Recently, a famous ophthalmology director in Gangnam was indicted on charges of evading a large amount of tax by hiring an illegal broker to attract patients and disguising the billions of won paid in return as false advertising fees. Even though patient placement is strictly prohibited under the Medical Service Act and the compensation cannot be recognized as a necessary tax expense, Director Lee used a classic yet vicious method of issuing fake tax invoices using ‘data sources’. The false tax invoices worth 6.1 billion won and the evaded tax amount amounting to 2.7 billion won revealed during the investigation clearly show how professionals can abandon their public responsibilities and violate tax laws for their own personal gain. Of course, after the start of the investigation, the doctor in question took action by paying the full 3.7 billion won, including the evasion amount, but this was only an after-the-fact visit and is far from being enough to restore trust in tax justice in our society.

The controversy over tax fairness goes beyond individual deviations and is spreading to the capital market taxation system. As the financial investment income tax, which was postponed in the past under the pretext of revitalizing the stock market, is finally being abolished, wage earners are raising a fundamental question, 'Why is a tax rate of up to 45% applied to money earned through sweat, but lenient on stock investment gains?' Of course, the current market situation, where corporate governance improvements and value-up programs are being promoted, is different from the past, and the argument that a sophisticated tax model that attracts long-term investment is needed is gaining persuasiveness. The goal is not simply to collect taxes, but it is an urgent time to design balanced policies that ensure the soundness of asset formation and do not discourage people from working. It is time to restore market trust by refining investor protection measures, such as differential taxation based on holding period and profit and loss aggregation, like in advanced capital markets such as the United States.

Doubts about whether the government's tax policy is operating fairly are also revealed in the issue of tax expenditures called 'hidden welfare subsidies'. According to a recent survey by the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs, the scale of tax expenditures in the social security sector has nearly quadrupled in 15 years, exceeding 39 trillion won. This is much faster than the government's direct budget expenditures, but the problem is that these tax breaks tend to be concentrated more on those with high incomes and who can afford to subscribe to private financial products. Budget projects are adjusted through performance evaluation every year, but once the system is introduced, the sunset date for tax expenditures is often extended, making it difficult to manage the total fiscal amount. The government's decision to reexamine tax expenditures amounting to 80 trillion won from the beginning means that it is time to prove the validity of the reduction with objective data.

The sunset termination of the corporate tax exemption system provided when a parent company sells assets to save an insolvent subsidiary is also an extension of this trend. In the past, during the construction recession, such tax benefits were allowed as a desperate measure to prevent serial bankruptcies, but now the prevailing opinion is that they do not fit with the management trend that emphasizes corporate independence and protecting shareholder value. It is difficult to avoid criticism that reducing taxes to improve the financial structure of a specific company not only hinders the company's ability to survive, but also distorts the profits that should be returned to shareholders. Ultimately, the core of the K-Value Up policy is to reduce preferential tax support and create an environment in which companies themselves receive fair evaluation from the market by transparently improving their governance structure. The customary sunset extension should be stopped and strict standards for evaluating the effectiveness of policies should be applied to all tax administration.