지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Taxation of transactions involving intangible assets is not systematically established despite the importance and frequency of the transactions. Especially, transfers of intangible assets among affiliates within multinational corporations trigger numerous tax issues such as transfer pricing, withholding tax and tax treatment of co-development of intangible assets. In this dissertation, a comparative review on the tax treatment of transactions involving intangible assets was performed by examining Korean tax law, OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines and U.S. tax law on the issue of the definition of intangible assets, transfer pricing of intangible assets and cost sharing arrangement.
In relation to the definition of intangible assets, Korean tax law provides for the definition in the context of amortization, withholding tax on Korean-source income and co-development of intangible assets based on a cost sharing arrangement. However, it is only enumeration of definitions for specific intangible assets and the general definition has not been provided as to the scope of intangible assets which is constantly changing. Thus, the general definition of intangible assets is necessary under Korean tax law which covers the general characteristics of intangible assets. OECD’s approach is basically similar to that of Korean tax law, but distinguishes trade intangibles and marketing intangibles and treats the two categories differently.
It is problematic to treat the transfer pricing issues stemming from transfers of intangible and tangible assets in the same manner considering the unique characteristics of intangible assets. However, Korean tax law gives the same treatment to the transfer pricing issues involving transfers of intangible and tangible assets. OECD takes the same approach while U.S. tax law takes a different approach.
Regarding co-development of intangible assets, rules on cost sharing arrangements were newly introduced into Korean tax law in May 2006, and co-development of intangible assets is treated as such for tax purposes if the underlying cost sharing arrangement satisfies the requirements under the law. Korean tax law takes the same approach as that of OECD in that the cost should be reasonably shared based on the anticipated benefits. However, the Korean rule is unique in that the tax authorities may make tax adjustments if the amount of actual benefits is 120% or more or 80% or less of the amount of anticipated benefits.
In relation to the definition of intangible assets, Korean tax law provides for the definition in the context of amortization, withholding tax on Korean-source income and co-development of intangible assets based on a cost sharing arrangement. However, it is only enumeration of definitions for specific intangible assets and the general definition has not been provided as to the scope of intangible assets which is constantly changing. Thus, the general definition of intangible assets is necessary under Korean tax law which covers the general characteristics of intangible assets. OECD’s approach is basically similar to that of Korean tax law, but distinguishes trade intangibles and marketing intangibles and treats the two categories differently.
It is problematic to treat the transfer pricing issues stemming from transfers of intangible and tangible assets in the same manner considering the unique characteristics of intangible assets. However, Korean tax law gives the same treatment to the transfer pricing issues involving transfers of intangible and tangible assets. OECD takes the same approach while U.S. tax law takes a different approach.
Regarding co-development of intangible assets, rules on cost sharing arrangements were newly introduced into Korean tax law in May 2006, and co-development of intangible assets is treated as such for tax purposes if the underlying cost sharing arrangement satisfies the requirements under the law. Korean tax law takes the same approach as that of OECD in that the cost should be reasonably shared based on the anticipated benefits. However, the Korean rule is unique in that the tax authorities may make tax adjustments if the amount of actual benefits is 120% or more or 80% or less of the amount of anticipated benefits.
#무형자산
#이전가격
#정상가격
#원가분담약정
#사용료
#감가상각
#사업무형자산
#마케팅 무형자산
#상표
#인적자원
#일괄지급
#무형자산의 양도
#무형자산의 체화
#독립기업원칙
#가치평가
#교차사용허여
#기대편익
#공헌도
#safe harbor
#참여지급
#공동개발
#Intangible asset
#Transfer pricing
#Arm's length price
#Cost contribution arrangement
#Cost sharing arrangement
#Royalty
#Armortization
#Trade intangible
#Marketing intangible
#Trademark
#Human capital
#Lump sum payment
#Ttransfer of intangible assets
#Package deal
#Independent enterprise
#Evaluation
#Cross licensing
#Anticipated benefit
#Contribution
#Safe harbor
#Buy-in payment
#Co-development
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 본론
Ⅲ. 결론
〈참고문헌〉
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (6)
참고문헌 신청
1. [학술지(정기간행물)] - / 2005 / 이전가격세제의 이해와 과세실무
2. [학술지(정기간행물)] - / 1996 / Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administration
3. [학술지(정기간행물)] - / 2005 / The Transfer Pricing of Intangibles
4. [학술지(정기간행물)] - / 1997 / The taxation of income derived form the supply of technology
5. [학술지(정기간행물)] - / 2005 / Apportionment the Formula for Intangible Development
2. [학술지(정기간행물)] - / 1996 / Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administration
3. [학술지(정기간행물)] - / 2005 / The Transfer Pricing of Intangibles
4. [학술지(정기간행물)] - / 1997 / The taxation of income derived form the supply of technology
5. [학술지(정기간행물)] - / 2005 / Apportionment the Formula for Intangible Development
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
외식기업의 무형자산과 기업 실적과의 관련성에 관한 연구
관광레저연구
2016 .02
-
무형자산 회계기준에 대한 국제비교 연구
대한경영학회지
2005 .02
-
외식기업에서 무형자산 투자와 경영성과
관광경영연구
2019 .01
-
지식기반 사회의 무형자산 측정ㆍ평가와 과제에 관한 연구
국제회계연구
2007 .12
-
Transfer Pricing for Intangibles
조세학술논집
2016 .06
-
Transfer Pricing for Intangibles
조세학술논집
2016 .06
-
국제조세조정에 관한 법률 상 무형자산의 이전가격 관련 규정에 대한 연구
조세학술논집
2014 .10
-
무형자산의 기업가치 관련성
지역정책연구
2005 .06
-
경제상황에 따른 무형자산과 기업가치 관련성의 실증연구
한국경영학회 융합학술대회
2009 .08
-
무형자산의 가치동인과 자본시장의 B/M 현상의 관련성 분석 : 부외자산 가설검증을 중심으로
국제회계연구
2010 .06
-
국제회계기준 도입에 따른 무형자산의 공정가치 평가에 관한 연구 : A기업의 사업결합시 PPA 방법 적용을 중심으로
국제회계연구
2010 .10
-
지식재산권과 기업브랜드가치와의 상관성 연구
한국경영과학회 학술대회논문집
2012 .05
-
무형자산과 유형자산의 기업가치 관련성에 대한 연구
국제회계연구
2007 .06
-
무형자산과 유형자산이 기업성과에 미치는 영향에 대한 종단적 분석
경영학연구
2014 .12
-
법인세법상 무형자산에 관한 규정의 문제점과 개선방안에 관한 연구
조세법연구
2011 .08
-
의료관련 산업의 연구개발비와 광고선전비 지출이 기업가치에 미치는 영향 (의료정밀과 의약품 산업을 중심으로)
한국병원경영학회지
2006 .01
-
무형자산(無形資産)의 회계정보유용성(會計情報有用性)에 관한 역사적(歷史的) 고찰(考察)
경영교육연구
2005 .03
-
The Intangible Assets of Korean Manufacturing Firms for Foreign Direct Investment
[KIEP] East Asian Economic Review
2004 .12
-
무형자산평가에 관한 이론적 고찰
지적과 국토정보
2015 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-329-016738739