디지털세 제1차 서면공청회 (매출귀속기준·과세연계점)

*2월 18일(금) 디지털세 필라 1 공청회 의견서를 OECD에 제출하였습니다.

공평과세의 관점에서, (1) 과세연결점 관련 특정 관할권에 필라1 디지털세 적용대상 기업의 Amount A(과세표준)에 대한 과세권이 형성되기 위한 요건을 세분화 할 것, 그리고 매출귀속기준 관련, (2) 부품과 원자재 간의 귀속 원칙의 차별을 제거하여 디지털 세의 과세 대상에서 부품을 제외할 것, (3) 금융업의 디지털세 적용 대상을 보다 확대할 것, (4) 무형자산과 데이터의 디지털세 적용에 있어서 정상가격을 반영할 것을 촉구하였습니다.

관련 내용은 아래 원문을 직접 참고하시길 바랍니다.

 

---

Remarks by CCEJ

Recommendations to OECD/G20 on Pillar One–Amount A: Draft Model Rules for Nexus and Revenue Sourcing

Citizens’ Coalition for Economic Justice,[*] Korean Civil Society
February 18, 2022

 

1. Of particular interest to digital taxation of how to allocate residual profits (i.e., Amount A) from multinational enterprises (MNEs) to market jurisdictions found on Draft Model Rules for Nexus and Revenue Sourcing (OECD, 2022) under Pillar One, is our remark concerned about unfair taxation.

 

2. As a matter of Nexus, the rule of Quantum for Amount A, twenty-five percent of residual profits defined as an excess profit over ten percent of revenue, is ill-considered between MNEs and SMEs as the same revenue-based Allocation Key. That should be tailor-made between them at disparate rates by following revenue-per-based Allocation Keys:

over €7.5B	under €7.5B	under €4.5B	under €2B	under €15M	under €250K
30%	28%	25%	22%	20%	10%

 

3. As a matter of Revenue Sourcing, the type of revenue lacks coherence between exclusion and inclusion: materials and components. Components should be excluded before any finished goods and digital taxation in the same manner that raw or advanced materials are excluded before any components and digital taxation, or vice versa. Look, what’s wrong with it? We the citizens can’t help criticizing the collectivism of only excluding mining and primary industries in that OECD/G20 shouldn’t have missed an important point of resource monopolization, depletion, and environmental contamination around the world. Unfair’s unfair. That makes it imperative for us not to discriminate between materials and components, or at least to exclude chip materials and auto parts and every kind of components and finished goods from a small open economy.

 

4. On top of that, the type of financing is a prerequisite to completing BEPS Actions with success. And We strongly emphasize more to include financial intermediaries and services: Fintech; Private banking; Prime brokerage; Reinsurance; Asset management; Structured finance; Virtual asset. That means not only the lending of money but trading and swap between financial instruments (viz., stocks, bonds, indices, forex, commodities, derivatives) including cryptos. These financial transactions can be categorized in transfer pricing.

 

5. Especially, Amount A derived from intangible property (IP) and data holds the Allocation Key to achieving this project. For a typical example, IP immigration and data monetization. The rule for IP, however, could be an unreliable method at arm’s length transaction based on business to business in transfer pricing when MNEs abnormally exploit licensing, sale, or alienation of IP and data at price manipulation for Internet service provider and affiliated content provider absurdly to accept a high royalty and zero-rating in bad faith. That should be excluded from a routine profit or expense to allocate it as a residual profit in Pillar One, or that shall be denied a deduction for an intra-group payment to allocate a top-up tax with the Undertaxed Payments Rule in Pillar Two. In this case, it is unclear what Amount A is arm’s-length-priced in trade secret before fair market price and IP and data taxation.

 

6. Nevertheless, we advocate the way forward for digital tax, though unfair taxation upon small open economies. And we are looking forward to many countries joining Anti-BEPS Tax Treaty together. Good luck.

 

---

[*] This statement was contributed by our true activist, Hochul Jung (hcjung@ccej.or.kr), and our peer reviewers, Prof. Hyochang Pang (hcpang@doowon.ac.kr) in a new order to propose an alternatve approach to OECD (tfde@oecd.org)

You can refer to our CCEJ. (2019a). Review of the OECD’s proposed “Unified Approach” under Pillar One. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2DiPRZs; CCEJ. (2019b). Against the OECD’s proposed “Global Anti-Base Erosion” under Pillar Two. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3m9tYAo; CCEJ. (2020). Bottom-Up Approach. Retrieved from http://ccej.or.kr/65897.

If you need more information about us.

■ Please, visit us: http://ccej.or.kr/eng/who-we-are/about-us/;
■ Refer to our Achievements (RLA, 2003): http://www.rightlivelihoodaward.org/laureates/citizens-coalition-for-economic-justice-ccej/

---

 

220218_Remarks by CCEJ about the public consultation on Pillar One

OECD 디지털세(필라1) 공청회 관련 전세계 의견서는 다음 링크를 통해서도 확인하실 수 있습니다.
https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/public-comments-received-on-the-draft-rules-for-nexus-and-revenue-sourcing-under-pillar-one-amount-a.htm

OECD 디지털세(필라1) 공청회 자료 원문은 다음 링크를 통해서 확하세요.
https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/oecd-launches-public-consultation-on-the-tax-challenges-of-digitalisation-with-the-release-of-a-first-building-block-under-pillar-one.htm

문의: 국제&경제정책팀 02-3673-2143