Article 14: Independent Personal Services
United Nations Model Double Taxation Convention between Developed and Developing Countries (2017 Update)
Article 14
Independent Personal Services
- Income derived by a resident of a Contracting State in respect of professional services or other activities of an independent character shall be taxable only in that State except in the following circumstances, when such income may also be taxed in the other Contracting State:
(a) If he has a fixed base regularly available to him in the other Contracting State for the purpose of performing his activities; in that case, only so much of the income as is attributable to that fixed base may be taxed in that other Contracting State; or
(b) If his stay in the other Contracting State is for a period or periods amounting to or exceeding in the aggregate 183 days in any twelve-month period commencing or ending in the fiscal year concerned; in that case, only so much of the income as is derived from his activities performed in that other State may be taxed in that other State.
2 The term "professional services" includes especially independent scientific, literary, artistic, educational or teaching activities as well as the independent activities of physicians, lawyers, engineers, architects, dentists and accountants.
OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital (2017 Update)
[Article 14 -- Independent Personal Services]
[ Deleted ]
Article 14 Bibliography
Brauner, Yariv. “United States: Allocation of Payments Received for Royalties and Personal Services under Endorsement Contracts” in Eric CCM Kemmeren et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2014 (Amsterdam: International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation, 2014) 259 <https://www.ibfd.org/IBFD-Products/Tax-Treaty-Case-Law-Around-Globe-2014>
Christians, Allison & Yariv Brauner. “The Meaning of ‘Enterprise,’ ‘Business,’ and ‘Business Profits” under Tax Treaties and Domestic Tax Law” (2011) 11161 U Wis Legal Studies, online: <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1860344>
De Kort, JWJ. “Why Article 14 (Independent Personal Services) was Deleted from the OECD Model Tax Convention” (2001) 29:3 Intertax 72.
Han, Keefe. “Mistaken Removal of Article 14 from the OECD Model Tax Convention” (2010) 16 Auckland UL Rev 192 <https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/auck16÷=13&id=&page=>
Kemmeren, Eric CCM. “Netherlands: Income from Former Research and Fixed Base and an Origin-Based Alternative” in Eric CCM Kemmeren et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2014 (Amsterdam: International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation, 2014) 55 <https://www.ibfd.org/IBFD-Products/Tax-Treaty-Case-Law-Around-Globe-2014>
Kirsch, Michael S., Tax Treaties and the Taxation of Services in the Absence of Physical Presence (2016). 41 Brook. J. Int'l L. 1143 (2016). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2955310
Reid, Marsha L., The New Services PE Provision of the Canada-US Tax Treaty. Canadian Tax Journal/Revue Fiscale Canadienne, Vol. 58, No. 4, 2010. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1836723
Rust, Alexander. “Austria: Constitutional Review of Tax Treaties” in Michael Lang et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2015 (Vienna: Linde, 2016) 95 <https://www.ibfd.org/IBFD-Products/Tax-Treaty-Case-Law-around-Globe-2015>
Vinnitskiy, Danil V. “Russia: Withholding Tax on Agency Fees under the Russia-Germany Tax Treaty (Articles 14, 15 and 21)” in Michael Lang et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2015 (Vienna: Linde, 2016) 257 <https://www.ibfd.org/IBFD-Products/Tax-Treaty-Case-Law-around-Globe-2015>
Article 14 Cases
Boulez v. Commissioner 83 T.C. 584 (1984)
Dudney v the Queen, [2002] CTC 56 (FCA).[C2]
Federal Commercial Court of the North-West District, 3 February 2014, No A56-20669/2013 (Russia).
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden [Supreme Court of the Netherlands], 6 December 2013, No 12/00252 (Netherlands).
Sergio Garcia v Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 140 TC No 6 (US Tax Ct 2013).
Verfassungsgerichtshof [Constitutional Court], 23 June 2014, No SV2/2013 (Austria).
Wolf v The Queen, 2002 FCA 96, rev’g [2000] 1 CTC 2172 (TCC).