국제적 조세분쟁에서 중재제도에 관한 비교법적 검토

As a procedure for resolving international tax disputes, major countries define arbitration procedures as complementary procedures for mutual agreement based on the OECD Model Tax Treaty and regulate the method of arbitration decision and appointment of arbitrators. Like Japan, Korea has adopted the arbitration procedures of the OECD Model Tax Treaty and the BEPS Prevention Multilateral Convention (MLI), and has been in effect since September 1, 2020. Korea has accepted only the minimum criteria among the provisions of the MLI, and reserves compulsory and binding arbitration provisions. Unlike the mediation system, the traditional arbitration model ruled out the possibility of additional corrections because decisions in arbitration procedures are binding and final. Therefore, if a party fails to voluntarily implement its arbitration decision, some of the parties may file a lawsuit with the court, and if there is a court decision, the party shall implement it. This arbitration system is used as a useful means of solving problems in international tax disputes where jurisdiction between countries is not the same. Since discussions on international tax disputes have been centered on the OECD, the following presents implications for our law by comparatively reviewing the US, EU, and EU model tax treaties in terms of introducing arbitration systems and establishing an operating system to increase the effectiveness of dispute resolution in arbitration procedures.