Montenegro: Montenegro-Azerbaijan DTT analysis

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Montenegro: Montenegro-Azerbaijan DTT analysis

zivkovic.jpg

Jelena Zivkovic

In March 2013 Montenegro and Azerbaijan signed a treaty for the avoidance of double taxation (a double tax treaty (DTT)) aimed at strengthening economic and trade relations between the two countries. The agreement came into force in January 2014. The agreement is applicable on taxes in both countries, including corporate income tax and personal income tax, as well as capital gains tax regardless of the type and method of collection.

In line with the agreement, a resident is considered to be a physical person or a legal entity which is a taxpayer in the country due to the residency, temporary residency or seat of the company management.

In situations when a physical person is resident of both countries, the person will be liable for taxation in the country of permanent residency.

Permanent establishment (PE), in line with the DTT, is a permanent place from which a company fully or partially undertakes its business activities, including a company seat, branch, representative office, factory, workshop, mine, ship or any other place from which exploration of natural resources is undertaken. Additionally, a PE will be considered to exist at a construction site where works are being performed for a period exceeding 12 months.

Any income generated from immovable property located in either of the contracting states may be subject to tax in the state where the immovable property is located.

Corporate profits are taxed in the contracting state in which they are realised except if a company has business activities in the other state via a permanent establishment. If the company is undertaking activities in the other state through a permanent unit, the corporate profits will be taxed in that other country up to the amount of the profit generated in that state.

The treaty provides 10% withholding tax rates (WHT) for dividends (Article 10), interest (Article 11) and royalties (Article 12).

Exchange of information defined in Article 26 will allow the Competent Authorities of both states to exchange information deemed relevant for the administration or enforcement of domestic laws in relation to taxes, as long as such laws are not in breach of the DTT.

Jelena Zivkovic (jelena.zivkovic@eurofast.eu)

Eurofast Global, Podgorica Office

Tel: +382 20 228 490

Website: www.eurofast.eu

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Veteran Elizabeth Arrendale will lead the new advisory practice, which will support clients with M&A tax structuring, post-deal integration, and more
MAP cases keep increasing, and cases closed aren’t keeping pace with the number started, the OECD’s Sriram Govind also told an ITR summit
Nobody likes paperwork or paying money, but the assertion that legal accreditation doesn’t offer value to firms and clients alike is false
Ryan hopes the buyout will help it expand into Asia and the Middle East; in other news, three German finance ministers have called for a suspension of pillar two
SKAT, which was represented by Pinsent Masons, had accused Sanjay Shah and other defendants of fraudulent dividend tax refund claims
TP managers must be able to explain technical issues in simple terms, ITR’s European Transfer Pricing Forum heard
Prudential had challenged HMRC over VAT group relief; in other news, Donald Trump unveiled timber and wood tariffs, and the European Commission published a ViDA implementation strategy
Australia’s CbCR rules have ‘widespread support’ and do not put American companies at a competitive disadvantage, the FACT Coalition said
Baker McKenzie advised two of the member firms involved, while several advisers provided transaction counsel to US-based Grant Thornton Advisors
Foreign remittance requirements put additional administrative burden on Indian law firms and strain their relationship with foreign associate firms, according to practitioners
Gift this article