Copying and distributing are prohibited without permission of the publisher

US Inbound: US permanent establishment issue

26 October 2017

Email a friend
  • Please enter a maximum of 5 recipients. Use ; to separate more than one email address.


There has been a lot of discussion in the past few years regarding the BEPS changes and what constitutes a permanent establishment (PE) by a multinational corporation (X) based in one country (A) that has a presence or activity in another country (B).

The BEPS changes obviously are important and their implementation by a number of countries (excluding the US) under the Multilateral Instrument can materially affect multinational corporations' strategies and structures for years to come. These changes will give rise to important questions regarding what an employee or agent of X can safely do in country B in trying to sell X's goods or services, and whether the unintentional fragmentation of activities can create a PE of X in country B, etc.

Multinational corporations' tax personnel undoubtedly will be called upon to provide operating guidelines for the company's international sales personnel whose very livelihood and compensation are dependent on selling the company's goods or services in other countries, not in placating a bunch of tax planners. Drafting this guidance will not necessarily be easy.

It will be important in designing these operating guidelines to remember the old, long-standing rules as well as the new rules. A PE, on the bottom line, is a "fixed place of business" through which a company like X conducts a trade or business in another country.

The "fixed place" concept can give rise to a number of issues. For example, X likely has employees or agents who travel to country B and other countries on sales missions, conducting both supervisory and real-time selling activities. Where do they stay and where do they work while in country B? Do they stay in hotels provided by X or X's country B subsidiary? Do they work in designated offices provided by X or X's country B subsidiary?

A recent US Tax Court case provided some potentially helpful guidance on these matters even though it did not involve treaty or PE issues.

In Acone v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2017-162, T.C.M. (August 22 2017), the Tax Court addressed the tax rules for US persons resident abroad, an issue not relevant to this column. The court had to address an issue involving the permanence of the taxpayer's foreign presence and whether it rose to the level of an "abode" in the foreign country involved (South Korea).

The Tax Court stated that a taxpayer's abode implies stability, not transience. The taxpayer's housing in South Korea was a hotel. The court stated that a hotel is the quintessence of transience and that the taxpayer did not even have a particular hotel room to call his own. He stayed in whatever room happened to be vacant when he checked in. He was part of the perpetual stream of South Korean hotel guests coming and going. The taxpayer stayed there only when his work required it.

Acone supports the notion that travelling sales persons or other executives registering as hotel guests and using whatever room is available (or registering in different hotels during different visits) would be the "quintessence of transience", i.e. the opposite of having a "permanent" establishment. While this might seem intuitively clear without the need for case guidance, Acone is now a judicial decision so holding. On the other hand, staying in the same, designated hotel room on each trip, while not necessarily an indicia of permanence for PE purposes, would not be as helpful.

The same conclusions might be applicable in considering the office out of which the travelling salesperson or other executive works. Does he have an office in the country B subsidiary's office building designated only for him with his name on the door? Or does he work in whatever empty office is available while he's in country B?

Fuller-James-P-100 Jim Fuller   Forst-David-100 David Forst

Jim Fuller (jpfuller@fenwick.com) and David Forst (dforst@fenwick.com)
Fenwick & West
Website: www.fenwick.com






International Tax Review Profile

Very interesting analysis on the UK Gibraltar Betting and Gaming Association case C-591/15 by #PhilipBaker… https://t.co/obBIkBaR28

Nov 17 2017 01:34 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
International Tax Review Profile

The UK budget next week could be an interesting one from several angles. Aside from the key tax implications, the C… https://t.co/uPJw7O3NtO

Nov 17 2017 12:34 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
International Tax Review Profile

BBC News - HSBC to pay €300m to settle tax investigation https://t.co/riv9kO0ub0

Nov 15 2017 11:58 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
International Tax Review Profile

@IsaiBCortez This is in the UK

Nov 10 2017 01:09 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
International Tax Review Profile

RT @JolyonMaugham: Just as tax judges flexed their common law muscles in the tax avoidance sphere, employment judges are flexing theirs in…

Nov 10 2017 12:02 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
International Correspondents