Journal of Digital Convergence (디지털융복합연구)

The Society of Digital Policy and Management (한국디지털정책학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis of Differentiation of Policy Strategies for Digital Taxation

디지털 과세(Digital Taxation)에 대한 정책전략의 차별성 분석

  • Kim, Ji-Young (Graduate School of Public Policy and Information Technology, Seoul National University of Science and Technology)
  • 김지영 (서울과학기술대학교 IT정책전문대학원 공공정책전공)
  • Received : 2019.10.26
  • Accepted : 2019.12.20
  • Published : 2019.12.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The digital economy has created a new platform-based business model and raised the issue of the international taxation system in line with rapid economic development. Voices of fair taxation have also grown due to tax breaks to countries with low tax rates, problems caused by the gap between traditional and digital companies, and problems of business-oriented taxation systems. As a result, the international movement to lay the foundation for the international taxation system based on the business model suitable for the digital economy has become active. The stances of foreign organizations and countries are different, and the necessity of domestic policy introduction is increasing when cooperation at the international level is needed. This study was conducted to analyze the policy network and to help decision making. The results of the study showed that there were differences among domestic stakeholders depending on the actors. The EU suggested SDP in the long term, Digital Service Tax in the short term, and OECD suggested SEP in the long term. It was found that a careful approach to decision making and an in-depth study of the policy process are necessary.

디지털 경제로 인해 플랫폼을 기반으로 하는 새로운 비즈니스모델이 생겨나게 되고, 급격한 경제발달의 변화에 맞추어 국제조세제도의 문제가 제기되었다. 세율이 낮은 국가로의 조세회피, 전통기업과 디지털 기업과의 격차로 인한 문제, 사업장 중심의 과세체계의 문제로 인한 공평과세의 목소리도 커졌다. 이에 해외 기구인 OECD와 EU차원에서의 디지털세의 제안과, 향후 디지털경제에 맞는 비즈니스모델에 입각한 국제조세 제도의 기반 마련을 위한 국제적 움직임이 활발해지게 되었다. 해외 기구 및 국가들의 입장이 서로 다르고, 국제차원에서의 협력이 필요한 시점에서 국내의 정책도입의 필요성이 커지게 되어 해외 국가별 입장이 어떠한지 살펴보고, 국내에서 정책에 참여하는 행위자들의 입장과 상호작용을 정책네트워크 분석을 통해 살펴보고 의사결정에 도움이 되고자 본 연구를 하였다. 연구의 결과는 행위자에 따라 국내 이해당사자들의 차이가 있었고, EU에서는 장기적으로 S.D.P.를, 단기적으로 디지털 서비스세(Digital Service Tax)를 제안하였고, OECD는 장기적으로 S.E.P.를 제안하는 등 서로 다른 입장을 나타내어 정책결정에 신중한 접근이 필요하며 정책과정에 대한 심층적인 연구가 필요함을 알 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. T. H. Oh. & Y. J. Lim. (2018). Key Contents and Implications of EU's Digital Tax. Korea Institute for International Economic Policy. 18(13), 1-13.
  2. European Commission. (2018). "Time to establish a modern, fair and efficient taxation standard for the digital economy", EU Monitor. https://www.eumonitor.eu/9353000/1/j9vvik7m1c3gyxp/vkmvhchzsezx
  3. J. S. Oh. (2018). A Study on the Types of MNE's Digital Business & International Tax Related Issue of Virtual Permanent Establishment. Korean Academy of International Business Management, International Management Review, 22(2), 185-207.
  4. H. Park. (2019). Review of Changes in the Concept of Permanent Establishment and Adoption of Diverted Profits Tax under the Digital Economy. International Fiscal Association Korea. Journal of IFA, Korea. 35(1), 45-71. https://doi.org/10.17324/IFAKJL.35.1.201902.002
  5. A. Nellen. (2015). Taxation and today's digital economy. Journal of Tax Practice & Procedure. 17(2), 17-26.
  6. J. S. Ahn. (2013). Tax Avoidance Behavior and Implications of Multinational IT Companies : Focusing on the case of Apple and Google. Public Finance Forum, Korea institute of public finance, 7(2013).
  7. PWC. (2018). Economic and Policy Aspects of Digital Services Turnover Tax, 4-7.
  8. Y. J. Kim. (2005). Policy Network on Deciding the Place for Nuclear Waste: Focused the Inducing Action in Kyongju Area. Korean policy sciences review, 9(4), 287-316.
  9. S. S. Song & K. C. Kwon. (2004). Policy Network Analysis on the Legislation Process of Internet Contents Regulation. Journal of Science & Technology Studies. 4(1), 83-110.
  10. S. E. Lim. (2013). A Study on the Conflict for Free School Meal Policy in Terms of Policy Network. The Korea Research Institute for Local Adminstration, 27(1), 203-226.
  11. M. M. Atkinson & W. D. Coleman. (1985). Corporatism and industrial policy. Organized interests and the state, 22-44.
  12. P. Kenis & V. Schneider. (1989). Policy networks as an analytical tool for policy analysis. In paper for conference at Max Planck Institute, Cologne (pp. 4-5).
  13. K. Namkoong. (2017). Policy Sciences. Bubmoonsa, 270-296. DOI : 978-89-18-02473-8.
  14. S. Y. Kim. (2010). The Policy Network Perspective in the Analysis of the Policy Process: Suggestions for the Improvement of Its Theoretical and Practical Relevances. International Journal of Policy Studies. 19(4), 177-210.
  15. D. Marsh & R. A. W. Rhodes. (1992). Policy networks in British government. Clarendon Press.
  16. H. H. Park. & S. G. Hong. (2016). An Exploratory Study of Creative Economy Policy Network Using Social Network Analysis. The Korean Association For Policy Studies, 25(2), 429-454.
  17. H. M. Yang. & D. W. Kang. (2009). An Analysis of Policy Network in the Process of Making Policy toward North Korea -Based on the Case of "Gaeseong Industrial Complex Project". The Korean Journal of Unification Affairs, 21(1), 415-458.
  18. K. J. Kim. (2003). Policy Network Analysis of Maternity Assistance Policy-making in the Kim Dae Jung Administration. Korean Association of Governmental Studies (KAGOS), 37(3), 23-44.
  19. K. E. Huh. & K. Y. Kim. (2015). A Study on the Agenda-Setting Process for Alternatives in Application of Fixed Book Price Policy to Libraries - Based on the Policy Network Model. Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 49(4), 289-315. DOI : 10.4275/KSLIS.2015.49.4.289.
  20. M. Szczepanski. (2018). Corporation taxation of a signifiant digital presence. European Parliamentary Research Service. 1-8.
  21. R. Mehari. (2019). "Taxation of Significant Digital Presence; an evaluative study on draft EU proposal to tax significant digital presence in context of EU primary Law". Master Programme in International Tax Law and EU Tax Law. Master's Thesis 15 ECTS. Uppsala Universitet. 1-47.
  22. OECD/G20. (2014). Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, Addressing the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy.
  23. M. Dohler. (1991). Policy Networks, Opportunity Structures and Neo-Conservative Reform Strategies in Health Policy. Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations, (pp. 235-296). Campus Verlag.
  24. K. H. Yoo, D. H. Kim & K. D. Suh. (2018). Analysis of Actors' Interaction Patterns in the Formation Process of Sexual Crime Prevention Policy: Focusing on classification and case analysis. Journal of the Korea Convergence Society, 9(9), 209-215. DOI : 10.15207/JKCS.2018.9.9.209