The development of the European Union framework for the taxation of the digital economy: Evidence from selected member states
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/pmf.15(2).2026.04
-
Article InfoVolume 15 2026, Issue #2, pp. 48-56
- 6 Views
-
0 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Type of the article: Research Article
Abstract
This study develops DIGTAXEU, a conceptual model that elucidates the primary determinants of digital economy taxation in the EU and their interrelationships. The model identifies nine dimensions, including the definition of the digital economy, profit shifting, jurisdictional scope, taxation of multinational enterprises, revenue thresholds, fair taxation, international agreements, political and economic diversity among Member States, and unilateral tax measures. The DIGTAXEU model was developed using interviews with four experts representing key institutions in international and European Union tax policy, including the OECD, the European Commission, and the Permanent Representations of Austria and Hungary to the European Union. The findings demonstrate that digital taxation in the EU is driven by the interplay of cross-border digital business models, fragmented national tax responses, and incomplete international coordination. Consequently, DIGTAXEU provides a structured analytical framework for understanding regulatory fragmentation and informing the development of a more coherent and equitable EU digital tax architecture. The identified dimensions function in a mutually dependent manner, shaping the consistency and overall effectiveness of digital tax policy. At the same time, disparities among national tax measures, together with the absence of comprehensive international harmonization, continue to hinder the development of a unified digital taxation framework.
Acknowledgment
Funded by the European Union – NextGenerationEU: Incentives towards the optimization of digital tax policies and responsibilities in the EU (DIGTAXEU) IP-UNIZD 2025–2029. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the European Union or the European Commission. Neither the European Union nor the European Commission can be held responsible for them.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)H25, H87, K34
-
References36
-
Tables1
-
Figures1
-
- Figure 1. Conceptual model of taxation in the EU
-
- Table 1. Selected national digital tax measures in EU Member States
-
- Allahrakha, N. (2024). Rethinking digital borders to address jurisdiction and governance in the global digital economy. International Journal of Law and Policy, 2(1).
- Avi-Yonah, R., Kim, Y. R., & Sam, K. (2022). A new framework for digital taxation. Harvard International Law Journal, 63(2), 279-341.
- Beauer, M. (2018). Digital companies and their fair share of taxes: Myths and misconceptions (Ecipe Occasional Paper No. 03/2018).
- Bezrukova, N., Huk, L., Chmil, H., Verbivska, L., Komchatnykh, O., & Kozlovskyi, Y. (2022). Digitalization as a trend of modern development of the world economy. WSEAS Transactions on Environment and Development, 18, 120-29.
- Borders, K., Balladares, S., Barake, M., & Baselgia, E. (2023). Digital service taxes. EU Tax Observatory.
- Bukht, R., & Heeks, R. (2017). Defining, conceptualising and measuring the digital economy (Working Paper No. 68). Manchester Centre for Development Informatics.
- Bunn, D., Asen, E., & Enache, C. (2020). Digital taxation around the world. Tax Foundation.
- Cebreiro-Gomez, A., Clavey, C., Estevão, M., Leigh-Pemberton, J., & Stewart, B. (2022). Digital services tax: Country practice and technical challenges. World Bank.
- Cui, W. (2019). The digital services tax on the verge of implementation. Canadian Tax Journal, 67(4), 1135-1152.
- Deak, D. (2023). Hungarian tax on digital advertising services in the spotlight of challenges. Intertax, 51(4), 309-323.
- Elmasry, T., Benni, E., Patel, J., & aus dem Moore, J. P. (2016). Digital Middle East: Transforming the region into a leading digital economy. McKinsey & Company.
- Escribano, E. (2021). Day 1 of the Spanish digital services tax: And now what? A wave of tax policy, legal interpretation and compliance challenges. Intertax, 49(6/7), 517-531.
- European Commission (EC). (2014). Commission Expert Group on Taxation of the Digital Economy. European Commission.
- Geringer, S. (2021). National digital taxes – Lessons from Europe. South African Journal of Accounting Research, 35(1), 1-19.
- Guo, Y., Zou, T., & Shan, Z. (2022). Taxation strategies for the governance of digital business model – An example of China. Frontiers in Psychology, 13.
- Gupta, S., & Mittal, P. (2015). Base erosion and profit shifting: The new framework of international taxation. Journal of Business Management and Information Systems, 2(2), 108-114.
- Hoffmann-Burdzińska, K., & Stolecka-Makowska, A. (2024). Dimensions of the digital economy based on the analysis of articles published in selected scientific databases (Scientific Papers No. 195). Silesian University of Technology Publishing House.
- Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2001). Multi-level governance and European integration. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
- Jaakkola, J. (2019). A democratic dilemma of European power to tax: Reconstructing the symbiosis between taxation and democracy beyond the state? German Law Journal, 20(5), 660-678.
- KPMG. (2022). Film financing and television programming – A taxation guide.
- Listokin, S. (2025). New rationales for taxing the digital economy: Lessons from the OECD Pillar One consultations. Frontiers in Political Science, 8.
- Lowry, S. (2019). Digital services taxes (DSTs): Policy and economic analysis. Congressional Research Service.
- Magalhães, T. D., & Christians, A. (2024). Taxing data when the United States disagrees. European Law Open, 3(4), 939-961.
- Musgrave, R. A. (1959). The theory of public finance: A study in public economy. McGraw-Hill.
- North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2015). Addressing the tax challenges of the digital economy, Action 1 – 2015 final report. OECD Publishing.
- Petersons, E. (2024). European Union digital taxation: The Lack of a Unified Approach and Its Consequences. SSRN Electronic Journal.
- Puzina, N., Reutova, I., Leshenko, N., Khobotova, S., & Katunina, N. (2021). The digital economy: Approaches to the definition and the regional dimension. SHS Web of Conferences, 93.
- Qiang, J. (2024). Conception, characteristics, challenges, and recommendations of the digital economy. Journal of Economics, Business and Management, 12(2), 209-213.
- Rochet, J.-C., & Tirole, J. (2003). Platform competition in two-sided markets. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(4), 990-1029.
- Sadowsky, M. (2020). French perspectives on the Digital Services Tax (DST). Tijdschrift voor Fiscaal Recht, 582.
- Šimurina, N., & Rajković, L. (2015). Uloga poreza po odbitku i ugovora o izbjegavanju međunarodnog dvostrukog oporezivanja u poreznome sustavu Republike Hrvatske [The role of withholding tax and treaties on the avoidance of international double taxation in the tax system of the Republic of Croatia]. Zbornik Ekonomskog fakulteta u Zagrebu – Proceedings of the Faculty of Economics in Zagreb, 13(2), 153-170. (In Croatian).
- Sturgeon, T. J. (2021). Upgrading strategies for the digital economy. Global Strategy Journal, 11, 34-57.
- Tiutiunyk, I., Drabek, J., Antoniuk, N., Navickas, V., & Rubanov, P. (2021). The impact of digital transformation on macroeconomic stability: Evidence from EU countries. Journal of International Studies, 14(3), 220-234.
- Turina, A. (2020). The progressive policy shift in the debate on the international tax challenges of the digital economy: A “Pretext” for overhaul of the international tax regime? Computer Law & Security Review, 36.
- Vicente, J. A. (2025). Tax us, if you can: A game theoretic approach to the European Union’s political impasse on a new corporate tax system. Transnational Corporations Review, 17(2).


