@article{ART001346709},
author={JOONG KYO LEE},
title={A Study on the Status of Oligopolistic Stockholders and Improvement Solutions of Oligopolistic Stockholders System in Tax Law},
journal={Public Land Law Review},
issn={1226-251X},
year={2009},
volume={44},
pages={285-308}
TY - JOUR
AU - JOONG KYO LEE
TI - A Study on the Status of Oligopolistic Stockholders and Improvement Solutions of Oligopolistic Stockholders System in Tax Law
JO - Public Land Law Review
PY - 2009
VL - 44
IS - null
PB - Korean Public Land Law Association
SP - 285
EP - 308
SN - 1226-251X
AB - Oligopolistic stockholders are defined as a group of stockholders who own 50% of total issued share of companies. Oligopolistic stockholders of unlisted companies bear heavy responsibility in tax law because they have a dominant power for the company which they belong to. Namely they bear the secondary liability for tax payment which expands liability for tax payment to third parties. Also the acquisition tax is levid on them.
Some people say it is desirable to abolish the secondary tax liability and the acquisition tax for oligopolistic shareholders because they lack theoritical legitimacy. I don't agree the opinion because oligopolistic stockholders system prevents taxpayers from avoiding tax and contributes to realize the tax justice. However, they are the exception of the principle of limited liability of shareholders and the principle of ownership aquisition. So the extent of oligopolistic stockholders system should be limited to the minimum as possible.
I think it is necessary to take complimentary measures for improvement of oligopolistic shareholders system.
First, KOSDAQ-listed compamies should be excluded from oligopolistic stockholders system and the scope of relative who belongs to oligopolistic stockholders should be cut down.
Secondly, oligopolistic shareholders who own 50% of total issued share and seize management of companies should be held responsible for the secondary liability for tax payment.
Thridly, the legal presumption clause of the secondary liability for tax payment needs to be enacted to ensure the property of oligopolistic stockholders.
Lastly, the taxation for name lenders should be strengthened by Article 45-2 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Law.
KW - 과점주주(oligopolistic shareholders);제2차 납세의무(the secondary liability for tax payment);간주취득세(the acquisition tax for oligopolistic shareholders);비상장법인(unlisted companies);법률상 추정(the legal presumption clause)
DO -
UR -
ER -
JOONG KYO LEE. (2009). A Study on the Status of Oligopolistic Stockholders and Improvement Solutions of Oligopolistic Stockholders System in Tax Law. Public Land Law Review, 44, 285-308.
JOONG KYO LEE. 2009, "A Study on the Status of Oligopolistic Stockholders and Improvement Solutions of Oligopolistic Stockholders System in Tax Law", Public Land Law Review, vol.44, pp.285-308.
JOONG KYO LEE "A Study on the Status of Oligopolistic Stockholders and Improvement Solutions of Oligopolistic Stockholders System in Tax Law" Public Land Law Review 44 pp.285-308 (2009) : 285.
JOONG KYO LEE. A Study on the Status of Oligopolistic Stockholders and Improvement Solutions of Oligopolistic Stockholders System in Tax Law. 2009; 44 285-308.
JOONG KYO LEE. "A Study on the Status of Oligopolistic Stockholders and Improvement Solutions of Oligopolistic Stockholders System in Tax Law" Public Land Law Review 44(2009) : 285-308.
JOONG KYO LEE. A Study on the Status of Oligopolistic Stockholders and Improvement Solutions of Oligopolistic Stockholders System in Tax Law. Public Land Law Review, 44, 285-308.
JOONG KYO LEE. A Study on the Status of Oligopolistic Stockholders and Improvement Solutions of Oligopolistic Stockholders System in Tax Law. Public Land Law Review. 2009; 44 285-308.
JOONG KYO LEE. A Study on the Status of Oligopolistic Stockholders and Improvement Solutions of Oligopolistic Stockholders System in Tax Law. 2009; 44 285-308.
JOONG KYO LEE. "A Study on the Status of Oligopolistic Stockholders and Improvement Solutions of Oligopolistic Stockholders System in Tax Law" Public Land Law Review 44(2009) : 285-308.
