정부는 부동산시장의 안정을 도모하기 위해 부동산 가격의 상승기에는 투기억제 및 가격 안정대책을, 하락 및 침체기에는 부동산경기활성화 대책을 반복하고 있다.주택보급률이 100%에 달한 2002년 이후에도 저금리에 따른 유동자금이 부동산 시장으로 몰림면서 집값 급등이 재연되어 참여정부는 양도소득세제를 초강화하게 되는데 양도소득세를 기준시가 과세에서 실지거래가액 과세로 전환한 것, 다주택자 양도소득세 중과세(50%, 60% 단일세율)와 다주택자 장기보유특별공제 배제로 대변된다. 그러나 그것도 잠시 2008년 미국발 서브프라임모기지 사태로 이명박정부의 주택조세정책은 침체된 부동산경기 활성화 차원에서 규제완화쪽으로 정책을 펴게 되었고, 현재는 참여정부의 중과세정책과 이명박정부의 주택양도소득세 완화·감면정책이 혼재되어 있어 정부조차도 어느 방향으로 나아가야할지 판단하는 것도 쉽지 않은 상황에 놓여 있다. 그리고 주택조세정책의 또 다른 문제점으로 1세대 1주택 비과세제도가 언급되는데 양도소득세가 과세되는 다른 자산의 소유자 또는 무주택자와의 과세형평성문제, 법체계의 복잡성 문제, 거래의 투명성 확보 문제, 특수관계자에게 저가양도시 과세공백문제 등을 안고 있다.선행연구에서도 비과세제도의 여러 가지 문제점을 해결할 수 있는 대안으로 소득공제제도를 도입하여 공평성 및 효율성을 증진시켜야 한다고 주장하였고, 주택양도소득세 중과세제도 및 주택양도소득세 완화·감면제도 역시 폐지하고 시장기능에 맞길 것을 주장하였다.본 연구와 선행연구의 차이점은 현행 우리나라가 가지고 있는 주택양도소득세제도의 두가지 큰 문제점 즉, 1세대 1주택 비과세제도의 문제에 대한 대안으로서의 소득공제와 서로 상충되는 제도인 다주택자 양도소득세 중과세제도와 소득세법 및 조세특례제한법상 주택양도소득세 완화·감면정책의 혼재로 인한 조세형평성의 심각한 왜곡에 대해 세무전문가인 세무사들의 의견을 들어봄으로써 2010년 12월에 정부가 선택하는 향후 주택양도소득세 정책방향과 비교해 보는데 의미가 있으며, 이러한 결과로 향후 우리나라의 주택양도소득세 개선방안을 제시하고자 한다.본 설문조사 결과는 소득공제와 비과세 중 어느 것이 바람직한지에 대해 세무전문가들은 소득공제가 83명, 49.7%이고 비과세가 84명, 50.3%로 비등한 것으로 나왔으나 소득공제를 선택한 83명의 응답자들 중 77명(92.8%)이 그 이유를 “모든 주택을 과세대상으로 하고 일정기간, 일정 소득공제만 허용하므로 조세형평성이 좋아지기 때문에”를 들어 소득공제 제도의 입법취지를 정확히 파악하고 있어 소득공제에 대한 홍보가 부족한 상태라고 판단되었다.한편 주택양도소득세 완화·감면제도의 연장이나 확대에 대한 의견은 “현재의 완화·감면기간이 끝나면 더 이상 연장할 필요가 없다”라는 응답자가 90명(53.9%)으로 나타났고, 주택양도소득세 완화․감면제도가 시행 중인 현재 다주택자 중과세 제도의 필요성에 대해 116명 (69.5%)의 응답자들이 필요하다고 생각하고 있으며, 다주택자 중과세제도가 필요하다고 생각하는 응답자들 116명 중 92.2%인 107명이 “주택투기를 방지하기 위한 제도적 장치”로서 다주택자 중과제도의 필요성을 느끼고 있었다. 그리고 다주택자 중과세제도의 적용이 유예되고 있는 중에도 장기보유특별공제는 계속 배제해야 한다는 의견이 102명(61.1%)으로 많았고, 강남·서초·송파구에 대한 10%의 세율을 더해 과세하는 부분에도 과반수가 넘는 97명(58.1%)이 찬성했다. 현재 실행되고 있는 주택양도소득세 완화․감면제도에 의해 주택을 새로 취득하게 되어 1세대 다주택자가 된 경우와 기존의 1세대 다주택자를 비교할 때 조세형평성 훼손가능성에 대해 121명 (72.5%)의 응답자가 훼손을 우려 하고 있으며, 조세형평성의 훼손을 우려하는 121명의 응답자들의 조세형평성 불균형 해결방안으로 “다주택 중과세는 유예 및 존치하며, 주택양도소득세 완화·감면제도를 폐지해야 한다”가 61명(50.4%)으로 많이 나타났다.이로서 다주택자 중과세제도와 다주택자 완화·감면제도 중 어느 하나는 정리를 해야 하는 시점에 세무전문가들은 주택양도소득세 완화·감면제도를 먼저 폐지하는 것이 바람직하다고 판단하였고, 다주택자 양도소득세 중과세제도도 부작용도 많으므로 당장 부동산 투기가 우려되어 폐지하기가 어렵다면 1년에서 2년정도 중과세를 더 유예하다가 결국 폐지를 하고, 그 대안으로 주택투기지역에는 10%정도의 탄력세율제도를 두는 것을 제안한다.
