글로벌인터넷사업자의 세원 잠식과 구글의 국내 매출 추정

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 연구에서는 글로벌인터넷사업자의 대표적인 세금회피 및 이익 이전 세무전략인 DIDS 구조를 분석하고, 이에 대한 관련 국가 및 국제기구의 대응 방안을 설명하였다. 우리나라에서도 해당 현상에 대한 많은 논의가 있었으며, 최근에는 글로벌인터넷사업자와 관련한 부가가치세법 개정안이 통과되는 등 많은 변화가 예상되고 있다. 그러나 본질적으로 글로벌인터넷사업자와 관련된 세원 잠식 문제는 이들이 국내 시장에서 창출하는 매출 및 이익과 관련된 법인세 등을 중심으로 논의되는 것이 바람직하다. 본 연구에서는 글로벌인터넷사업자들의 대표적인 세금회피 및 이익 이전 세무전략인 DIDS (Double Irish and Dutch Sandwich)구조를 분석하고, 이에 대한 관련 국가 및 국제기구의 대응방안을 설명하였다. 우리나라에서도 해당 현상에 대해 많은 논의가 있었지만, 실효성 있는 정책은 마련되지 못한 상황이다. 실효성 있는 대책을 만들기 위해서는 공개된 정보를 바탕으로 많은 논의가 선행되어야 한다. 이를 위해 가장 먼저 이루어져야 할 작업이 글로벌인터넷사업자들이 국내에서 창출한 매출액 정보에 대한 이해이다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 대표적 글로벌인터넷사업자의 하나인 구글의 국내 매출을 추정하였다. 특히, 구글사업보고서(10-K)의 지역매출에 관한 주석 정보 공시 정책이 변경된 것에 착안하여, 최초로 구글의 국내 매출을 추정하였다. 두 가지 방식을 이용하여 분석을 수행한 결과, 2015년, 2016년, 2017년 구글의 국내 매출은 각각 1.7~2.6조 원, 2.1~2.8조 원, 3.2~4.9조 원으로 추정되었다. 기존 구글 국내 매출에 대한 추정이 조사기관의 서베이 방식모델을 통해 이루어졌던 것에 비해, 본 연구의 추정은 구글의 자체 공시정보에 기초하여 이루어졌다는 점에서 차별성이 있다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The study analyzes a tax base erosion and profit shifting strategy known as the DIDS(Double Irish Dutch Sandwich) framework, frequently exercised by global internet operators. Many countries, along with related international organizations(OECD and EC) have long been concerned with the DIDS structure or the repercussions thereof.
Different countries have come up with different measures in response to the global internet operators’ use of the DIDS structure. The present study covers these measures and explains why these measures may fall short of effectively neutralizing the global corporate tax planning strategies by these global internet operators.
Korea is no exception in this arena. Despite heated debates made almost every year, especially at the hearings of the National Assembly, not much action has been taken, let alone identifying the amount of the eroded tax base. Adopting a measure like the Google Tax is seems even a riskier response when tax base and tax jurisdiction are not clearly identified. For this reason, estimating revenues generated in the Korean platform market by the global internet operators is an important starting point in identifying both the tax base and tax jurisdiction.
The present study, using Google as an example of the global internet operators, estimates sales made in Korea. The study takes notice of Google’s change in its financial statement disclosure policy. In 2017, Google changed its disclosure policy on revenues by geography. Prior to 2017, revenues were grouped into ①United States, ②United Kingdom and ③Rest of the world. Starting 2017, revenues are grouped into ①United States, ②EMFA(Europe, the Middle East, and Africa), ③APAC, ④Other Americas. This opened a way to estimate more accurately the Google sales made in any APAC country. The Korean market, being a major platform market in APAC, stands out as a major candidate in estimating sales revenue generated in the domestic market.
Thus, the present study, using Google’s footnote disclosure information on revenues by geography, estimates the Google’s sales revenue in Korea. By using additional information disclosed by App Annie and eMarketer along with Google’s footnote disclosure, equation(2) of the present study produced the following findings.
In the recent years of 2015, 2016 and 2017, Google’s sales revenues in Korea are estimated to fall in the range of ￦1.7~￦2.6 trillion, ￦2.1~￦2.8 trillion and ￦3.2~￦4.9 trillion, respectively.
