MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2278337089

조세지출의 범위에 관한 연구

2015· article· ko· W2278337089 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
장재형, 임재현

Notice bibliographique

Revue조세학술논집 · 2015
Typearticle
Langueko
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueEducational Systems and Policies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésValue-added taxIndirect taxTax creditTax reformDirect taxAd valorem taxEconomicsTax avoidancePublic economicsState income taxDouble taxationTax rateBusinessMonetary economics
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The credibility of tax law as a subpart of the legal system depends on the preciseness of its concepts and scopes thereof. Tax expenditures, as one of the groundwork for tax law, need detailed analysis and review. Many important financial control systems such as the tax expenditure budgetary system required by the 「National Finance Law」 amended in 2010 or the preliminary feasibility study on new tax preferential regulation required by the 「Tax Reduction and Exemption Control Act」 amended in 2014 are based on the concept and the scope of tax expenditures. Since the tax expenditures are the exception to the benchmark tax system, constitutional principles should be applied in a different way. In view of tax equalitarianism, tax expenditures should be kept at a minimum necessary level, and the benefit of the doubt in the interpretation of the clause (in dubio pro fisco) should be given to the tax authority. Tax expenditures defined in the 「Tax Reduction and Exemption Control Act」 and the 「Tax Expenditure Budgetary Report」 are “departure from the benchmark tax system, such as tax exemption, tax reduction, tax credit, tax allowance, preferential tax rate or tax deferral made under certain requirements, having the characteristic of financial expenditures.” Tax expenditures of Republic of Korea in 2015 amounted to 33.5 trillion won, among which 18.5 trillion won are from the 「Tax Reduction and Exemption Control Act」 and 14.5 trillion won are from individual tax law such as the 「Income Tax Law」. Main objective of this study is to ascertain whether the items of the Tax Expenditure Budgetary Report match the definition of tax expenditures. Different countries have used various specific criteria for the tax expenditures. The United States and Canada use a broadly defined definition for tax expenditures, while the United Kingdom and Germany apply a narrower scope of tax expenditures. The United Kingdom distinguishes between tax expenditures and ‘structural reliefs’, and Germany only makes reference to aid to enterprises and business sectors of the economy. In particular, many countries commonly exclude some measures from the scope of tax expenditures, such as a allowance for family units, credit for pension, and a tax deferral, because these measures lack particularity concerning beneficiaries, do not serve a particular purpose other than the efficient operation of the tax system, and are not administratively feasible to eliminate. If the tax expenditures included in the 「Tax Expenditure Budgetary Report」 are analyzed by the same logic, some measures have more characteristics of the structural norm than of tax expenditures. Even under the broadest definition for tax expenditures, personal or family allowances for individual income tax, deemed input VAT credit, and pension credit, which constitute over 20 percent of the entire amount of tax expenditures, are more of the structural norm than tax expenditures. Although the number of such measures is not so high, since their revenue amounts are large in sum, they can distort the tax policy. Accordingly, the scope and concept of tax expenditures must be defined in a lucid manner and in concordance with internationally used criteria for tax expenditures. Then, the tax policy on the reduction of tax expenditures will be clearly made and be implemented without.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,354
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,997

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,003

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,062
Tête enseignante GPT0,311
Écart entre enseignants0,250 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revue조세학술논집Même sujetEducational Systems and PoliciesTravaux en français237 207