To stabilize Korea's real estate market, Government has been applying repeatedly the speculation control measures and the price stabilization measures at the time of real estate price hikes, and the real estate business invigoration measures at the time of downtrend and recession periods. Even after 2002, when the housing supply rate was reached to 100%, as liquid funds were swarming into real estate market and skyrocketing of the housing prices recurred, the Participatory Government reinforced the transfer income tax system extremely, which was represented by the switchover of transfer income tax from tax standard value to actual transaction value basis, heavy transfer income taxation for owners having more than one house (50%, 60% single tax rate), and the exclusion of owners having more than one house from special deduction for long-term holding. But that was lasted only for a while, when by the Sub-Prime mortgage crisis started from U.S. in 2008, the housing tax policy of Lee Myeongbak Administration was changed to the direction for deregulation to invigorate the real estate business in recession and since the heavy taxation policy of participatory government and the tax reduction • exemption policy of Lee Myeongbak Administration are currently mixed up, it is not easy to judge for even Government itself to which direction to go. And the non-taxation system for 1 house held by 1 household is mentioned as another problem of housing taxation policy, it contains lots of problems such as the tax equity with the owner of other assets, which the transfer income tax is imposed, or with the people, who do not own a house, the complexity of legal system, the transparency of transaction, the taxation void in case of transferring to a specially related person at low price, etc.The preceding researches claimed that the equity and the efficiency should be improved by introducing income tax deduction system as measure to solve various problem of non-taxation system and the heavy taxation system of housing transfer income tax and housing transfer income tax reduction•deduction system should be abolished too and left to market mechanism.The difference between this study and preceding studies is to listen to the opinions of the tax accountants, the tax specialists, on the two big problems of current housing transfer income tax systems in our country, that is, the serious distortion of tax equity caused by coexisting the income deduction as countermeasure for the problems of non-taxation system of 1 house hold by 1 household and the heavy transfer income tax system for the owners having more than one house and the housing transfer income tax reduction•exemption policy, which are the conflicting each other, and to compare with the direction of future housing transfer income tax policy, which will be selected by Government in December, 2010 and based on that result, to propose improvement measures for housing transfer income tax system in our country.Although in the questionnaire survey results, tax specialists showed almost similar opinions on the question of which was the desirable measure either income deduction or non-taxation system, for that 83 responders answered on the income deduction (49.7%) and 84 responders (50.3%) on the non-taxation system. As 77 responders (92.8%) out of 83 responders selected income deduction seemed not to understand the legislative intent well enough by indicating the reason as "because it would make good tax equity by making all the housings as object of taxation allowing certain amount of income deduction for certain period time", it is judged that the publicity on the income deduction would be insufficient.And on the question of extension and expansion of housing transfer income tax reduction•exemption system, the 90 responders answered as "when current reduction•exemption period is expired, no need to extend any more" and the 116 responders (69.5%) were considering that the current heavy taxation system for the owners having more than one house, on which the housing transfer income tax reduction•exemption system is implementing, was necessary, out of whom 107 responders, which occupied 92.2%, were considering the heavy taxation system for owners having more than one house as "institutional device to prevent the speculation in the housing" The 102 specialists (61.1%) showed the opinion that the special long-term holding deduction should be kept excluded during the period of suspension of heavy taxation system for owners javing more than one house and 97 responders (58.1%), more than half of the responders, were agreed to tax 10% more for the Gangnam-Gu, Seocho-Gu and Songpa-Gu. On the potential of undermining tax equity when comparing existing 1 household holding more than one house with the case, which 1 household became holding more than one house by acquiring new houses according to current housing transfer income tax reduction•exemption system, 121 responders (72.5%) were worrying about the undermining potentials, out of whom 61 responders (50.4%) were answering "heavy taxation for multiple housings should be suspended but maintained and the housing transfer income tax reduction•exemption system should be abolished"As identified above, since the tax specialists considered that to abolish the housing transfer income tax reduction•exemption system was desirable in the moment of abolishing either one of heavy taxation system for owners having more than one house or housing transfer income tax reduction•exemption system, and the heavy taxation of transfer income tax for owners having more than one house has many adverse effects, if it is hard to abolish immediately due to being concerned about speculation in real estate, it is recommended that suspension of heavy taxation system can be abolished after maintaining 1 or 2 years more and the flexible tax rate system around 10% should be implemented as alternative measure for the regions of housing speculation.