스포츠용품회사의 국제마케팅비에 관한 과세상의 쟁점 - 대법원 2016. 8. 30. 선고 2015두52098 판결을 중심으로 -

Abstract

Sporting goods companies with an internationally high brand awareness, conclude license agreements with businesses of sales areas when exporting products with the applicable brands written on them to foreign countries. Sales businesses pay brand use fees(royalties) in accordance with the license agreement in return for acquiring rights to sell applicable goods. Businesses with a license take a responsibility to maintain and enhance value of the brand it owns by doing public relations activities internationally with royalties paid by sales businesses. There was recently a significant event in relation to this. Adidas AG situated in Germany concluded a license agreement with Adidas Korea, a sale corporation in Korea. Adidas Korea has paid royalties to Adidas AG in accordance with the license agreement. However, It became problematic that Adidas Korea has paid part of royalties in the name of an international marketing fee after newly concluding a license agreement in 2009. As a result of this, fees have to be paid such as customs duties and value added taxes when importing goods with the applicable brand written on them. In this case, royalties were included into the taxable amount, a criterion of taxation, but an international marketing fee was not included because it was an expense. Korea Customs Service imposed a tax on an international marketing fee because its nature is for royalties and Adidas Korea filed a lawsuit, protesting against the decision. The case received attention because of the different decision made between the first trial and the second trial. Some even criticized that the taxation office's arbitrary taxation might have caused trouble because the decision was passed in favor of the taxpayer side, especially in the second trial. However, the Supreme Court agreed with the taxation office, and the argument ended. The key issue of this case is whether an international marketing fee is included into royalties. This paper reviewed this matter along with reasonableness of the decision. There is another important question to be reviewed in relation to an international marketing fee, though not the issue of this case: whether to acknowledge an international marketing fee as an deductible expense. Putting together the facts revealed in the process of the trial, not only is the alloted international marketing fee not consistent with the actually paid expense based on sales figures, but also it is not possible to identify whether the international marketing fee was executed properly because the details of expenditures were unclear. If the international marketing fee is acknowledged as an expense under such circumstances, it is open to unlawful tax avoidance of multinational corporations. Therefore, this paper tried to draw an improvement plan by reviewing this together.