intertrendsМеждународные процессыInternational Trends / Mezhdunarodnye protsessy1728-27561811-2773AEFIR10.17994/IT.2021.19.2.65.6intertrends-254Research ArticleФИКСИРУЕМ ТЕНДЕНЦИЮCATCHING A TRENDНалогообложение цифровой экономики конец оптимизмаTaxing digital economy the end of optimismШохинС.ShokhinS.

Сергей Шохин

Москва

Sergey Shokhin

Moscow 119454

doctorsos07@rambler.ruКудряшоваЕ.KudryashovaE.

Екатерина Кудряшова

Ekaterina Kudryashova

Moscow, 117218

ev_kudryashova@inbox.ruШашковаА.ShashkovaA.

Анна Шашкова

Москва

Anna Shashkova

Moscow 119454

МГИМО МИД РоссииРоссияMGIMO UniversityRussian FederationИнститут законодательства и сравнительного правоведения при Правительстве Российской ФедерацииРоссияInstitute of legislation and comparative lawRussian Federation202130062021192138150Copyright © Шохин С., Кудряшова Е., Шашкова А., 20212021Шохин С., Кудряшова Е., Шашкова А.Shokhin S., Kudryashova E., Shashkova A.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.intertrends.ru/jour/article/view/254

Быстроразвивающаяся цифровая экономика оказывает серьёзное влияние на налоговые системы стран мира. В конце XX века к налогообложению цифровой экономики государства подходили весьма оптимистично. Считалось, что нет необходимости вводить новые налоги и что традиционные концепции международного налогового права смогут устоять перед вызовами времени. Тогда утверждали, что налогообложение даже с приходом новых технологий должно оставаться простым, ясным и определённым. Цифровую экономику стремились поощрять и освобождать от обложения сборами. Со временем ситуация изменилась. На начало 2020-х годов преобладает пессимизм по поводу налогообложения цифровой экономики. Рассматривается вопрос о введении специальных налогов на отдельные цифровые услуги, и такие налоги уже введены в ряде стран. Вместе с тем тенденция к ужесточению налогообложения может повлечь за собой дискриминацию новых технологий по отношению к тем, которые уже укрепились на рынке. Значимую роль здесь играют противоречия между технологическим центром и периферией. Присоединиться к тенденции налогового пессимизма для технологической периферии означает в том числе ограничить возможности развития собственных технологических компаний и углубить противоречия, поскольку дискриминация в налоговой сфере иностранных компаний не допускается. Регуляторный маятник, качающийся от самого оптимистичного к крайнему пессимистичному подходу, вплоть до отчаянных протекционистских мер, должен постепенно уравновеситься. Панические настроения налоговых ведомств по поводу перспектив налогообложения цифровой экономики должны смягчиться, и следует ожидать конструктивных предложений без излишней фискальной направленности.

The rapidly developing digital economy seriously affects the tax systems of different countries. At the end of XX century there was an optimistic approach to the taxation of digital economy. It was considered that there is no need for the new taxes, new tax regimes and the traditional concepts of international taxation were expected to sustain the new challenges. It was also considered that even with implementation of new technologies tax rules should keep on being clear and simple with high level of certainty, so that taxpayers could anticipate the tax consequences in advance. The digital economy was supported and exempt from taxation. Nowadays the possibility of imposing the new special taxes on digital economy is considered and some countries already introduced those taxes. The pessimism in respect of digital economy is now prevailing in the tax systems. However, the tightening trend in the tax regimes may entail the discrimination of the new technologies against those, which were developed before and already entered into the markets. The controversies between the technological center and periphery play certain role here. For the countries of technology periphery to join the tightening trend means to curb development of their domestic hightech industry as discrimination in taxation of foreign countries is still considered inacceptable. It is obvious that the regulatory pendulum: from the most optimistic to the extreme pessimistic approach, until the desperate protectionist measures, should be balanced with the time. The panic in the publications about the prospective of the digital economy taxation shall subside and turn to the constructive suggestions without unnecessary fiscal focus.

