지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Article 6-2 of the Law for Co-ordination of International Tax Adjustment (hereinafter "LCITA") as amended on May 24, 2006 newly introduced provisions on the cost contribution arrangement (hereinafter "CCA"). A great part of those provisions seems to originate from Chapter 8 of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines and the U.S. Treasury Regulation §1.482-7.
The LCITA provides that under a CCA, which can apply only to development of intangible property, the cost incurred by a "domestic participant" should be consistent with the arm's length principle and, in other words, proportionate to its anticipated benefits from the CCA. Under the LCITA, the term "anticipated benefit" means either of the followings: saving of cost, increase in sales or operating profits, or increase of units used, produced or sold. When and if the cost incurred by a domestic participant does not meet the aforementioned requirement, the tax authorities may adjust the domestic participant's cost incurred (hereinafter referred to as "Type 1 Adjustment").
Even when the domestic participant incurred cost in accordance with arm's length standard, if the projection of the anticipated benefits turned out to be false, the tax authorities may still adjust the cost incurred by the domestic participant (hereinafter referred to as "Type 2 Adjustment"). Type 2 Adjustment is made when the share of the "realized" benefit turns out to be greater or smaller than the share of the anticipated benefit by 20% or more.
The LCITA seems to provide that the tax authorities may still make Type 1 Adjustment even when the tax authorities cannot make Type 2 Adjustment because the discrepancy between the realized and the anticipated benefits falls within the above 20% range. Considering that the tax authorities are still allowed to make Type 2 Adjustment even when there is an extraordinary event beyond the taxpayer's control, I believe that the provisions on CCA of the LCITA as a whole tend to favor the tax authorities to an excessive degree and thus need to be amended. It should also be noted that the LCITA provisions on CCA are too brief and leave too much uncertainties with respect to their interpretation, which could be solved for the time being only by referring to relevant part of the OECD Guidelines or the U.S. Treasury Regulation §1.482-7, but should be, in the long run, dealt with by elaborating the relevant LCITA provisions in more details.
The LCITA provides that under a CCA, which can apply only to development of intangible property, the cost incurred by a "domestic participant" should be consistent with the arm's length principle and, in other words, proportionate to its anticipated benefits from the CCA. Under the LCITA, the term "anticipated benefit" means either of the followings: saving of cost, increase in sales or operating profits, or increase of units used, produced or sold. When and if the cost incurred by a domestic participant does not meet the aforementioned requirement, the tax authorities may adjust the domestic participant's cost incurred (hereinafter referred to as "Type 1 Adjustment").
Even when the domestic participant incurred cost in accordance with arm's length standard, if the projection of the anticipated benefits turned out to be false, the tax authorities may still adjust the cost incurred by the domestic participant (hereinafter referred to as "Type 2 Adjustment"). Type 2 Adjustment is made when the share of the "realized" benefit turns out to be greater or smaller than the share of the anticipated benefit by 20% or more.
The LCITA seems to provide that the tax authorities may still make Type 1 Adjustment even when the tax authorities cannot make Type 2 Adjustment because the discrepancy between the realized and the anticipated benefits falls within the above 20% range. Considering that the tax authorities are still allowed to make Type 2 Adjustment even when there is an extraordinary event beyond the taxpayer's control, I believe that the provisions on CCA of the LCITA as a whole tend to favor the tax authorities to an excessive degree and thus need to be amended. It should also be noted that the LCITA provisions on CCA are too brief and leave too much uncertainties with respect to their interpretation, which could be solved for the time being only by referring to relevant part of the OECD Guidelines or the U.S. Treasury Regulation §1.482-7, but should be, in the long run, dealt with by elaborating the relevant LCITA provisions in more details.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 원가분담 약정에 관한 국조법 조문 중 과세관청의 경정권 행사요건에 관한 해석론
Ⅲ. 결론
〈참고문헌〉
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문과 연관된 판례 (1)
-
대법원 1992. 10. 23. 선고 92누2936,2943(병합) 판결
가. 법인세법 제17조 제1항에 의하면 내국법인의 각 사업연도의 익금과 손금의 귀속사업연도는 그 익금과 손금이 확정된 날이 속하는 사업연도로 한다라고 규정하여 손익확정주의를 선언한 다음, 같은 조 제2항 이하에서 거래의 유형 내지 대금의 지급방법에 따라 그 귀속시기를 개별적으로 열거하고 있으나, 이러한
자세히 보기
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
중국 특별납세조정실시방법상 원가분담약정
동아법학
2011 .02
-
실질과세원칙의 조세조약에의 적용
조세법연구
2007 .04
-
실질과세원칙과 국제조세조정에 관한 법률 제2의 제1항
조세학술논집
2006 .08
-
국제조세조정에 관한 법률 상 무형자산의 이전가격 관련 규정에 대한 연구
조세학술논집
2014 .10
-
세무조사권에 대한 법적 통제
공법학연구
2005 .06
-
그룹사간 무형자산 이전에 관한 과세문제
조세학술논집
2007 .02
-
원가분담약정 중도참여대가에 관한 미국 법원의 최근 판례에 대한 소고
조세학술논집
2017 .10
-
출국세 도입에 대한 헌법적 검토와 입법 형태에 관한 연구
조세학술논집
2014 .10
-
納稅者의 權利保護와 稅務調査制度의 關係에 관한 硏究
법학연구
2001 .12
-
원가분담약정의 정상원가분담액에서 제외되는 무형자산의 사용대가 규정에 관한 고찰
조세법연구
2013 .08
-
세무조사 효율성 제고 방안
아태비즈니스연구
2020 .01
-
우리나라 원가분담약정제도의 문제점과 개선방안에 관한 연구
조세연구
2012 .12
-
부가가치세의 환급거부 ‘처분’과 법인세 결손금의 감액경정 ‘처분’의 취소청구에 관한 문제 : ‘음(陰)의 세액이나 소득을 조세소송에서 어떻게 다루어야 하는가?
저스티스
2016 .04
-
은닉소득 및 자산의 자발적 신고를 위한 조세사면제도의 도입방안
한양법학
2015 .11
-
납세자 신뢰도가 납세의식 및 납세순응행위에 미치는 영향
지역사회연구
2014 .06
-
중소기업 조세지원제도의 유효성 분석
국제회계연구
2002 .11
-
신성장동력 확보를 위한 국제조세문제
조세학술논집
2013 .02
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-329-015930344