지급보증수수료의 이전가격과세에 대한 연구 - 정상가격 산출방법 및 이전가격과세소송의 심판방식을 중심으로 -

This study deals with the transfer pricing method on guarantee fee and proceedings and burden of proof relief reflecting the transfer pricing taxation characteristics. It is recommended that guarantee pricing between prices by risk/reward based approach and benefit approach, reflecting the bargaining power of the guarantor and guarantee. It can be reasonable to acknowledge the median value of prices assessed by application of risk based approach and benefit approach, because of the following: all information between the mother company and its subsidiaries is shared, and thus there is no bargaining power difference due to information maldistribution. When seeking benefits from finance guarantees, it is essential to exclude credit gains due to implicit support. It is possible to determine the model for finding credit gains due to implicit support reflecting the following assumption: the credit gain due to the subsidiary’s implicit support reflects the mother company’s credit rate and subsidiary company’s status in the group. It is difficult to apply CUP methods for arm’s length pricing for finance guarantee, due to the characteristics of finance guarantee deals which have to reflect implicit support. It is difficult to apply other traditional transaction methods or transactional profit methods, too. The trial must be fair, fast, and economical. There must be a judgement of annulment of taxation in the following case: The taxing authority’s appraisal does not have the requisites of arm’s length price, but the taxpayer’s transfer price is reasonable. If the taxing authority’s appraisal does not have the requisites of arm’s length price, and the tax payer’s transfer price is unreasonable, the judge makes the arm’s length price judgement based on submitted material, etc., and also makes a decision of partial annulment of taxation. Allowing re-taxation after the final judgement on a transfer price taxation does not only go against litigation principles, but also has a large concern of invading peoples’ rights to a trial. Re-taxation after the final judgement on a transfer price taxation must be disallowed. The tax authority’s holds burden of proof in the transfer price trial, including that the price that the tax authority itself has calculated was done so through the most appropriated method. The tax authority’s transfer pricing method is most appropriate and their arm’s length price is reasonable have been prima facie proven if the following are proven: that tax authority’s transfer pricing method is more appropriate than taxpayer’s transfer pricing method, that arm’s length price was assessed appropriately based on the selected transfer pricing method, that the transfer pricing method that seemed, at a glance, more direct and appropriate than tax authority’s transfer pricing method but wasn’t selected would have been difficult to be applied. If such proof is given, then the following proving must be done by the taxpayer: that the taxpayer’s own transfer price is within the range of the arm’s length price or that a more appropriate method exists than tax authority’s transfer pricing method. Finance guarantee deals within multinational companies will continue in the future as well. Although it is difficult to estimate implicit support, and to find comparable deals. Under these conditions and circumstances, To tax finance guarantee deals within multinational companies through arm’s length price, the legislator and the tax authority must continue to try to put forth reasonable transfer pricing methods. The courts also must make it so that transfer price disputes regarding finance guarantee fees are solved by one trial. There is also a need to regulate separate trial methods for transfer price lawsuits.