международное налогообложениецифровая экономиканалогналоговые стимулыinternational taxationdigital economytax incentivesInternet commercetechnological divideUSAEUReferencesСергеев Г.С. Строительство цифровой экономики в России: геополитический аспект // Экономическое возрождение России. 2018. Т. 3 (57). С. 92–102.Blair-Stanek A. (2015) Intellectual Property Law Solutions to Tax Avoidance. UCLA Law Review. 2015. No. 2. P. 4–72.Юдина Т.М. Осмысление цифровой экономики // Теоретическая экономика. 2016. № 3. С. 12–16.Boccia F., Leonardi R. (2016) The challenge of the digital economy: markets, taxation and appropriate economic models. Palgrave Macmillan. 148 p.Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting. OECD. 2013. URL: http://www.oecd.org/ctp/bepsactionplan.pdf (aссessed: 15.03.2021).BCG. (2012). The Connected World. The Internet Economy in the G-20. The $ 4.2 Trillion Growth Opportunity. Report. The Boston Consulting Group. 53 p.Blair-Stanek A. Intellectual Property Law Solutions to Tax Avoidance // UCLA Law Review. 2015. No. 2. P. 4–72.Dharmapala D., Riedel N. (2013). Earnings Shocks and Tax-Motivated Income-Shifting: Evidence from European Multinationals. Journal of Public Economic. 2013. No. 97. P. 96.Boccia F., Leonardi R. The challenge of the digital economy: markets, taxation and appropriate economic models. Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. P. 148.Kenney M., Zysman J. (2020). The platform economy: restructuring the space of capitalist accumulation. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Sociaty. Vol. 13. No. 1. P. 55–76.Dharmapala D., Riedel N. Earnings Shocks and Tax-Motivated Income-Shifting: Evidence from European Multinationals // Journal of Public Economic. 2013. No. 97. P. 96.EU (2014). Report of the Commission Expert Group on Taxation of the Digital Economy. Brussels: European Union.78 p.Digital Economy Outlook. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2015. 280 p.Goldfarb A., Tucker C. (2019). Digital economics. Journal of Economic Literature. Vol. 57. No. 1. P. 3–43.Digital economy report 2019. Value creation and capture: implications for developing countries. UNCTAD, 2019. URL: https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/der2019_en.pdf (aссessed: 15.03.2021).Haslehner W.C., Kofler G.W., Pantazatou K. (eds) (2019). Tax and the digital economy: challenges and proposals for reform. Kluwer Law International. 583 p.E-commerce and development report. UNCTAD. UN. New York and Geneva, 2002. URL: https://unctad.org/en/Docs/ecdr2002p1_en.pdf (aссessed: 01.03.2021).ITU (2019) Measuring digital development. Facts and figures 2019. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) UN. URL: https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/FactsFigures2019_r1.pdf (aссessed: 15.03.2021).Electronic commerce: taxation framework conditions. Report of Committee on Fiscal Affairs. OECD, 1998. 7 p.Kasatkin, P.I., Avatkov, V.A. (2014). The soft power of migration-a hard task for the European union. Defense and Security Analysis. Vol. 30. No. 4. P. 311–322.Goldfarb A., Tucker C. Digital economics // Journal of Economic Literature. 2019. Vol. 57. No. 1. P. 3–43.Kysar R. (2018). Tax Law and the Eroding Budget Process. Law and Contemporary Problems. Vol. 81. No. 2. P. 61–98.Measuring digital development. Facts and figures 2019. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) UN. 2019. URL: https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/FactsFigures2019_r1.pdf (aссessed: 15.03.2021).Kupchishina E.V. (2018). Digital Economy as Neo-Economy Phenomenon: Evolution of Consepts. Gosudarstvennoye upravlenie. Electronnyi Vestnik. No. 68. P. 426–444.Kasatkin P.I., Avatkov V.A. The soft power of migration-a hard task for the European union // Defense and Security Analysis. 2014. Vol. 30. No. 4. P. 311–322.Makeeva E., Mikhaleva I. (2019). Taxation regulation of the BriCs’ innovative Companies. BRICS Law Journal. Vol. 6. No. 1. P. 41–62.Kenney M., Zysman J. The platform economy: restructuring the space of capitalist accumulation // Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Sociaty. 2020. Vol. 13. No. 1. P. 55–76.Shashkova A., Verlaine M. (2020) “Change of tax policy model as a base for innovation development while transferring from the pre-industrial to the Industrial society”, In Kovalchik J. (ed) Post-industrial Society. P. 137–147. Palgrave Macmillan. Cham. DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-59739_9_12.Kysar R. Tax Law and the Eroding Budget Process // Law and Contemporary Problems. 2018. Vol. 81. No. 2. P. 61–98.Shokhin S., Kudryashova E. (2019). Macroeconomic Coordination in the Eurasian Economic Union: Strategic Aspects. Russian Law Journal. Vol. 7. No. 3. P. 38–52.Kupchishina E.V. Digital Economy as Neo-Economy Phenomenon: Evolution of Consepts // Gosudarstvennoye upravlenie. Electronnyi Vestnik. 2018. No. 68. P. 426–444.OECD (1998). Electronic commerce: taxation framework conditions. Report of Committee on Fiscal Affairs. 7 p.Makeeva E., Mikhaleva I. Taxation regulation of the BRICs’ innovative Companies. // BRICS Law Journal. 