고정사업장 과세의 국제적 동향 및 향후 과제 (International Trends for the Taxation on a Permanent Establishment and Its Future Challenges)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국국제조세협회
· 수록지 정보 : 조세학술논집 / 40권 / 1호 / 79 ~ 114페이지
· 저자명 : 최정희

초록

2010년 OECD 개정 모델조약 제7조 상의 공식접근법(AOA)이 규정된 후 우리나라와 독일은 2013년, 일본은 2014년에 국내법에 수용하는 등, 몇몇 국가들이 이 접근법을 국내법에 수용하였다. 그러나 여전히 이 접근법의 수용을 주저하는 국가들이 많으며, UN 모델조약은 이 접근법의 수용을 거절하였다. 그러므로 공식접근법(AOA)이 추구하였던 통일성의 확보라는 목표에는 아직 달성하지 못한 상태이다. 조세조약의 경우에도 여전히 많은 조약이 2010년 이전의 제7조의 내용을 담고 있다.
공식접근법(AOA) 채택의 가장 큰 성과는 고정사업장 소득 귀속에 대한 접근법을 통일함으로써 명확성과 확실성을 확보한 것이지만, 공식접근법(AOA)이 추구하였던 통일성의 확보라는 목표에는 아직 달성하지 못하였다이전가격지침의 유추적용으로 인하여 본사 소재지국과 고정사업장 소재지국 간의 소득 계산에 있어서 대응조정이 가능하게 되었지만, 또 이전가격지침에서 발생하던 문제가 고정사업장의 소득귀속 문제에도 이전될 수 있다. 또 공식접근법(AOA)은 복잡하고, 가정적 상황을 분석해야 하므로 적용하기 어렵고, 과세 당국과 납세자 모두에게 막대한 행정 부담을 안겨준다.
우리나라의 경우 2013년 OECD의 공식접근법(AOA)을 수용하여 법인세법 시행령 제130조에 국외 본점과 국내 고정사업장 간의 내부거래에 대해 독립기업원칙이 적용되도록 내부거래에 대한 과세기준을 명확하게 하였다. 그러나 아직 입법상의 개선점은 남아 있다. 법인세법 제132조 제2항 제9호의 법령 문구를 정비할 필요가 있으며, 자기자본의 계산 절차 및 방법에 대하여 아직 규정하고 있지 않다. 또한, 고정사업장의 정확한 귀속소득의 결정을 위해서 법령에 규정된 외국법인 고정사업장의 내부거래와 관련된 내부거래 명세서, 경비배분계산서, 정상가격 산출방법 신고서 등에 추가하여 거래내용의 사실관계와 실질을 파악할 수 있는 문서의 제출 규정 정비가 필요하다. 이에 대해서는 일본과 독일의 입법례가 참고될 만하다.

영어초록

In order to apply uniform principles to the attribution of profits to permanent establishments, the OECD published the Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments (PE Report) in 2008, followed by a slightly revised version in 2010, which updated Article 7 of the Model Treaty. The approach set out in this report is the Authorized OECD Approach (AOA) to the attribution of profits to permanent establishments.
The revised Article 7 of the Model Treaty provides that income attributable to a permanent establishment shall be allocated between the permanent establishment and other entities of the enterprise, taking into account the functions performed, the assets used, and the risks assumed by the enterprise. This section was introduced in the 2010 Revised Report.
It stipulates that the income should be what a separate, independent enterprise engaged in the same or similar activities under the same or similar circumstances would have been expected to earn.
The AOA is applied according to a two-step approach: in the first step, assets, liabilities, and risks are allocated based on a functional analysis, and then an analysis of the entity’s internal transactions is applied between headquarters and a permanent establishment. In the second step, the income of the permanent establishment is determined based on the analysis in the first step and the independent enterprise principle is applied.
Since the formalization of the AOA in Article 7 of the OECD Revised Model Treaty in 2010, several countries have adopted this approach in their domestic laws, including Korea and Germany in 2013 and Japan in 2014. However, there are still many countries that are hesitant to adopt this approach, and the UN Model Convention has rejected this approach. Thus, the goal of uniformity that the AOA sought to achieve has not yet been achieved. In the case of tax treaties, many treaties still contain the pre-2010 version of Article 7.
While the most significant achievement of the adoption of the AOA has been to provide clarity and certainty by unifying the approach to the attribution of income to a permanent establishment, the goal of uniformity has not yet been achieved.
While the analogical application of the Transfer Pricing Directive allows for corresponding adjustments in the calculation of income between the country of a headquarter and the country of its permanent establishment, the problems that arise in the Transfer Pricing Directive may also be transferred to the attribution of income to the permanent establishment.
Moreover, the official approach (AOA) is complex, difficult to apply due to the need to analyze hypothetical situations, and imposes a huge administrative burden on both tax authorities and taxpayers.
In 2013, Korea adopted the OECD’s AOA in 2010 and clarified the tax basis for internal transactions in Article 130 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act to apply the independent enterprise principle to internal transactions between foreign headquarters and domestic permanent establishments. However, legislative improvements are still needed. The statutory wording of Article 132, Paragraph 2, Item 9 of the Corporate Income Tax Act needs to be revised, and the procedures and methods for calculating equity are not yet prescribed. In addition, in order to determine the correct amount of income attributable to a permanent establishment, it is necessary to revise the rules for submitting documents that can identify the facts and substance of the transaction in addition to the internal transaction statement, expense allocation statement, and arm’s length price calculation method declaration related to internal transactions of a foreign corporation’s permanent establishment prescribed by the statute. In this regard, legislative examples from Japan and Germany can serve as a reference.

참고자료

· 없음