It has been some time since Covid-19 changed our daily lives. The resulting changes to the business environment and especially employment have become a normal part of our daily lives, as the interest in remote and hybrid work grows. This way of working allows employees to choose the place or country where they carry out their job duties. Yet this unlimited mobility may create tax risks to the employer. In this article we explore whether a company may be exposed to permanent establishment (PE) risk under certain conditions if a member of its management team works remotely. We also look at how the tax authorities of other countries have responded, in order to identify the riskiest countries.
A key task in applying corporate income tax (CIT) and payroll taxes is to determine whether a company has a PE in a foreign country. This task involves analysing local and international rules.
In today’s dynamic business environment, a company registered in one country often does business in other countries, such as selling goods, providing services, maintaining a representative office for marketing purposes, or transferring a key business function.
Under the OECD’s 2017 model convention on income and capital taxes, a PE means a fixed place where the company carries on a business completely or partially. So the company has a permanent place of business in a foreign country that gives rise to the concept of PE: a company’s permanent place of business abroad for tax purposes.
While the statutory criteria for determining a PE may vary from country to country, there are some generally accepted criteria: permanence, fixed place, and foreign business. The PE is one of the concepts governed by the OECD’s double tax treaty.
DTT article 5 defines the PE as a fixed place where a company carries on a business completely or partially. The OECD’s commentary on DTT allows us to establish three main elements of a PE:
Typical examples include a company’s management seat, branch, office, factory, workshop, oil or gas extraction site. The DTT states that such a fixed place does not amount to a PE if the company uses it for certain activities, such as storage of its own goods or other preparatory and auxiliary activities. In that case we need to assess the nature of the company’s business in order to determine whether its activities may be considered preparatory and auxiliary. DTTs usually prescribe special conditions for sectors such as construction.
In addition to a fixed place of business, the DTT indicates another criterion that may create a PE: the non-resident company has a person that exercises authority to enter into business contracts on the non-resident’s behalf. The OECD’s commentary on DTT article 5 states that it’s important to assess whether the person exercises this authority on a regular basis.
For example, a Latvian company sells its goods in a foreign country or simply rents some space where its sales representatives work to promote its business. A PE will arise if they are authorised to negotiate prices and sign customer contracts.
We stated above that under the international rules a non-resident company is considered to have a PE in Latvia, for example, if the company carries on its business completely or partially through a fixed place of business in Latvia.
A PE may also arise, for example, if a non-resident company’s board member permanently stays in a foreign country, has a tax residence there, and is authorised to enter into contracts on the non-resident’s behalf. The person is considered to be acting on the non-resident’s behalf and PE risk is very high, but it’s also important to assess the country’s national law. In Latvia, for example, a PE will arise if the person exercises the authority to enter into contracts more than once during the tax year.
The only way the non-resident company can mitigate PE risk is having the board member make all decisions concerning the company when he’s present in the company’s residence country only. Contracts, too, must be signed only in the company’s residence country, and this must be demonstrated to the State Revenue Service.
Having a PE will first of all affect the company’s obligation to pay CIT or a similar tax. Accordingly, if a PE is found to exist, the company has to register its presence for CIT purposes, determine the part of income attributable to the PE, and pay CIT on it.
To be continued next week
If you have any comments on this article please email them to lv_mindlink@pwc.com
Ask questionLatvian transfer pricing (TP) rules provide that a company’s transactions with related parties must be arm’s length, whether the parties are Latvian or foreign tax residents. The arm’s length principle dictates that a company making comparable transactions under comparable conditions must receive comparable revenue, whether the transaction is with a related or an unrelated party. Basically companies know and understand this, yet there are various facts and circumstances that make this requirement difficult to enforce in real time. This is because before or during the transaction, companies often lack sufficient information on arm’s length prices that unrelated parties apply in comparable transactions. This is where companies can use a TP adjustment, which is not always so painful as it might originally seem. This article explores what TP adjustment a company can make by adjusting its taxable base for corporate income tax (CIT) purposes.
We are fast approaching the year end and the time to prepare our annual reports. As you may know, the last two years saw a 3-month filing extension, which allowed us more time to prepare our financial statements. Based on currently available information, no extension is expected this year. This article will remind you of things to consider when it comes to preparing your annual report, including whether it requires a statutory audit or a limited review.
Section 5(1) of the Corporate Income Tax (CIT) Act lists payments made to non-residents that are taxable at source. Section 2(2) lists persons that are not subject to CIT. In practice this raises the question of whether non-CIT payers are liable to withhold it on payments made to non-residents. This article answers the question.
We use cookies to make our site work well for you and so we can continually improve it. The cookies that keep the site functioning are always on. We use analytics and marketing cookies to help us understand what content is of most interest and to personalise your user experience.
It’s your choice to accept these or not. You can either click the 'I accept all’ button below or use the switches to choose and save your choices.
For detailed information on how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please visit our cookies information page.
These cookies are necessary for the website to operate. Our website cannot function without these cookies and they can only be disabled by changing your browser preferences.
These cookies allow us to measure and report on website activity by tracking page visits, visitor locations and how visitors move around the site. The information collected does not directly identify visitors. We drop these cookies and use Adobe to help us analyse the data.
These cookies help us provide you with personalised and relevant services or advertising, and track the effectiveness of our digital marketing activities.