International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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

Cambodia: Taxable presence and commercial presence


Clint O'Connell, VDB Loi

When a business begins activity in a state where it does not intend to open a formal presence, both tax rules and commercial laws must be considered. Here we analyse whether it is possible, in Cambodia, to have a commercial presence without also having a tax liability, or to have a taxable presence where there is not a commercial presence.

Commercial presence in Cambodia

The Law on Commercial Enterprise (LCE) has clear regulations regarding when a foreign business must register a formal presence in Cambodia, as follows;

Article 272: Doing business A foreign business shall be considered to be "doing business" if the foreign business performs any of the following acts in the Kingdom of Cambodia: a) Rents office or any other space for manufacturing, or processing, or performing services for more than one month; b) Employs any person to work for it for more than one month; c) Performs any other act that laws of the Kingdom of Cambodia authorised for foreign natural and legal persons.

If deemed to be "doing business in Cambodia", then it must open some type of commercial entity; a subsidiary, branch or representative office.

Interpretation of regulations

The very brief rules of the LCE on "carrying on business in Cambodia" require some further construction to be given their proper meaning.

Article 272 of the LCE only refers to "manufacturing, or processing, or performing services" and makes no mention of other commercial activity of trading, agriculture, mining, investing or leasing. It also makes no reference to assets that may be held in Cambodia such as stock or equipment. In addition, the presence of employees and office rental are given criteria; however, situations may arise where there is not actual office rental if, for instance, the use of an office is provided at no charge. Or there may be no actual employees, but rather independent workers hired as subcontractors. Based on these possible situations, the LCE definition is found to be lacking and if taken literally, there would be problems in applying the rules to many different circumstances.

Is it possible that subparagraph c) ("any acts permitted to foreign business") covers all these lacunas? However, it could be argued that renting an office for less than a month or employing someone for less than a month is permitted by law, hence if interpreted literally, sub-paragraph c) renders sub-paragraphs a) and b) redundant. Therefore, the literal interpretation of article 272 seems unreasonable in this way, as the articles then become inoperative.

Also, there is clear inconsistency between article 272 and the practice currently carried out by the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) officials. The law requires commercial presence registration if the one month rental or employment period is exceeded, however the MOC requires that a rental agreement for at least one year is signed before the foreign business may register.

Taxable presence in Cambodia

In contrast the rules on taxable presence are less strict, given in greater detail and are more aligned with the practice of other countries. The definition of permanent establishment (PE) is similar to that outlined by the UN Model Double Taxation Agreement with a few exceptions including the absence of the independent agents rule, or negative case rule.

A PE refers to a fixed place of business or resident agent through which a non-resident carries out business in Cambodia. A PE also includes any other associate or connection via which a non-resident engages in economic activities in Cambodia. A PE is treated as a resident legal person in relation to Cambodian source income only. The Cambodian tax system can tax income derived in Cambodia by non-residents, either via withholding tax (WHT) on interest, dividends, royalties, rent and most services, however, not from the sale of goods, or via net profit taxation on the non-resident's business income.

The General Department of Taxation (GDT) in practice may prefer to tax non-residents via WHT as:

  • Gross income is easier to calculate than net income; and

  • It is simpler from an administrative perspective.

Tax liability in the absence of commercial presence

If a non-resident does not have a commercial presence, it is still possible that they have a taxable presence and hence may have a tax liability. If the GDT determines that a non-resident who derives Cambodian source income from doing business in the Kingdom they may be subject to tax assessment regardless of lack of LLC or branch.

In practice, however, this is not possible without the existence of premises, assets and people in Cambodia. If WHT applies to the non-resident's income, the GDT has thereby collected tax on gross income rather than taxing income on net basis.

Commercial presence in the absence of a tax presence

There are situations which may arise where business activity would not trigger a PE per the Law on Taxation (LOT); however, abiding by the LCE regulations would require a commercial presence to be registered.

For example, if a non-resident were to carry out a service project that lasted for four months, per the LCE this would trigger a commercial presence (because it is in excess of one month), however per the LOT there would not be a PE therefore the services would not be subject to tax on profit (TOP).

This situation would not be ideal because if the LLC or branch is set up, as per the LCE, this would create a PE which then would be subject to TOP on income, along with the requirement to charge VAT on supplies in Cambodia and withhold WHT on dividends paid overseas.

Careful interpretation

The LCE must be interpreted carefully so the full legal context is properly understood and applied. If interpreted in certain ways, there are clear lacunas requiring further construction to understand article 272 fully, as described above. As well as the lack of clarity in the relevant regulations, the implementation in practice by the government authorities must be considered. However, it cannot be excluded that if article 272 is not taken literally, the following actions might be considered to be in contradiction of the law; therefore, sanctions and penalties could be imposed – although this does not appear to be current practice. Therefore, foreign entities looking to do business in Cambodia must assess whether they prefer to pay additional and potentially unnecessary taxes, or bear some degree of legal risk.

Clint O'Connell (


Tel: +855 23 964 430


more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The General Court reverses its position taken four years ago, while the UN discusses tax policy in New York.
Discussion on amount B under the first part of the OECD's two-pronged approach to international tax reform is far from over, if the latest consultation is anything go by.
Pillar two might be top of mind for many multinational companies, but the huge variations between countries’ readiness means getting ahead of the game now, argues Russell Gammon, chief solutions officer at Tax Systems.
ITR’s latest quarterly PDF is going live today, leading on the looming battle between the UN and the OECD for dominance in global tax policy.
Company tax changes are central to the German government’s plan to revive the economy, but sources say they miss the mark. Ralph Cunningham reports.
The winners of the ITR Americas Tax Awards have been announced for 2023!
There is a ‘huge demand’ for tax services in the Middle East, says new Clyde & Co partner Rachel Fox in an interview with ITR.
The ECB warns the tax could leave banks with weaker capital levels, while the UAE publishes guidance on its new corporate tax regime.
Caroline Setliffe and Ben Shem-Tov of Eversheds Sutherland give an overview of the US transfer pricing penalty regime and UK diverted profits tax considerations for multinational companies.
The result follows what EY said was one of the most successful years in the firm’s history.