RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      한·중 조세조약 해석에 관한 최근 대법원 판례 검토: 이중과세 회피를 위한 법인세법상 외국납부세액 공제제도와 OECD 모델조약 해석원칙을 중심으로 = Review of Recent Supreme Court Rulings on the Interpretation of the Korea-China Tax Treaty: Focusing on the Foreign Tax Credit System for Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Interpretation Principles of the OECD Model Tax Convention

      한글로보기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      This study reviews and analyzes three Supreme Court rulings issued in the first half of 2024, related to the Korea-China Tax Treaty 「Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the People’s Republic of China for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income」 (hereinafter "the Treaty") and the foreign tax credit system under the Corporate Tax Act. The study first examines the foreign tax credit system, the interpretative principles of the OECD Model Tax Convention (MTC) Commentary, and the Vienna Convention, which are crucial for ‘common interpretation’ of tax treaties. It then analyzes how these interpretative principles were applied in the rulings.
      All three cases involve the issue of foreign tax credits for taxes paid in China, focusing on the interpretation of Article 57 of the Corporate Tax Act and the Treaty. In the first case, the court ruled that foreign tax credits for local corporate income taxes were not directly allowed under the Treaty and its protocol. In the second case, the court found that in a "modified PE triangular case," Korea, as the country of the permanent establishment, could exercise its taxing rights before China, and thus, the Chinese withholding tax was not eligible for credit. In the third case, the court determined that a guarantee fee was "other income" rather than "interest" under the Treaty, and thus Korea had no obligation to relieve double taxation, as China’s taxing rights were deemed unlawful.
      These rulings underscore the importance of common interpretation in tax treaty analysis and demonstrate how international legal principles are incorporated into domestic decisions, providing valuable insights for future international tax cases.
      번역하기

      This study reviews and analyzes three Supreme Court rulings issued in the first half of 2024, related to the Korea-China Tax Treaty 「Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the People’s Republic of China for...

      This study reviews and analyzes three Supreme Court rulings issued in the first half of 2024, related to the Korea-China Tax Treaty 「Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the People’s Republic of China for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income」 (hereinafter "the Treaty") and the foreign tax credit system under the Corporate Tax Act. The study first examines the foreign tax credit system, the interpretative principles of the OECD Model Tax Convention (MTC) Commentary, and the Vienna Convention, which are crucial for ‘common interpretation’ of tax treaties. It then analyzes how these interpretative principles were applied in the rulings.
      All three cases involve the issue of foreign tax credits for taxes paid in China, focusing on the interpretation of Article 57 of the Corporate Tax Act and the Treaty. In the first case, the court ruled that foreign tax credits for local corporate income taxes were not directly allowed under the Treaty and its protocol. In the second case, the court found that in a "modified PE triangular case," Korea, as the country of the permanent establishment, could exercise its taxing rights before China, and thus, the Chinese withholding tax was not eligible for credit. In the third case, the court determined that a guarantee fee was "other income" rather than "interest" under the Treaty, and thus Korea had no obligation to relieve double taxation, as China’s taxing rights were deemed unlawful.
      These rulings underscore the importance of common interpretation in tax treaty analysis and demonstrate how international legal principles are incorporated into domestic decisions, providing valuable insights for future international tax cases.

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