On June 26, 2026, ten members of Korea’s National Assembly, led by Representative Lee Kang-il of the Democratic Party of Korea, proposed a bill that, if enacted, would establish a statutory basis for imposing a digital services tax (“DST”) on certain foreign corporations providing digital services to users in Korea.

If enacted, the bill would amend the International Tax Coordination Law (“ITCL”) to require an in-scope foreign corporations to pay an amount equal to 2% of its relevant Korean digital services revenue as corporate income tax. The bill would also introduce two supporting measures: it would require certain large online platform businesses to publicly disclose detailed information regarding their foreign related-party transactions, and would recharacterize certain excessive payments to foreign related parties as non-deductible deemed dividends. This article focuses principally on the digital services tax, which represents the proposal's most significant departure from Korea's existing approach.

The bill is currently pending before the Finance and Economic Planning Committee of Korea’s National Assembly. As a member-sponsored bill, it remains at an early stage of the legislative process and may be substantially revised or may not ultimately be enacted. Nevertheless, in view of the current implementation of Digital Services Taxes in some European countries including France and Italy, the proposal is a notable legislative development that warrants close attention from multinational digital businesses.

1. Key Provisions of the Bill

1) A 2% corporate income tax on Korean digital services revenue

The proposed Article 34-3 of the ITCL would apply where a foreign corporation (i) conducts an online platform or other business prescribed by Presidential Decree; (ii) provides online advertising or other prescribed digital services through an information and communications network to users in Korea; and (iii) earns revenue exceeding a threshold to be prescribed by Presidential Decree. An in-scope foreign corporation would be required to pay corporate income tax equal to 2% of the relevant revenue. The calculation of the revenue, the method for calculating the tax, and the filing and payment procedures would likewise be delegated to Presidential Decree.

The proposal is therefore incomplete in several crucial respects. In particular, the bill does not yet specify: the global or Korean revenue thresholds; the full range of covered digital services; the criteria for determining whether a user is located in Korea; the sourcing rules for Korean digital services revenue; or whether any relief would be available where the same income is already subject to Korean corporate income tax.

These matters, which would largely determine the scope and practical effect of the proposed tax, are expected to be addressed through subsequent Presidential Decree should the bill proceed.

2) Enhanced disclosure obligations for large online platforms

An online platform or other prescribed business would be required to publicly disclose information regarding transactions with foreign related parties where (i) its revenue for the preceding fiscal year is at least KRW 1 trillion and (ii) the amount of its foreign related-party transactions exceeds a threshold prescribed by Presidential Decree. The required disclosures would include the identity and location of the related party, the nature and amount of the transactions, the pricing basis, the detailed scope of the services received, comparable third-party prices and the transfer pricing method applied.

Failure to disclose the relevant information, or the submission of false information, could result in an administrative fine equal to 2% of the undisclosed or falsely disclosed transaction amount.

2. Why the Proposal Is Significant

The principal significance of the bill lies not merely in its 2% rate, but in the legal form in which the tax would be introduced. The proposal would insert a specific DST provision into the ITCL and expressly require the relevant foreign corporation to pay the charge as corporate income tax. This distinguishes the bill from Korea’s previous formally introduced legislative measures concerning foreign digital businesses, which generally focused on (i) expanding the VAT regime applicable to cross-border electronic services or (ii) requiring foreign corporations to provide the Korean tax authorities with information regarding their Korean business activities and revenue. Accordingly, the bill appears to represent Korea’s first formally introduced legislative proposal to impose a revenue-based DST in the form of corporate income tax.

The corporate income tax label may have been selected to position the charge within Korea’s existing direct-tax framework. However, the statutory label would not necessarily resolve questions concerning the tax’s treatment under Korea’s tax treaties or under foreign tax credit systems. Because the charge would be calculated on gross revenue and could apply without a permanent establishment or other traditional taxable presence in Korea, questions may arise as to whether it constitutes a covered tax for treaty purposes or a creditable income tax in the foreign corporation’s residence jurisdiction.

3. Korea’s Previous Approach to Digital Economy Taxation

Lately, Korea has generally sought to protect its tax base through the application and expansion of existing tax rules rather than through a separate gross-revenue tax. In tax audits and disputes involving multinational digital businesses, recurring issues have included whether a foreign enterprise maintains a permanent establishment in Korea; whether payments characterized as service fees should instead be treated as royalties; whether a Korean entity has received arm’s-length compensation for its functions, assets and risks, including functions considered under the development, enhancement, maintenance, protection and exploitation (“DEMPE”) framework; and whether the legal characterization of a transaction is consistent with its economic substance. This approach has enabled the Korean tax authorities to pursue digital economy related tax cases within the existing corporate income tax, transfer pricing, royalty and permanent establishment framework, but it has required highly fact-intensive analyses and has frequently raised difficult questions under Korea’s tax treaties, mostly leading to ultimate failures at the court.

