課稅權의 憲法的 限界 = (The) Constitutional limitation of the government's power to tax

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

As the government plays an important role for the social welfare, it needs more financial resources, which makes citizens burdened with taxes. It has been always possible to abuse of the power to tax by the government or tax authorities, actually, there have been a lot of conflicts and contestation between a tax authority and an individual to pay a tax even if citizens' basic regal rights should be protected from the excessive taxation no matter how important the tax is for the realization of the social welfare.
To solve those problems between two, general standards are needed to judge the suitability of the taxation, so the Constitution provides fundamental standards and limitations against the abuse of the taxation.
First, each basic right itself described in the Constitution is the substantial standard, which include the implied right such as the guarantee of the institution.
Second, principles of taxation which is originated from the Constitution are the practical standard. There are two articles in the Constitution with regards to the tax. one is §38 -All citizens shall have the duty to pay taxes under the conditions as prescribed by Act-, and the other is §59-Types and rates of taxes shall be determined by Act-. Two main principles in the tax are originated from articles above, the principle of Equality in the Taxation and the principle of No Tax without the Law.
Therefore, it is necessary to review the relation between each explicit and implied right admitted by the Constitution and the current tax system in connection with the principle of Equality in the Taxation and the principle of No Tax without the Law to judge the constitutional limitation of the government's power to tax.
First, the tax law embodies the principle on the Right of Equality in the Constitution as the principle of Equality in the Taxation. It means that the tax should be imposed on citizens corresponding to their abilities equally.
In judging if the government's power to tax violates the principle on the Right of Equality on the Constitution, the principle of the prohibition of arbitrary discrimination or the principle of the resonable discrimination is applied in general. To review more strictly, it is certain to consider the degree of the discrimination-whether the discrimination is excessive or not-together.
Second, researchers had thought that the government's power to tax had nothing to do with the guarantee the right of property in the past, while texts about the right of property on the Constitution are an important standard in judging whether the power to tax is suitable to the Constitution.
Third, a tax authority forces a person to open private information and submit documents for efficient and equal taxation, however, the excessive compulsion of submission is able to disturb the right of privacy. Thus, it is reasonable that tax authorities should require private information only in case that information is used for the taxation and only according to the law.
Fourth, All citizens are free to reside and move where they want to be. Concerning this freedom, a taxation should not be used as means of restricting it. A variety of tax policies for controlling the real-estate speculation take citizens' right into consideration not to disturb their freedom to reside and move.
Fifth, it is possible for a tax law to make the freedom of choosing a job difficult though a tax law doesn't disturb the freedom directly. For example, the tax for the purpose of realization of a certain policy has a possibility to trespass the freedom in choosing and performing one's job.
Sixth, All citizens shall be entitled to a life worthy of human being. The legislation has a broad power to make a rule to realize it. However, in spite of the broad legislative power, the essential part of citizens' right should not be invaded.
To achieve a life worthy of human being, it is important to guarantee the minimum cost of living in case of taxation and broaden a deduction on the income tax.
Seventh, Marriage and family life shall be entered into and sustained on the basis of individual dignity and equality of the sexes, and the State shall do everything in its power to achieve that goal. It is a part of the guarantee of institution on the Constitution. Especially, a tax system should not cause a married couple or a family an unreasonable discrimination. Therefore, it is not appropriate to impose the income tax or the property tax based on a married couple or a family as a unit of taxation. In addition, when the income tax is calculated, expenses for the family support must be deducted out of whole income.
Eighth, with regard to the Local Autonomy, a legislator has discretionary powers in forming its institution but a certain limitation as well. That is, the essential contents of its institution should not be abolished by even a legislation. To guarantee Local Autonomy, It is important for the government to keep a certain scope of Local taxation, which has a close relationship with the tax law.
