An administrative court in South Korea agreed with the Korean Customs Service that a Korean entity was liable for additional customs duty on international marketing fees paid by the Korean entity to its corporate international headquarters.
A licensing agreement between the Korean entity and the multinational entity’s international headquarters provided that the Korean entity would pay 4% of its net sales as an “international marketing fee” in addition to the standard brand royalty payments.
The Korea Customs Service made an additional assessment of customs duties with respect to the international marketing fee of approximately KRW 5.9 billion (approximately U.S. $5.5 million).
The issue before the administrative court, therefore, was whether the international marketing fee was in substance consideration for the use of the brand, i.e., a royalty.
The Korean entity asserted that the international marketing fee differed from the brand royalty payment in that the fee was an allocation of global advertising expenses incurred by the international headquarters.
However, the administrative court found that:
The administrative court decision is being appealed to the Seoul High Courts.
The administrative court’s interpretation and treatment of the international marketing fee as a brand royalty payment was based, in part, on a finding of no evidence of actual advertising costs provided to the Korean entity by the international headquarters. The fact that the international marketing fee was an obligatory payment (in lieu of increase in royalty payment) further implied that both the international marketing fee and royalty payments were, in substance, the same. Moreover, the Korean entity’s own treatment of the related withholding tax payment under the classification “royalty” indicated that it too recognized that the international marketing fee was a royalty payment.
Transfer pricing professionals in Korea have observed that the case offers some insight into what may be described as the administrative court’s aggressive and broad interpretation of royalty payments. The case also demonstrates that prudent taxpayers need to consider the nature of their related-party payments and possible challenges to payment classifications by both customs and tax authorities.
For more information, contact a tax professional with KPMG’s Global Transfer Pricing Services in South Korea:
Tae Hyun (Pius) Park | +82 (2) 2112 6757 | email@example.com
The KPMG logo and name are trademarks of KPMG International. KPMG International is a Swiss cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent member firms. KPMG International provides no audit or other client services. Such services are provided solely by member firms in their respective geographic areas. KPMG International and its member firms are legally distinct and separate entities. They are not and nothing contained herein shall be construed to place these entities in the relationship of parents, subsidiaries, agents, partners, or joint venturers. No member firm has any authority (actual, apparent, implied or otherwise) to obligate or bind KPMG International or any member firm in any manner whatsoever. The information contained in herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. For more information, contact KPMG's Federal Tax Legislative and Regulatory Services Group at: + 1 202 533 4366, 1801 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.