2019. Vol. 6. No. 1. P. 41–62.OECD (1999). Taxation and electronic commerce. Progress report, prepared by Secretariat OECD. 236 p.Shashkova A., Verlaine M. Change of tax policy model as a base for innovation development while transferring from the pre-industrial to the Industrial society // Post-industrial Society / ed. by J. Kovalchik. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. 2020. P. 137–147. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-59739_9_12.OECD (2013). Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting. URL: http://www.oecd.org/ctp/bepsactionplan.pdf (aссessed: 15.03.2021).Shokhin S., Kudryashova E. Macroeconomic Coordination in the Eurasian Economic Union: Strategic Aspects // Russian Law Journal. 2019. Vol. 7. No. 3. P. 38–52.OECD (2015). Digital Economy Outlook. OECD Publishing. Paris. 280 p.Oki N. The Digital Economy and Our Vanishing Tax Base. 2019. URL https://www.tkfd.or.jp/en/research/detail.php?id=666 (aссessed: 01.09.2019).OECD (2018). Tax challenges arising from digitalization – interim report 2018: inclusive framework on BEPS. Paris. 243 p.Report of the Commission Expert Group on Taxation of the Digital Economy. Brussels: European Union, 2014. 78 p.Oki N. (2019). The Digital Economy and Our Vanishing Tax Base. URL https://www.tkfd.or.jp/en/research/detail.php?id=666 (aссessed 01.09.2019).Queralt D. Protection Not for Sale, But for Tax Compliance // International Studies Quarterly. 2017. Vol. 61. No. 3. P. 631–641.Peitz M., Waldfogel J. (eds) (2012). The Oxford Handbook of the Digital Economy. Oxford University Press. 624 p.Schiller D. Digital Capitalism: Networking the Global Market System. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1999. 294 p.Queralt D. (2017). Protection Not for Sale, But for Tax Compliance. International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 61. Issue 3. P. 631–641.Shelepov A. BEPS Action Plan: Global Tax Cooperation // International Organizations Research Journal. 2016. Vol. 11. No. 4. P. 36–59.Schiller D. (1999). Digital Capitalism: Networking the Global Market System. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 294 p.Szczepanski M. Digital taxation. State of play and way forward. European Parliament. 2020. URL: https:// www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/649340/EPRS_BRI(2020)649340_EN.pdf (accessed: 20.10.2020).Sergeev G.S. (2018) Stroitelstvo tsifrovoi economiki v Rossii: geopoliticheskii aspect. Economicheskoye vozrozhdenie Rossii. Vol. 3 (57). P. 92–102.Tax and the digital economy: challenges and proposals for reform / ed. by W.C. Haslehner, G.W. Kofler, K. Pantazatou. Kluwer Law International, 2019. 583 p.Shelepov A. (2016) BEPS Action Plan: Global Tax Cooperation. International Organizations Research Journal. Vol. 11. No. 4. P. 36–59.Taxation and electronic commerce. Progress report, prepared by Secretariat OECD. OECD, 1999. 236 p.Szczepanski M. (2020) Digital taxation. State of play and way forward. European Parliament. URL: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/649340/EPRS_BRI(2020)649340_EN.pdf (accessed: 20.10.2020).Tax challenges arising from digitalization – interim report 2018: inclusive framework on BEPS. Paris. OECD, 2018. 243 p.Terzi A. (2015) Global Trends in Brain Drain and Likely Scenario in the Coming Years. In Archibugi D., Filippetti A. (eds.) The Handbook of Global Science, Technology, and Innovation. John Wiley & Sons. P. 407–417.Terzi A. Global Trends in Brain Drain and Likely Scenario in the Coming Years // The Handbook of Global Science, Technology, and Innovation / ed. by D. Archibugi, A. Filippetti. John Wiley & Sons, 2015. P. 407–417.UNCTAD (2002). E-commerce and development report. UNCTAD. UN. New York and Geneva 2002. URL: https://unctad.org/en/Docs/ecdr2002p1_en.pdf (aссessed: 01.03.2021).The Oxford Handbook of the Digital Economy / ed. by M. Peitz, J. Waldfogel. Oxford University Press, 2012. 624 p.UNCTAD (2017). World investments report. URL: https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/wir2017_en.pdf (aссessed: 20.10.2020).Valente P. Digital Revolution. Tax Revolution? // Bulletin for International Taxation. 2018. Vol. 72. No. 4a. P. 9–13.UNCTAD (2019). Digital economy report 2019. Value creation and capture: implications for developing countries. URL: https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/der2019_en.pdf (aссessed: 15.03.2021).Weidemaier C. A (very thin) market for sovereign control // Duke Law Journal. 2017. Vol. 66. P. 67–77.Valente P. (2018) Digital Revolution. Tax Revolution? Bulletin for International Taxation. Vol. 72. No. 4a. P. 9–13.World investments report. UNCTAD. 2017. URL: https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/wir2017_en.pdf (accessed 20.10.2020).Weidemaier C. (2017). A (very thin) market for sovereign control. Duke Law Journal. Vol. 66. P. 67–77.Yudina T.M. (2016). Osmyslenie tsifrovoi economiki. Teoreticheskaya economika. No. 3. P. 12–16.Yudina T.M. (2016). Osmyslenie tsifrovoi economiki. Teoreticheskaya economika. No. 3. P. 12–16.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.