법인세법상 생명보험 과세에 대한 문제점과 개선방안

Abstract

The corporate life insurance has been used as the aspect of the welfare for the employers and the provision against the risk of the unpredictable future that could generally happen death or accident in the business. However, the interest in corporate life insurance has grown, facing with constructive business form, the retire planning of smaller companies and corporate tax evasion etc. throughout the diversity in market channel and expansion in business field of the insurers following the recent capital market integration law and the provision for insurance business law. Namely, the corporate life insurance focused on the function of saving and investment by getting away from the previous functions of the real securement has been emerged. In regard to this, the tax authorities have had timely discordant difficulties with the corporate life insurance. The regulations about the life insurance in the existing corporate income tax law don't exist and rely on the established rule of the tax authorities. In addition, as the ground of the tax authorities isn't consistent with constantly releasing new life insurance, the confusion toward the taxpayers has increased In terms of this, this study is to clarify the improvement in the disputable case related to the hereafter life insurance and consider the life insurance taxation under Japanese corporate income tax law which is similar to Korean corporate income tax law. They are as follows First, the case that the corporation insures for life insurances that the beneficiary would be an executive or an employer has been elucidated by the earned income considering the wages etc, In this regard, as the corporation pays for the premiums about the individual insurance of an executive or an employer, the executive or the employer are considered to make financial profits. However, in order for the beneficiary to completely acquire the rights under the insurance contract, it needs to clearly specify the definite settlement and the irrevocable withdrawal of the beneficiary under the insurance contract. Second, only if the beneficiary is a executive, there is a discrepancy from the burden between the corporate income tax and the income tax, following that the premium is applicable to either wages or bonus. But, it is not certain of the classification between the wages and the bonus involved in premiums in the established rule. In case that the premium for the life insurance is paid regularly repetitively or constantly in a monthly basis, it should be managed as wages. Otherwise, the premium paid temporarily or irregularly should be managed as bonus. Third, the case that the cooperation is an insurant as well as a beneficiary or the insurant is an executive as well as an employer is required to sum up into the assets. The amount of money which is equivalent to expired value to add up into the assets could be the premium, surrender value and the net premium reserve etc. On the other hand, it's proper for the net premium reserve which is based on Legal Reserve of Inheritance of the insurant. Fourth, on the side of the tax authorities dealing with the alteration of the life insurance contract in replacement for the retirement pay for the corporate executive, it has been managed as the income tax. But, this should be managed as the retirement income, it's advisable to apply to the denial regulations on the unfair act about the excessive pay of the retirement income. Also, it needs to clearly regulate not only formal but also practical criteria by law on the basis of the excessive pay. Lastly, the evaluation about the rights under the insurance contract should be appraised by the substitute cost or expenditure to spend when the similar life insurance is sold. When the life insurance is canceled, the evaluation could be appraised by the surrender value but it's adequate that the life insurance as a state of the unalterable life insurance should be appraised by net premium reserve.