US Inbound: US permanent establishment issue

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

US Inbound: US permanent establishment issue

intl-updates-small.jpg

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

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The threat of 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods coincides with new Brazilian legal powers to adopt retaliatory economic measures, local experts tell ITR
The country’s chancellor appears to have backtracked from previous pillar two scepticism; in other news, Donald Trump threatened Russia with 100% tariffs
In its latest G20 update, the OECD also revealed tense discussions with the US where the ‘significant threat’ of Section 899 was highlighted
The tax agency has increased compliance yield from wealthy individuals but cannot identify how much tax is paid by UK billionaires, the committee also claimed
Saffery cautioned that documentation requirements in new government proposals must be limited if medium-sized companies are not exempted from TP
The global minimum tax deal is not viable without US participation, Friedrich Merz has argued
Section 899 of the ‘one big beautiful’ bill would have spelled disaster for many international investors into the US, but following its shelving, attention turns to the fate of the OECD’s pillars
DLA Piper’s co-head of tax for the US and Latin America tells ITR about her fervent belief in equal access to the law, loving yoga, and paternal inspirations
Tax expert Craig Hillier agrees with the comparison of pillar two to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut
The amount is reported to be up 57% from the £5.6bn that the UK tax agency believes was underpaid in the previous year
Gift this article