The permanent establishment section in the OECD Model Tax Treaty is a remarkably complete section; it anticipates the work-arounds that most attorney’s would consider to avoid PE status. Case in point: the agent rules.

Remember that a permanent establishment is “a fixed place of business through which the business of an enterprise is wholly or partly carried out. In seeing that definition, an attorney would start to think,” what if, instead of a bricks and mortar establishment, we contract with a person?” Well, the treaty has that covered as well.

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2, where a person — other than an Read More

Continuing the look at the OECD Model Treaty’s definition of permanent establishment, we find the treaty specifically stating the following are PEs in Article 5, Section 2:

2. The term “permanent establishment” includes especially
a) a place of management;
b) a branch;
c) an office;
d) a factory;
e) a workshop, and
f) a mine, an oil or gas well, a quarry or any other place of extraction of natural resources. Read More

Today I’m going to continue looking at the OECD model tax treaty’s definition of permanent establishment. Let me start with, Article 5, Section 2, which states:

2. The term “permanent establishment” includes especially:

a) a place of management;
b) a branch;
c) an office;
d) a factory;
e) a workshop, and
f) a mine, an oil or gas well, a quarry or any other place of extraction of natural resources. Read More

Today, I’m going to move forward and look at the OECD Model Treaty’s rules on permanent establishment. This is important for a simple reason: in order to exert its taxing rights over a transaction or individual, a jurisdiction must either prove the person/business is a resident (which we covered over the last few weeks) or prove the transaction took place within the jurisdiction’s borders. A permanent establishment is where a transaction occurs; hence the determination of a permanent establishment is of vital importance.

Let’s start with the basic definition: “For the purposes of this Convention, the term “permanent establishment” means a fixed place of business through which the business of an enterprise is wholly or partly carried on.” The commentary adds important, further clarification. Read More

Last week, I looked at the residence provisions of the OECD Model Tax Treaty for individuals. This week, I’ll take a look at the provisions for non-individuals.

Before moving forward, however, it is important to briefly diverge into an area of academic discussion: partnerships, and how the OECD treaty deals with these business entities. Under Article 1, the treaty applies to “persons who are residents of one or both of the contracting states.” This leads to the question of, “how does the treaty deal with a pass-through entity?” Is the entity actually a separate company or is the entity a collection of its partners? If the latter, how do we deal with that? While this might seem like an academic debate, in reality it’s not, as some jurisdictions treat these business entities in a very different manner. The debate went so far as to have the OECD issue a paper on this Read More

An Overview of the OECD Tax Treaty: Some Background

Assume that company XYZ — which is domiciled in the United States — wants to sell goods to Germany. While this looks like a great idea on paper it may wind up being counter-productive. Why? Because the transaction may be subject to double taxation. The US taxes income of its residents on a world wide basis — meaning that wherever in the world you earn money, if you are a US citizen you have to pay US tax on the earnings. In addition, Germany will also tax the transaction because it occurs within its geographic borders. So, if the US company sells a good in Germany, it will pay both a US tax and a German tax on the transaction, making this a possibly money losing proposition. Read More

TaxConnections Picture - BooksThe above handbook was circulated for comments on 30 April 2013, setting out key suggested information how tax authorities should go about conducting transfer pricing audits.

The DRAFT was presented at a recent Africa TP Summit, which caused a bit of a scene with the South African Revenue Service authorities who stormed out of the presentation suggesting that the Professor who was presenting the content of the OECD DRAFT for delegates to take note of its details, was misrepresenting SARS. Delegates, and some later SARS officials were confused by this. But it does indicate that SARS seems to think it should not pay attention to international benchmark standards developed by the OECD, despite the fact that South Africa has observer status at the OECD, and its former Commissioner, now Minister of Finance, Pravin Gordhan was Chairperson of its Tax Administration Forum. Read More

TaxConnections Blogger - Yvette Kwong and transfer pricingTransfer Pricing – Intangibles Valuation And Tax Planning Face More Headwind

The OECD’s July 2013 revised discussion draft (“the Revised Draft”) on transfer pricing aspects of intangibles include some updates that may impact MNC’s tax planning of intangible assets (“IP”).

The Draft adopts a broad definition of intangibles and provides guidance on what is not considered intangible assets.

There was guidance on how the funding of intangible development should be remunerated based on arms’ length principles. Comparability factors to consider include the following:

•  Location savings

•  Other local market features

•  Assembled workforce

•  Multinational group synergies.