Estimating global internet operators’ sales revenue, especially using its own disclosure information, is a meaningful exercise in the context of identifying a BEPS(Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) issue in the country where the internet goods are actually purchased and consumed. Moreover, the BEPS problem may adversely affect the equal footing condition when both global and local internet operators are selling homogeneous goods to homogeneous customers. This study purports to add some evidence to such line of reasoning.
The study has some limitations and needs improvements in the future. In estimating equation(2) of the study, data published by App Annie and eMarketer were used along with Google’s own disclosure information. To the extent that the country sales revenue data published by these two research institutions differ from Google’s actual (undisclosed) country sales revenue data, the methodology of the present study may be prone to error.
The ensuing studies can improve the literature in two ways. First, they can find alternative ways to make use of more publicly available disclosure information and less information published by private data servicing institutions like App Annie and eMarketer. Second, they can narrow down the scope of estimation from sales revenue to pretax income and tax expenses had the global internet operator kept or perceived to have kept the permanent establishment in Korea.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론
• Ⅱ. 글로벌인터넷사업자의 세원 잠식과 대응 방안
• Ⅲ. 글로벌인터넷사업자의 세원 확보와 매출액 추정
• Ⅳ. 결론
• 참고문헌
• ABSTRACT

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 오주환, "정부, 구글·애플 등 해외 IT기업 매출 규모 조사 추진"
• 2 이태희, "외국계 유한회사의 세원 잠식 이슈: 구글 등 글로벌IT기업들의 사례를 중심으로" 5-19, 2018
• 3 기획재정부, "보도자료: 다국적 IT기업에 대한 법인세 과세 관련 설명자료"
• 4 전수진, "미국 vs. EU ‘구글세’ 협상장 박차고 나간 므누신..한국에도 불똥?"
• 5 박훈, "디지털 경제하에서의 고정사업장 개념 변경과 해외이전소득에 대한 과세제도의 도입에 관한 소고" 한국국제조세협회 35 (35): 45-71, 2019
• 6 한국조세재정연구원 세법연구센터, "디지털 경제의 주요 특징과 조세쟁점 연구" 2016
• 7 안종석, "디지털 경제와 법인세 정책: 국제 논의와 정책 시사점" (273) : 8-37, 2019
• 8 한국무선인터넷산업연합회, "대한민국 무선인터넷 산업 현황" 2016
• 9 김유성, "구글 매출, 네이버와 비슷?..세금 논쟁 재차 ↑"
• 10 HM Revenue and Customs, "Transfer pricing and Diverted Profits Tax statistics to 2016/17"
• 11 Avi-Yohah, R. S., "Three steps forward, one step back? Reflections on “google taxes” and the destination-based corporate taxes" 69-76, 2016
• 12 Thorne, D., "The Double Irish and Dutch Sandwich tax strategies: Could a general anti-avoidance rule counteract the problems caused by utilization of these structures" Victoria University of Wellington 2013
• 13 Haan, M., "R&D capitalization: where did we go wrong? Economic and Social Council" United Nations 2018
• 14 IGAWorks, "Mobile Index: 2016년 Google Play 게임 카테고리 총결산"
• 15 Levin, C., "Memorandum: Offshore profit shifting and the U.S. tax code – Part 2. Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation" Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs 2013
• 16 Internal Revenue Service, "LB&I Concept Unit: Knowledge Base – International"
• 17 Devereux, M. P., "Implications of digitalization for international corporate tax reform" 46 (46): 550-559, 2017
• 18 Flanagan, P, "How this Double Irish accountancy trick works"
• 19 Dugigg, C, "How apple sidesteps billions in taxes"
• 20 Facebook, "Form 10-K Filing to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission"
• 21 Apple, "Form 10-K Filing to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission"
• 22 Alphabet Inc, "Form 10-K Filing to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission"
• 23 오태현, "EU의 디지털세(Digital Tax) 주요 내용과 시사점" 18 (18): 1-20, 2018
• 24 이찬근, "Double Irish Dutch Sandwich(DIDS)를 통한 BEPS 프로젝트 고찰" 한국국제조세협회 32 (32): 233-265, 2016
• 25 EC, "Council Directive 2003/49/EC on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States"
• 26 EC, "Council Communication 2018/0146/EC on time to establish a modern, fair and efficient taxation standard for the digital economy"
• 27 박익환, "BEPS 방지 프로젝트 관련 입법과제" 1-6, 2018
• 28 OECD, "Articles of the Model Convention with respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital" 2017
• 29 OECD, "Addressing the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy, Action I – 2015 Final Report" 2015