세법은 한편에서는 다른 법에 비하여 법체계가 복잡하고, 조문 숫자도 매우 많으면서도, 다른 한편에서는 근거법률이 없어 과세가 불가피하거나 과세하지 못하고 있는 경우가 많다. 만일 현재의 세법규정들을 합리적으로 적용할 수 있다면 그와 같은 모순되는 상황들을 축소하는 데 도움이 될 수 있을 것이다.
세법규정에 등장하는 법률개념들을 해석함에 있어서도 조세법은 다른 법과 비교했을 때 몇 가지 특수성을 가지고 있다. 첫째, 소위 “엄격해석원칙”에 관한 문제이고, 둘째 실질과세원칙의 문제이고, 셋째, 차용개념의 해석문제이다.
조세법규해석의 하나로 인정되는 엄격해석원칙을 주장하는 논거로 조세법률주의를 들기도 하나 목적적 해석이 ‘해석의 한계범주’ 내에서 진행되는 한 목적적 해석이 문리해석보다 앞서야 한다. 또한 납세자의 재산권보호를 위해 조세법규를 엄격해석해야 한다는 주장도 납세자의 재산권을 보호한다는 문제와 조세법규를 엄격해석하는 문제는 차원을 달리 하는 것이므로 설득력이 약하다. 납세자의 예측가능성을 이유로 엄격해석원칙을 주장하는 논거도 목적적 해석을 한다고 하여 예측가능성을 침해하는 것이 아니므로 설득력이 없다.
세법에서는 목적적 해석을 실질과세원칙이라고 표현하기도 한다. 실질과세원칙은 경제적 실질에 따른 과세를 전제로 해야 한다. 이와 같은 실질과세원칙은 조세회피행위를 부인하는 근거가 되기도 하는 데, 지금까지 조세회피가 문제된 사안에서 대법원은 법적 형식보다는 경제적 실질에 따라 과세해야 한다는 입장을 표명한 판결은 많지 않다. 국세기본법 제14조 제3항이 신설된 것을 계기로 실질과세원칙이 판결에서도 적극적으로 적용될 것이라 예상할 수 있다. 실질과세원칙이 조세조약에도 적용될 수 있다는 것이 OECD모델조약 주석의 입장이나, 국제법과 국내법의 관계를 일원론적으로 파악하지 않는 입장에서는 논란의 여지가 있다. 조세조약의 남용에 관한 일반원칙으로 해결하는 것이 바람직한 것으로 보인다.
차용개념의 해석과 관련하여서도 동일한 개념이라고 하더라도 그것이 위치하고 있는 문장에서의 역할에 따라 의미하는 바가 달라질 수 있다는 것이므로 세법 독자적 해석을 긍정하는 해석이 필요하다. 하지만, 어떠한 경우에도 세법해석은 해석의 한계를 준수하여야 한다. 있는 법과 있었으면 하는 법을 혼동하는 오류를 범해서는 안 된다. 어떠한 정당한 세법해석도 법해석 한계를 초과하는 경우에는 적어도 현행법의 해석으로는 받아들일 수가 없다.
Although tax laws have not only complicated code structures but also contain a great number of code sections in comparison with other statutes, there may be some situations in which the tax authority cannot impose fair tax burden only because an applicable statute is absent. If the absence of the tax statute in that situation can be made up for by the proper interpretation of the existing statute, the proper interpretation of the tax law should be allowed so that any income or gain in the situation can be subject to taxation from the principle of equity. In this way, the interpretation of tax law has compensated for the limitation of statute. There are three distinct issues in tax law fields with regard to the interpretation of law. The first issue is involved with the principle of strict interpretation, the second one is as to the principle of substantial taxation, and the third one is how to interpret concepts borrowed from other law. First of all, the strict interpretation of tax law is on the basis of the principle of no taxation without law, the guarantee of taxpayer's property right and the protection of taxpayer's predictability. However, the purposive interpretation should take precedence over the strict interpretation as long as the purposive interpretation is implemented as the law allows and originally intends to, and coincides with the purpose of the law better than the strict interpretation. In addition, the issue of the strict interpretation of tax law and that of the protection of a taxpayer's property right belong to a different sphere. Lastly the purposive interpretation itself does not impair a taxpayer's predictability. Secondly, the purposive interpretation of tax law is referred as the principle of substantial taxation. The principle of substantial taxation means that the tax liability should be determined based on the economic substance. The courts in Korea usually have found the substance of transactions in tax avoidance cases depending on the legal substance rather than the economic substance. However it is expected that the recently enacted paragraph 3 of the article 14 of the Basic Act for National Taxes provides more strong ground for the courts to operate and apply economic substance rule actively. For the tax treaty, the principle of substantial taxation is applied under the OECD Model Convention as in the domestic situation but controversies still remain in the position which does not view the relationship between international law and domestic law in the same vein. Finally, tax law borrows some legal concepts from other laws such as common law or commercial law. The problem is whether the borrowed concepts should be interpreted in the same way as in other laws or they may have their own concepts in tax law distinct from those in other laws. It is necessary that the independent interpretation of the borrowed concepts in tax law be allowed since even the same words can have different meanings according to the contexts of each law. The interpretation of tax law ought to be done within the limitation of the tax law interpretation at any rate however. The interpretation should not be allowed if the interpretation is beyond its limitation no matter how righteous the interpretation is.
Although tax laws have not only complicated code structures but also contain a great number of code sections in comparison with other statutes, there may be some situations in which the tax authority cannot impose fair tax burden only because an applicable statute is absent. If the absence of the tax statute in that situation can be made up for by the proper interpretation of the existing statute, the proper interpretation of the tax law should be allowed so that any income or gain in the situation can be subject to taxation from the principle of equity. In this way, the interpretation of tax law has compensated for the limitation of statute. There are three distinct issues in tax law fields with regard to the interpretation of law. The first issue is involved with the principle of strict interpretation, the second one is as to the principle of substantial taxation, and the third one is how to interpret concepts borrowed from other law. First of all, the strict interpretation of tax law is on the basis of the principle of no taxation without law, the guarantee of taxpayer's property right and the protection of taxpayer's predictability. However, the purposive interpretation should take precedence over the strict interpretation as long as the purposive interpretation is implemented as the law allows and originally intends to, and coincides with the purpose of the law better than the strict interpretation. In addition, the issue of the strict interpretation of tax law and that of the protection of a taxpayer's property right belong to a different sphere. Lastly the purposive interpretation itself does not impair a taxpayer's predictability. Secondly, the purposive interpretation of tax law is referred as the principle of substantial taxation. The principle of substantial taxation means that the tax liability should be determined based on the economic substance. The courts in Korea usually have found the substance of transactions in tax avoidance cases depending on the legal substance rather than the economic substance. However it is expected that the recently enacted paragraph 3 of the article 14 of the Basic Act for National Taxes provides more strong ground for the courts to operate and apply economic substance rule actively. For the tax treaty, the principle of substantial taxation is applied under the OECD Model Convention as in the domestic situation but controversies still remain in the position which does not view the relationship between international law and domestic law in the same vein. Finally, tax law borrows some legal concepts from other laws such as common law or commercial law. The problem is whether the borrowed concepts should be interpreted in the same way as in other laws or they may have their own concepts in tax law distinct from those in other laws. It is necessary that the independent interpretation of the borrowed concepts in tax law be allowed since even the same words can have different meanings according to the contexts of each law. The interpretation of tax law ought to be done within the limitation of the tax law interpretation at any rate however. The interpretation should not be allowed if the interpretation is beyond its limitation no matter how righteous the interpretation is.