Korea’s earlier legislative initiatives concerning the digital economy did not seek to impose a direct tax on the income or revenue of foreign digital businesses. Instead, they focused primarily on establishing a domestic nexus and expanding the scope of VAT on cross-border digital services. Here are some of the examples:

  • In September 2018, lawmakers proposed amending the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (the "Network Act") to require certain large IT companies to install servers in Korea, which would have provided a domestic basis for taxation. The proposal was subsequently withdrawn.
  • A bill introduced in November 2018 sought to amend the VAT Act to expand the definition of taxable electronic services supplied by foreign businesses to include online advertising, cloud-computing services, and sharing-economy services, as well as certain business-to-business transactions. The substance of that proposal was incorporated into an alternative bill, and the expanded rules took effect in July 2019.
  • Another bill introduced in November 2018, also amending the VAT Act, proposed a broader list of covered services, including remote education, electronic publications, and remote website and computer-system installation, maintenance, and management services, but lapsed at the end of the National Assembly’s term.
  • A proposal introduced in March 2019, which would have amended the VAT Act to extend the electronic-services regime to business-to-business transactions more generally, likewise lapsed.

These initiatives expanded Korea’s ability to tax cross-border digital transactions, but they did so principally through VAT imposed on consumption. They did not establish a direct tax on the Korean-source income or revenue of foreign digital businesses.

Viewed in this historical context, the current bill represents a material escalation. It seeks to establish a direct, market-based tax calculated by reference to revenue from Korean users, without regard to the existence of a traditional physical presence in Korea and without requiring the tax authorities first to prevail in a fact-intensive transfer pricing or permanent establishment dispute. Importantly, the bill would not replace Korea’s traditional tools; an affected group could face both the 2% DST and separate transfer pricing or withholding tax adjustments relating to its Korean operations.

4. International Context

The proposal arises against the backdrop of continuing uncertainty surrounding Pillar One of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework. Amount A of Pillar One was designed to reallocate a portion of the profits of the world’s largest and most profitable multinational groups to market jurisdictions, while the accompanying multilateral framework contemplated the removal of existing DSTs and a commitment not to introduce new measures of a similar nature. The absence of a fully implemented multilateral solution has nevertheless led a number of jurisdictions to retain or consider unilateral digital taxes.

In the rationale accompanying the proposal, the sponsoring lawmakers point to the continuing international debate over digital taxation as a response to perceived tax avoidance by large global IT companies. They also refer to overseas precedents, including the Canadian model[1], under which a specified percentage of revenue derived from digital services, such as digital advertising, is subject to a DST. Against this backdrop, the proposal is intended to establish a tax framework suited to the digital-platform economy and provide an explicit statutory basis for Korea to impose a DST.

5. Outlook

The bill remains at a preliminary stage, and many of its critical design features have been delegated to a future Presidential Decree. Its ultimate scope and prospects for enactment therefore remain uncertain. As a member-sponsored bill, the proposal must still clear committee review in the Finance and Economic Planning Committee and the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, followed by approval at a plenary session, before it can be promulgated. Even if enacted, subordinate legislation would still be required to implement numerous details delegated to Presidential Decree. Member-sponsored tax bills of this kind are frequently revised or consolidated into a committee alternative at the subcommittee stage, or lapse at the end of the National Assembly's term. Near-term enactment therefore appears unlikely, and in view of the government’s authority in tax legislative initiative, any eventual legislation may well emerge through the government's annual tax reform process rather than this bill in its present form.

Moreover, any unilateral DST would need to be considered against the risk of potential trade retaliation from the United States. President Trump recently warned that any country imposing a DST targeting U.S. companies could face a 100% tariff on goods exported to the United States, underscoring the broader political and trade considerations that could affect the proposal’s progress.[2] Indeed, even Canada, which the sponsoring lawmakers cite as a model for the proposal, rescinded its own DST in June 2025, halting collection on the eve of its first payment deadline in order to advance broader trade negotiations with the United States.

Nevertheless, the proposal needs to be monitored. Whereas previous legislative measures primarily expanded the scope of VAT or sought additional information from foreign digital businesses, the current bill would, if enacted, establish a substantive taxing right over revenue derived from the Korean digital-services market and expressly characterize the resulting charge as corporate income tax. Multinational digital businesses should therefore view the proposal not merely as another compliance initiative, but as a potential change in the basis on which Korea asserts taxing rights over participation in its digital market.

* * *

If you have any questions regarding this article, please contact below:

Jung-hong Kim ([email protected])

Steve Minhoo KIM ([email protected])

Philje CHO ([email protected])

Kyu Bin (K) KANG ([email protected])

For more information, please visit our website: www.leeko.com

[1] It is noteworthy, however, that Canada subsequently announced on June 29, 2025, that it would rescind its DST and halt the collection scheduled for June 30, 2025, in order to advance broader trade negotiations with the United States. Department of Finance Canada, Canada Rescinds Digital Services Tax to Advance Broader Trade Negotiations with the United States (June 29, 2025).

[2] See Financial Times, Donald Trump Warns of 100% Tariff on Countries Implementing Digital Services Tax (June 26, 2026). President Trump stated that the threatened tariff would apply notwithstanding existing or future trade agreements.