As described above, the government's power to tax has to harmonize with purposes of each basic legal right and the guarantee of the institution and observe their limitation on the Constitution.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서론 = 1
• 제1절 연구목적 = 1
• 제2절 선행연구검토 = 2
• 제3절 연구범위 = 4
• 제2장 조세와 헌법과의 관계 일반론 = 5
• 제1절 조세의 개념 = 5
• 제2절 조세와 조세법 = 7
• 제3절 조세법과 헌법 = 7
• 제4절 헌법에 의한 과세권제한의 역사 = 9
• 제5절 헌법상 원리로서의 조세법의 기본원칙 = 10
• 제6절 헌법상의 규정과 조세법의 관계 = 12
• 제3장 헌법상 기본권보장에 의한 과세권의 한계 = 15
• 제1절 개설 = 15
• 제2절 헌법상 평등권과 과세권 = 16
• 1. 헌법상 평등권의 의의 = 16
• 2. 조세법에 있어서의 평등의 원칙 = 16
• 3. 조세공평주의의 내용 = 18
• 4. 공평의 판단기준 = 23
• 제3절 헌법상 재산권보장과 과세권 = 30
• 1. 헌법상 재산권보장의 의의 = 30
• 2. 과세권과 재산권보장과의 관계 = 32
• 3. 과세권의 한계설정과 관련된 헌법재판소의 입장 = 34
• 4. 독일 등 외국에서의 상황 = 38
• 5. 재산권보장을 위한 과세권의 한계 = 41
• 제4절 헌법상 사생활의 자유와 과세권 = 42
• 1. 헌법상 사생활의 자유의 의의 = 42
• 2. 국가의 과세정보수집과 사생활의 자유 침해가능성 = 43
• 3. 국세기본법상 과세정보에 대한 비밀유지의무 = 44
• 4. 납세자 비밀의 헌법상 지위 = 46
• 제5절 헌법상 거주·이전의 자유와 과세권 = 48
• 1. 헌법상 거주·이전의 자유의 의의 = 49
• 2. 부동산에 대한 조세정책과 거주·이전의 자유 침해가능성 = 49
• 3. 거주·이전의 자유침해와 관련된 헌법재판소 판례검토 = 51
• 제6절 헌법상 직업선택의 자유와 과세권 = 54
• 1. 헌법상 직업선택의 자유의 의의 = 54
• 2. 과세권행사에 의한 직업선택의 자유 침해가능성 = 55
• 3. 직업선택의 자유침해와 관련된 헌법재판소 판례검토 = 55
• 제7절 헌법상 인간다운 생활을 할 권리와 과세권 = 58
• 1. 헌법상 인간다운 생활을 할 권리의 의의 = 58
• 2. 인간다운 생활을 할 권리의 조세법적 의미 = 60
• 3. 인간다운 생활을 할 권리침해의 경우 위헌심사기준 = 61
• 4. 인간다운 생활을 할 권리침해와 관련된 헌법재판소 판례검토 = 62
• 제4장 헌법상 제도보장에 의한 과세권의 한계 = 64
• 제1절 개설 = 64
• 제2절 헌법상 혼인과 가족생활보장과 과세권 = 66
• 1. 헌법상 혼인과 가족생활보장의 의의 = 66
• 2. 혼인과 가족생활보장의 조세법적 의미 = 69
• 3. 혼인한 부부와 가족에 대한 과세 = 69
• 4. 이혼과 과세 = 82
• 5. 가족법상 부양의무와 과세 = 86
• 6. 부부간 상속·증여와 과세 = 90
• 제3절 헌법상 지방자치제도보장과 과세권 = 91
• 1. 헌법상 지방자치제도 보장의 의의 = 91
• 2. 지방자치제도와 자치과세권의 보장 = 93
• 3. 국가와 지방자치단체 과세권의 배분 = 93
• 4. 조례에 의한 지방세 세목 창설가능성 = 96
• 5. 특별감면조례의 중앙정부 허가제 위헌성여부 = 98
• 6. 조례에 대한 위임의 정도 = 101
• 제5장 과세권에 의한 기본권 등 침해와 법적구제 = 104
• 제1절 개설 = 104
• 제2절 과세권에 의한 기본권 침해와 구제방법 = 105
• 1. 의의 = 105
• 2. 헌법재판소에 의한 위헌심사 = 105
• 3. 법원에 의한 위헌심사 = 107
• 제3절 과세권에 의한 제도보장 침해와 구제방법 = 109
• 1. 의의 = 109
• 2. 권리구제의 유형 = 109
• 제4절 조세법에 대한 위헌심사와 관련된 문제점 = 114
• 1. 헌법소원대상의 문제 = 114
• 2. 위헌결정의 소급효문제 = 115
• 3. 위헌결정에 근거한 부과처분 등의 효력 = 118
• 제5절 우리나라 위헌심사제도의 평가 = 120
• 1. 조세법률에 대한 위헌심사제도의 정착 = 120
• 2. 입법과정에서의 합헌성 확보방안 = 120
• 제6장 결론 = 122
• 참고문헌 = 126
• 판례색인 = 129
• Abstract = 133