균등화세의 도입을 통한 디지털 경제의 과세에 관한 연구

This paper explores whether equalization levy may function effectively as quick fix against tax challenges originating from digital transactions through comparative study on current trends and legislative precedents of relevant countries and international or surpranational institutions on the perspectives of tax policy, legal analysis and practical feasibility. The concise conclusion of the above study is that the taxation of digital economy through equalization levy conflicts with traditional international tax regime and cannot allocate taxing rights duely between source country and residence country, since it is based just upon digital consumption itself, not digital investment. Equalization levy may be introduced as unilateral measure by a country, but it must cause many problems on each perspective of tax policy, legal analysis and practical feasibility. The current international tax regimes would rather be the outcomes of relevant countries’ compromises than those just of strict logical inferences. The current trends and debates on the taxation of digital economy are also related with the establishment of new rules on the allocation of taxing rights among relevant countries. At present, it is uncertain whether the above trends and debates boil down to globally authoritative compromise points, which depends on both logical inferences and political processes. In addition, there is no dominant agreement about the effectiveness of temporary measures or quick fixes, which may be introduced before reaching international consensus and each of which faces with significant limitations in functioning as temporary alternative of the taxation of digital economy and causes even more risks and negative effects. In order to cope with tax avoidance effectively, international cooperation is crucial, but unilateral measures will probably harm the international cooperation and will most likely cause more significant problems on international taxation. Namely, the divergencies of unilateral measures are expected to cause yet more uncertainty, disparity and double taxation due to the lack of coordination. The OECD/G20 BEPS initiative is in the middle of searching a more coherent and substantive international tax system, the outcomes of which are still beyond our reach. And there are no economic and normative grounds to readily take the aforementioned risks and negative effects by introducing equalization levy as quick fix in advance. Meanwhile, there may be the following view. Jurisdictions will continue to implement their own digital taxes. The consequences of these unilateral measures have seemingly been positive for some individual countries whth regard to tax revenue. This dynamic will promote more countries to adopt their own measures and result in the serious consequences of double taxation, which drive most of countries to readily go toward internation consensus. This view may have some points, but there is no reasonable ground at all to intentionally take such serious consequences. Although it is uncertain how taxing digital economy comes to conclusion in coping with recent tax challenges, the following points must be observed. First, it is inappropriate to penalize digital economy in comparison with traditional economy. Second, it is reasonable to tax corporate income on a net basis, not to tax it on a gross basis as is the case with equalization levy.