The Revised Draft adopts a more transactional approach and retains a focus on functions performed, assets used and risks assumed. Read More

taxconnections blog post stock exchangeHeads of G20 countries meet today, September 5, 2013 St. Petersburg, where they will sign an agreement to counter ‘Aggressive Tax Planning’ by multinational companies. The global paradigm change in the fight against tax avoidance and evasion is set to be taken further by G20 leaders. The European Union, with its considerable expertise and experience – for example, in creating an European Union-wide system for the automatic exchange of information, or the fight against aggressive tax planning – will push for the automatic exchange of information to become the global standard.

It will, notably, support any efforts that help to ensure its swift implementation. The EU will also strongly support the OECD’s action plan to fight corporate tax avoidance worldwide, which this summit is expected to endorse.

OECD’s Action Plan to Combat Tax Avoidance

Co-operation between tax administrations is critical in the fight against tax evasion and a key aspect of that cooperation is exchange of information. Political interest has increasingly focused on the opportunities provided by automatic exchange of information. Read More

calculator1National tax laws have not kept pace with the globalization of corporations and the digital economy, leaving gaps that can be exploited by multi-national corporations to artificially reduce their taxes.

OECD’s Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) offers a global roadmap that will allow governments to collect the tax revenue they need to serve their citizens. It also gives businesses the certainty they need to invest and grow.

Produced at the request of the G20 and introduced at the G20 Finance Ministers’ meeting in Moscow, the Action Plan identifies 15 specific actions that will give governments the domestic and international instruments to prevent corporations from paying little or no taxes.

•  Establishing international coherence of corporate income taxation
•  Restoring the full effects and benefits of international standards
•  Ensuring transparency while promoting increased certainty and predictability and
•  From agreed policies to tax rules: the need for a swift implementation of the measures

Domestic and international tax rules should relate to both income and the economic activity that generates it. Existing tax treaty and transfer pricing rules can, in some cases, facilitate the separation of taxable profits from the value-creating activities that generate them. Read More

iStock_ Money MagnetXSmall

Enforcement: Collecting United States Taxes Abroad

It is difficult for the IRS to collect taxes if they are assessed against a US/non-US taxpayer assuming the person is overseas and has no US assets. Once an assessment has been issued, procedural mandates require that the IRS give the taxpayer notice of the assessed amount and demand payment within 60 days.  If the taxpayer fails to pay the assessed amount after such demand, a so-called federal tax lien arises which attaches to the taxpayer’s property wherever situated, including property located in a foreign jurisdiction. The IRS has no express statutory authority to take administrative collection action against such foreign-situs property.

Using Tax Treaties

If a tax treaty is in place between the US and the foreign jurisdiction where the taxpayer has assets,  it may contain a collection assistance provision.  The United States has 64 bilateral income tax treaties currently in force. Only a small percentage of tax treaties negotiated with the US currently contain a collection assistance provision, although this may change as the US and other countries have clearly evidenced a strong desire to join forces in efforts to crack down harder on tax evasion. Of the 64 income tax treaties the US has negotiated, only 5 of them have expanded collection provisions — Canada, Denmark, France, Netherlands, and Sweden. Even though these treaties contain somewhat  robust collection assistance provisions, there are many ambiguities and uncertainties as to their parameters.  Twenty-four bilateral income tax treaties have a limited tax assistance collection provision, but these are so ambiguous that commentators have noted they probably have very limited use. Read More

treatyExtradition, the formal surrendering of a person by one country to another country in order that the fugitive may be prosecuted or punished, often depends on the existence of an extradition treaty.  While the United States has attempted extradition proceedings in the absence of a treaty, the US courts have generally not supported these attempts and so, the bite of law enforcement may be somewhat limited in the absence of an appropriate extradition treaty.

An extradition treaty is in the nature of an agreement or contract between its signatory countries.  Extradition treaties have been signed between the US and over one hundred nations throughout the world.

Most treaties contain a list of crimes for which extradition may be granted such as murder; voluntary manslaughter; rape; unlawful abortion; kidnapping; burglary; larceny; embezzlement; fraud; bribery and so on.

Modern Treaties Permit Extradition For Felony Offenses

The more modern extradition treaties embrace a so-called “dual criminality approach”. Under this approach the act in question must be a crime under the laws of both the USA and the country where the fugitive is taking refuge.  Under these treaties, generally speaking, all felonies are extraditable offenses.  Such modern treaties also delineate various classes of offenses the commission of which would not be grounds for  extradition (these include for example, military and political offenses; offenses carrying capital punishment; crimes that are punishable under only the laws of one of the treaty signatories; crimes committed outside the country seeking extradition; instances when the fugitive is a national of the country in which extradition is sought and so on). Read More