All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 ITR is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

France: Supreme Court clarifies company residence relating to DTT benefits

Sponsored by

0-1.png
Interpreting DTTs in relation to company residence can be difficult.

The French Administrative Supreme Court issued a judgment in February that clarifies the assessment of company residence for access to double tax treaty (DTT) benefits, as Nicolas Duboille and Clément Riccio of Sumerson explain.

The decision of the French Administrative Supreme Court (Conseil d’État) demonstrates the subtleties of interpreting double tax treaties (DTTs) when it comes to the legal concept of residence for entitlement to treaty benefits.

The cases No. 446664 and No. 443018 clarify the situation with regard to the companies Société Cegid and Société Observatoire d’économie appliquée, which were subject to a hybrid fiscal regime leading to non-taxation.

Legal background in French tax law

Tax treaties generally refer to domestic law when it comes to characterising a taxpayer’s residence status. Under Article 4 of the OECD Model Tax Convention, being treated as a taxpayer in a contracting state is not sufficient for qualifying as a resident in such a state.

Instead, it is necessary that the tax liability results from a personal link (such as domicile, residence, place of management, or another criterion of a similar nature) between the taxpayer and the relevant contracting state.

Over the past ten years, the Conseil d’État has built complex case law on that issue, in the light of the main object of the DTTs, which is the avoidance of double taxation situations. Under this case law, in addition to the above-mentioned personal link criterion, the taxpayer must not be “structurally exempt”.

This means that, apart from some DTTs concluded by France with jurisdictions that do not levy any income tax, a resident under domestic tax law but entirely tax-exempt "by virtue of its status or activity” cannot claim the benefit of tax treaties concluded by the French Republic. This was confirmed by the Conseil d'État in cases No. 371132 and No. 370054 on November 9 2015.

In the event of partial exemptions, the Conseil d'État is more lenient, stating: "The scope of the tax liability to which a taxpayer is subject in that State is, in itself, irrelevant to the characterisation of the resident status.” (Conseil d'État, June 9 2020, No. 434972).

A hybrid offshore regime brought before the Conseil d’État

This issue of residence for DTT benefits arose in the context of a hybrid tax regime that was applicable in Tunisia to specific companies called, under Tunisian law, “totally exporting companies”.

On the one hand, those companies were taxable in Tunisia only with regard to the profits derived from domestic sales, while profits derived from sales realised outside of Tunisia were excluded from the taxable basis. Pursuant to this hybrid offshore regime, if a company incorporated in Tunisia was operating sales only to clients situated abroad, it never had to pay corporate income tax in Tunisia.

Nevertheless, contrary to many other offshore tax regimes, Tunisian law granted the entities that chose this regime the possibility to carry out domestic transactions, the profits of which were subject to Tunisian corporate income taxation (CIT). As a result, this regime, in itself, still implied a potential risk of double taxation.

On the other hand, those “totally exporting companies” were considered, in any case, as non-resident when at least 66% of their share capital was held by foreign or non-resident individuals or legal persons.

This hybrid offshore regime was modified in 2014, with the introduction of a reduced CIT for offshore profits at the rate of 10%, later increased to 15%. Tunisian finance bill for 2021 decreased the standard Tunisian CIT rate from 25% to 15%. Thus, removing any preferential tax regime on offshore profits.

In the cases submitted to the Conseil d’État, at the time, the Tunisian “totally exporting companies” only realised export transactions and did not pay any corporate income tax in Tunisia.

It was notably held that there was no legal provision prohibiting the companies from carrying out local transactions and, consequently, forcing them to only perform transactions on the export market, which is CIT-exempt. Such situations, even if the companies were not carrying out any local taxable profits, still involve a double taxation-risk.

Furthermore, an essential point was raised by the Advocate General of the Court (“Rapporteur public”): the companies tax exemption arose from a taxable basis deduction and not from a taxpayer status or a territoriality rule. As such, from a statutory standpoint, these Tunisian entities were falling within the scope of Tunisian CIT.

As a result, following the opinion of its Advocate General, the Conseil d’État concluded that the companies were residents within the provisions of the France-Tunisia tax treaty and could claim double taxation relief.

The Conseil d’État may have come to a different conclusion if the French tax authorities had argued that one of the companies could be considered as a non-resident under Tunisian law regarding its non-Tunisian shareholding (the 66% criterion mentioned above).

What can we learn from this decision?

A partial and temporary tax exemption regime, leading to a cyclical absence of income taxation, does not hinder, in itself, the characterisation of the resident status. Particularly if a potential double taxation remains.

Finally, it is crucial to keep in mind that, in the case of double non-taxation situations due to treaty provisions, such situations could fall within the scope of Article 6 (Preventing the Granting of Treaty Benefits in Inappropriate Circumstances) and Article 7 (Prevention of Treaty Abuse) of the OECD’s Multilateral Convention (MLI). In the case at hand, it has been noted that Tunisia has not yet ratified the MLI.

Nicolas Duboille

Partner, Sumerson

E: n.duboille@sumerson.com

Clément Riccio

Associate, Sumerson

E: c.riccio@sumerson.com

 

 

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Ramesh Khaitan speaks to reporter Siqalane Taho about tax morality, transfer pricing regulations, Indian tax developments, and the OECD’s two-pillar solution.
Join ITR and KPMG China at 10am BST on October 19 as they discuss the personal, employment, and corporate tax-related implications of employees working from overseas.
Tricentis and Boehringer Ingelheim, along with a European Commission TP specialist, criticised the complexity of pillar one rules and their scope at an ITR event.
Speakers at ITR’s Managing Tax Disputes Summit said taxpayers can still face lengthy TP audits, despite strong documentation preparation
Gig economy companies in New Zealand will need to fully account and become liable for the goods and services tax of underlying suppliers on their platforms, under new proposals.
Join ITR and Thomson Reuters at 2pm (UAE) / 11am (UK) on October 13 as they discuss how businesses can prepare for Tax Administration 3.0 and future-proof against changes such as e-invoicing and increasing digitisation.
ITR has partnered with global TP leaders from Deloitte to discuss transfer pricing controversy around the globe, and to share advice on how to navigate an increasingly uncertain and risky TP landscape.
Sources say they are not satisfied with pillar one protections in the marketing and distribution safe harbour, even though it was designed to give businesses greater tax certainty.
Political support for qualified majority voting is at a peak as unanimity rules continue to block the European Council from passing a directive on pillar two.
The winners of the ITR Americas Tax Awards have been announced for 2022!
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree