Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
Korean Academic Society of Business Administration
[ Article ]
korean management review - Vol. 49, No. 4, pp.875-888
ISSN: 1226-1874 (Print)
Print publication date 31 Aug 2020
Received 30 Oct 2019 Revised 27 Apr 2020 Accepted 28 Apr 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17287/kmr.2020.49.4.875

연말정산 환급 및 추가납부에 대한 근로소득자의 인식 전환이 가능한가? 프레이밍 효과(Framing effect)를 활용한 납세자의 연말정산 인식 연구

박용완*
*(단독저자) 경상대학교 경영대학 경영학과 ywpark1974@gnu.ac.kr
Is It Possible to Change the Perception of Wage Earners about Tax Refunds and Additional Payments for the Year-end Tax Settlement?
Yong Wan Park*
*Gyeongsang National University, First Author

초록

연말정산이란 근로소득자들이 매월 원천징수를 통해 납부했던 세금과 다양한 세제 혜택을 받아서 최종 확정된 세액을 비교하여 정산하는 것이다. 정부가 연말정산을 통해 과도하게 거둔 세금을 환급할 때에는 오직 원금만을 되돌려 주기 때문에 납세자 입장에서는 이자비용만큼을 손해보고 있음에도 대부분의 근로소득자들은 환급에 기뻐하고 추가납부에 분노한다. 본 연구는 연말정산에 대한 설명을 환급과 추가납부가 아닌 이자비용에 초점을 둘 경우 납세자들의 연말정산에 대한 인식이 바뀔 수 있다고 기대하고 실험을 진행하였다. 실험 1에서 참여자들은 중립프레이밍 조건에서는 추가납부보다 환급을 선호하였으나 대출프레이밍에서는 환급과 추가납부 간의 태도 차이가 없어짐을 밝혔다. 실험 2에서는 프레이밍에 따라 원천징수비율의 선택이 달라질 것이라 예상하였으나 유의미한 효과는 나타나지 않았다. 결과를 바탕으로 향후 연구 및 시사점을 제시하였다.

Abstract

The year-end settlement refers to the adjustment of the tax paid by the wage earner based on balancing withholding tax and the finalized tax amount through various tax benefits. Most wage earners are happy with the refunds and angry about the additional payments through year-end tax settlements. Although the wage earner only receives the principal without an interest cost when the government returns taxes collected excessively, they do not realize that they lose an interest cost and an opportunity cost. This study examined that the perception of wage earners could change depending on how to describe the year-end tax settlement. Framing effect is an cognitive bias that preference or attitude toward an option would vary depending on whether it is presented with positive or negative frame because of a tendency avoiding risk under gain domain but seeking risk under loss domain. Thus, this study try to shift the perceptual focus of wage earners from the principal to the interest cost and the opportunity cost using framing effect. Specifically, I expected that the attitude of wage earners toward year-end tax settlements would be more positive under the loan framing condition focusing on the interest cots and the oppurtunity cost than under the neutral condition, and the results of Experiment 1 supported this prediction. In Experiment 2, I examined whether the choice of wage earners for withholding tax ratio would be affected by the framing. Because most taxpayers prefer the tax refund to the additional payment, the government gave the wage earner the option for choosing withholding tax ratio (80%, 100%, 120%). If they want to receive tax turn after the year-end tex settlement, they would chose 120% as withholding tax ratio. If they want to pay the addition tax payment, they would choose 80%. Thus, I expected that the choice ratio of 120% withholding tax ratio would increase under the loan framing condition, compared to the neutral condition, but there was no significant effect. Based on what the study found, the implications were discussed.

Keywords:

year-end tax settlement, framing effect, attribute framing, taxpayer, wage earner, attitude, affective response

키워드:

연말정산, 프레이밍효과, 속성프레이밍, 납세자, 근로소득자, 태도, 감성적 반응

References

  • 김형구, 선우영수 (2009), “근로소득자들의 연말정산 만족도에 관한 연구,” 한국컴퓨터정보학회논문지, 14 (8) pp.153-159.
  • 변정희, 심태섭, 김상헌 (2016), “국세청 연말정산간소화서비스, 만족도 및 성과에 관한 연구 - 서비스방식 변경을 중심으로,” 회계정보연구, 34(2), pp.363-389.
  • 안서원 (2013), “납부·환급에 대한 기대가 납세순응도에 미치는 영향: 작업, 성별과 조절초점의 차이,” 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 27(3), pp.155-174.
  • 오기수 (2007), “근로소득 간이세액표의 문제점과 개선방안,” 세무학연구, 24 4), pp.337-363.
  • 이태준, 김부열, 손혜림 (2017), “금융소비자 금융이해력 연구 – 펀드투자자의 지식보정을 중심으로,” 소비자문제연구, 48(2), pp.303-338.
  • 전홍준, 양동훈 (2015), “원천징수정책이 납세자에게 미치는 영향: 프로스펙트 이론의 관점에서,” 한국경영교육학회, 30(5), pp.721-742.
  • 조선비즈 (2015. 1. 25), ‘연말정산 대란’ 사태의 재구성. http://biz.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2015/01/25/2015012501276.html
  • Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), pp.179-211. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T]
  • Chang, O. H., D. R. Nichols, and J. J. Schultz (1987), “Taxpayer attitudes toward tax audit risk,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 8(3), pp.299-309. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4870(87)90025-0]
  • Cullis, J., P. Jones, and A. Lewis (2006), “Tax Framing, Instrumentality and Individual Difference: Are There Two Different Cultures?” Journal of Economic Psychology, 27, pp. 304-320. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2005.07.003]
  • Hasseldine, J. and P. A. Hite (2003), “Framing, Gender, and Tax Compliance,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 24, pp.517-533. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00209-X]
  • Jackson, B. S., P. A. Shoemaker, J. A. Barrricks, and F. G. Burton (2005), “Taxpayers’ Prepayment Positions and Tax Return Preparation Fees,” Contemporary Accounting Research, 22(2), pp.409-447. [https://doi.org/10.1506/UU3E-P3YF-PX9F-T9TF]
  • Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky (1979), “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Uncertainty,” Econometrica, 47(2), pp.263-292. [https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185]
  • Levin, I. P. and G. J. Gaeth (1988), “How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), pp.374-378. [https://doi.org/10.1086/209174]
  • Levin, I. P., S. L. Schneider, and G. J. Gaeth (1998), “All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), pp.149-188. [https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2804]
  • Meyerowitz, B. E. and S. Chaiken (1987), “The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions and behavior,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), pp.500-510. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.500]
  • Schepanski, A. and D. Kelsey (1990), “Testing for framing effects in taxpayer compliance decisions,” The Journal of the American Taxation Association, 2(1), pp.60-77.
  • Schepanski, A. and T. L. Shearer (1995), “A prospect theory account of the income tax withholding phenomenon,” Organizational Behaviour & Human Decision Proceses, 63, pp.174-186. [https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1995.1071]
  • Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman (1981), “The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice,” Science, 211, pp.453-458. [https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683]

• 저자 박용완은 현재 경상대학교 경영대학 경영학과 마케팅 전공 조교수로 재직 중이다. 서강대학교 경영대학 경영학과에서 경영학학사와 경영학 석사 학위(마케팅 전공)을, 미국 버지니아공과대학(Virginia Tech)에서 경영학 박사를 취득하였다. 박사 학위 취득 이후에는 연세대학교 바른ICT연구소에서 일하였다. 주요 연구분야는 소비자 의사결정이론, 소비자 추론과정, IT환경에서의 소비자행동 등이다.