Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2019.17.12.045

Analysis of Differentiation of Policy Strategies for Digital Taxation  

Kim, Ji-Young (Graduate School of Public Policy and Information Technology, Seoul National University of Science and Technology)
Publication Information
Journal of Digital Convergence / v.17, no.12, 2019 , pp. 45-57 More about this Journal
Abstract
The digital economy has created a new platform-based business model and raised the issue of the international taxation system in line with rapid economic development. Voices of fair taxation have also grown due to tax breaks to countries with low tax rates, problems caused by the gap between traditional and digital companies, and problems of business-oriented taxation systems. As a result, the international movement to lay the foundation for the international taxation system based on the business model suitable for the digital economy has become active. The stances of foreign organizations and countries are different, and the necessity of domestic policy introduction is increasing when cooperation at the international level is needed. This study was conducted to analyze the policy network and to help decision making. The results of the study showed that there were differences among domestic stakeholders depending on the actors. The EU suggested SDP in the long term, Digital Service Tax in the short term, and OECD suggested SEP in the long term. It was found that a careful approach to decision making and an in-depth study of the policy process are necessary.
Keywords
Digital Taxation; Significant Digital Presence(S.D.P.); Significant Economic Presence(S.E.P.); nexus; Business Model; Policy Network;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 3  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 T. H. Oh. & Y. J. Lim. (2018). Key Contents and Implications of EU's Digital Tax. Korea Institute for International Economic Policy. 18(13), 1-13.
2 European Commission. (2018). "Time to establish a modern, fair and efficient taxation standard for the digital economy", EU Monitor. https://www.eumonitor.eu/9353000/1/j9vvik7m1c3gyxp/vkmvhchzsezx
3 J. S. Oh. (2018). A Study on the Types of MNE's Digital Business & International Tax Related Issue of Virtual Permanent Establishment. Korean Academy of International Business Management, International Management Review, 22(2), 185-207.
4 H. Park. (2019). Review of Changes in the Concept of Permanent Establishment and Adoption of Diverted Profits Tax under the Digital Economy. International Fiscal Association Korea. Journal of IFA, Korea. 35(1), 45-71.   DOI
5 A. Nellen. (2015). Taxation and today's digital economy. Journal of Tax Practice & Procedure. 17(2), 17-26.
6 J. S. Ahn. (2013). Tax Avoidance Behavior and Implications of Multinational IT Companies : Focusing on the case of Apple and Google. Public Finance Forum, Korea institute of public finance, 7(2013).
7 PWC. (2018). Economic and Policy Aspects of Digital Services Turnover Tax, 4-7.
8 Y. J. Kim. (2005). Policy Network on Deciding the Place for Nuclear Waste: Focused the Inducing Action in Kyongju Area. Korean policy sciences review, 9(4), 287-316.
9 S. S. Song & K. C. Kwon. (2004). Policy Network Analysis on the Legislation Process of Internet Contents Regulation. Journal of Science & Technology Studies. 4(1), 83-110.
10 S. E. Lim. (2013). A Study on the Conflict for Free School Meal Policy in Terms of Policy Network. The Korea Research Institute for Local Adminstration, 27(1), 203-226.
11 S. Y. Kim. (2010). The Policy Network Perspective in the Analysis of the Policy Process: Suggestions for the Improvement of Its Theoretical and Practical Relevances. International Journal of Policy Studies. 19(4), 177-210.
12 M. M. Atkinson & W. D. Coleman. (1985). Corporatism and industrial policy. Organized interests and the state, 22-44.
13 P. Kenis & V. Schneider. (1989). Policy networks as an analytical tool for policy analysis. In paper for conference at Max Planck Institute, Cologne (pp. 4-5).
14 K. Namkoong. (2017). Policy Sciences. Bubmoonsa, 270-296. DOI : 978-89-18-02473-8.
15 D. Marsh & R. A. W. Rhodes. (1992). Policy networks in British government. Clarendon Press.
16 H. H. Park. & S. G. Hong. (2016). An Exploratory Study of Creative Economy Policy Network Using Social Network Analysis. The Korean Association For Policy Studies, 25(2), 429-454.
17 H. M. Yang. & D. W. Kang. (2009). An Analysis of Policy Network in the Process of Making Policy toward North Korea -Based on the Case of "Gaeseong Industrial Complex Project". The Korean Journal of Unification Affairs, 21(1), 415-458.
18 M. Szczepanski. (2018). Corporation taxation of a signifiant digital presence. European Parliamentary Research Service. 1-8.
19 K. J. Kim. (2003). Policy Network Analysis of Maternity Assistance Policy-making in the Kim Dae Jung Administration. Korean Association of Governmental Studies (KAGOS), 37(3), 23-44.
20 K. E. Huh. & K. Y. Kim. (2015). A Study on the Agenda-Setting Process for Alternatives in Application of Fixed Book Price Policy to Libraries - Based on the Policy Network Model. Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 49(4), 289-315. DOI : 10.4275/KSLIS.2015.49.4.289.   DOI
21 K. H. Yoo, D. H. Kim & K. D. Suh. (2018). Analysis of Actors' Interaction Patterns in the Formation Process of Sexual Crime Prevention Policy: Focusing on classification and case analysis. Journal of the Korea Convergence Society, 9(9), 209-215. DOI : 10.15207/JKCS.2018.9.9.209   DOI
22 R. Mehari. (2019). "Taxation of Significant Digital Presence; an evaluative study on draft EU proposal to tax significant digital presence in context of EU primary Law". Master Programme in International Tax Law and EU Tax Law. Master's Thesis 15 ECTS. Uppsala Universitet. 1-47.
23 OECD/G20. (2014). Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, Addressing the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy.
24 M. Dohler. (1991). Policy Networks, Opportunity Structures and Neo-Conservative Reform Strategies in Health Policy. Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations, (pp. 235-296). Campus Verlag.