Middle East: PE formation in KSA: Operating across borders

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Middle East: PE formation in KSA: Operating across borders

AdobeStock_202814413_Saudi

The Saudi Arabian Department of Zakat and Income Tax (DZIT) has issued internal guidelines to all its branches and divisions for processing withholding tax (WHT) refund claims for non-residents.

ahmed.jpg

farouk.jpg

Nauman Ahmed


Farhan Farouk

All professional or consultancy services provided by a non-resident to a resident of Saudi Arabia for a period of more than 183 days is now characterised as having formed a permanent establishment (PE), resulting in these providers being subject to WHT under the domestic tax law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) – a matter we initially discussed in a tax circular in March.

What constitutes the formation of a PE?

Under the guidelines, non-residents shall be considered to have formed a PE for Saudi tax purposes in all cases where the duration of service exceeds 183 days within any twelve-month period, regardless of the place where the service is rendered. The DZIT indicated that their interpretation, and subsequent new guidance to the authorities, is supported by some countries during the latest annual meeting of the UN Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in tax matters. However, if the taxing rights of an activity would be based on the length of a contract, and not where the activity was performed, then this scenario would result in a double taxation – exactly what international tax treaties seek to eliminate.

Economic and administrative impact

Additionally, the guidance states that the substance of the service provided should be investigated irrespective of what is provided in the agreement. This poses some challenges for the tax authorities, as there will be greater administrative burden involved in attempting to impose income tax on the deemed PE or deny a withholding tax refund where a non-resident has no physical presence in the country. Furthermore, if time spent outside of KSA is to be considered, it would be challenging and time-consuming to gain full transparency over the start and end dates of service provision, where the service provision was discrete or distinct in nature, or characterised by multiple changes in personnel – all of which complicates the determining information of who provides what, and for how long.

A wider consideration is the potential impact on the perception and subsequent decision-making process that would have to be considered by non-resident service providers who render offshore services to KSA clients and businesses. Imposing source taxation on income derived from services performed by a non-resident on the basis that these services have exceeded a 183 day threshold may discourage non-residents from entering into such contracts, which could have a knock-on effect on the productivity and growth of local businesses.

In the meantime, non-residents looking to file a WHT refund claim should consider the potential tax liability that may arise if they are deemed to have created a PE applied on the basis of the DZIT guidelines, and how this tax cost should be factored into the pricing of any contracts.

Nauman Ahmed (nahmed@deloitte.com), Al Khobar and Farhan Farouk (ffarouk@deloitte.com), Jeddah

Deloitte

Tel: +966 (0) 13 887 3937 and +966 (0)265 72725

Website: www.deloitte.com/middleeast

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The Australian Taxation Office believes the Swedish furniture company has used TP to evade paying tax it owes
Supermarket chain Morrisons is facing a £17 million ($23 million) tax bill; in other news, Donald Trump has cut proposed tariffs
The controversial deal will allow US-parented groups to be carved out from key aspects of pillar two
Awards
ITR invites tax firms, in-house teams, and tax professionals to make submissions for the 2027 World Tax rankings and the 2026 ITR Tax Awards globally
Pillar two was ‘weakened’ when it altered from a multinational convention agreement to simply national domestic law, Federico Bertocchi also argued
Imposing the tax on virtual assets is a measure that appears to have no legal, economic or statistical basis, one expert told ITR
The EU has seemingly capitulated to the US’s ‘side-by-side’ demands. This may be a win for the US, but the uncertainty has only just begun for pillar two
The £7.4m buyout marks MHA’s latest acquisition since listing on the London Stock Exchange earlier this year
ITR’s most prolific stories of the year charted public pillar two spats, the continued fallout from the PwC Australia tax leaks scandal, and a headline tax fraud trial
The climbdowns pave the way for a side-by-side deal to be concluded this week, as per the US Treasury secretary’s expectation; in other news, Taft added a 10-partner tax team
Gift this article