ability to pay’ perspective are as seen below.
First, in the current uniform tax rate structure for value added tax in Korea, it would be advisable to set the current tax rate of 10% as the standard tax rate while converting to the proportional and differentiated tax rates, while applying a reduced tax rate for items subject to tax exemption within the tax range of the value added tax system.
Second, while converting the tax rate structure to a proportional and differentiated tax structure, tax exemptions must be applied for basic everyday necessities, which are currently subject to tax exemption.
Third, in order to resolve the issue with individual consumption taxes, there is a need to change the system for individual consumption taxes. In addition, it would be advisable to search for a change in the system at the same time of converting it to a proportional and differentiated tax rate for value added tax.
Meanwhile, in the case of converting the current uniform proportional tax rate structure for value added taxes to a proportional and differentiated tax rate, the following effects will be generated.
First, when the section categorized currently as tax-free transactions are changed to taxed transactions with reduced tax rates, there will be a large tax differentiation with normal tax rates, while in the case of business owners, they will be permitted to receive tax refunds, and therefore, have a greater tax cut effect compared to that in tax-free transactions.
Second, when converting to a proportional and differentiated tax rate, a reduced tax rate will be applied to simplified taxation payers and tax-free business owners. Thus, it will not infringe upon the purpose of the legislation to give benefits to small businesses and basic everyday necessities, while permitting tax deductions for purchases, even if the tax rate is low, which will, therefore, maintain the previous-stage tax deduction method.
Third, because simplified taxation payers and tax-free business owners are not liable to issue tax invoices, there has been much confusion in taxable transactions. However, with the implementation of proportional and differentiated tax rates, simplified taxation payers and tax-free business owners will be converted to taxable business owners. They will thus have the responsibility to issue and be issued tax invoices and will thus have an effect in eliminating the confusion for taxable transactions.