Article 5: Permanent Establishment
Learning Objectives: You should Understand
- What constitutes a permanent establishment under the UN and OECD Model Tax Conventions
- The implications of having permanent establishments in source jurisdictions
United Nations Model Double Taxation Convention between Developed and Developing Countries (2017 Update)
Article 5: Permanent Establishment
For the purposes of this Convention, the term "permanent establishment" means a fixed place of business through which the business of an enterprise is wholly or partly carried on.
The term "permanent establishment" includes especially:
(a) A place of management;
(b) A branch;
(c) An office;
(d) A factory;
(e) A workshop;
(f) A mine, an oil or gas well, a quarry or any other place of extraction of natural resources.
3 The term "permanent establishment" also encompasses:
(a) A building site, a construction, assembly or installation project or supervisory activities in connection therewith, but only if such site, project or activities last more than six months;
(b) The furnishing of services, including consultancy services, by an enterprise through employees or other personnel engaged by the enterprise for such purpose, but only if activities of that nature continue within a Contracting State for a period or periods aggregating more than 183 days in any 12-month period commencing or ending in the fiscal year concerned.
4 Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this article, the term "permanent establishment" shall be deemed not to include:
(a) The use of facilities solely for the purpose of storage or display of goods or merchandise belonging to the enterprise;
(b) The maintenance of a stock of goods or merchandise belonging to the enterprise solely for the purpose of storage or display;
(c) The maintenance of a stock of goods or merchandise belonging to the enterprise solely for the purpose of processing by another enterprise;
(d) The maintenance of a fixed place of business solely for the purpose of purchasing goods or merchandise or of collecting information, for the enterprise;
(e) The maintenance of a fixed place of business solely for the purpose of carrying on, for the enterprise, any other activity;
(f) The maintenance of a fixed place of business solely for any combination of activities mentioned in subparagraphs (a) to (e),
provided that such activity or, in the case of subparagraph (f), the overall activity of the fixed place of business, is of a preparatory or auxiliary character.
4.1 Paragraph 4 shall not apply to a fixed place of business that is used or maintained by an enterprise if the same enterprise or a closely related enterprise carries on business activities at the same place or at another place in the same Contracting State and:
(a) that place or other place constitutes a permanent establishment for the enterprise or the closely related enterprise under the provisions of this Article, or
(b) the overall activity resulting from the combination of the activities carried on by the two enterprises at the same place, or by the same enterprise or closely related enterprises at the two places, is not of a preparatory or auxiliary character,
provided that the business activities carried on by the two enterprises at the same place, or by the same enterprise or closely related enterprises at the two places, constitute complementary functions that are part of a cohesive business operation.
5 Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 but subject to the provisions of paragraph 7, where a person is acting in a Contracting State on behalf of an enterprise, that enterprise shall be deemed to have a permanent establishment in that State in respect of any activities which that person undertakes for the enterprise, if such a person:
(a) habitually concludes contracts, or habitually plays the principal role leading to the conclusion of contracts that are routinely concluded without material modification by the enterprise, and these contracts are
(i) in the name of the enterprise, or
(ii) for the transfer of the ownership of, or for the granting of the right to use, property owned by that enterprise or that the enterprise has the right to use, or
(iii) for the provision of services by that enterprise,
unless the activities of such person are limited to those mentioned in paragraph 4 which, if exercised through a fixed place of business (other than a fixed place of business to which paragraph 4.1 would apply), would not make this fixed place of business a permanent establishment under the provisions of that paragraph; or
(b) the person does not habitually conclude contracts nor plays the principal role leading to the conclusion of such contracts, but habitually maintains in that State a stock of goods or merchandise from which that person regularly delivers goods or merchandise on behalf of the enterprise.
6 Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Article but subject to the provisions of paragraph 7, an insurance enterprise of a Contracting State shall, except in regard to re-insurance, be deemed to have a permanent establishment in the other Contracting State if it collects premiums in the territory of that other State or insures risks situated therein through a person.
7 Paragraphs 5 and 6 shall not apply where the person acting in a Contracting State on behalf of an enterprise of the other Contracting State carries on business in the first-mentioned State as an independent agent and acts for the enterprise in the ordinary course of that business. Where, however, a person acts exclusively or almost exclusively on behalf of one or more enterprises to which it is closely related, that person shall not be considered to be an independent agent within the meaning of this paragraph with respect to any such enterprise.
8 The fact that a company which is a resident of a Contracting State controls or is controlled by a company which is a resident of the other Contracting State, or which carries on business in that other State (whether through a permanent establishment or otherwise), shall not of itself constitute either company a permanent establishment of the other.
9 For the purposes of this Article, a person or enterprise is closely related to an enterprise if, based on all the relevant facts and circumstances, one has control of the other or both are under the control of the same persons or enterprises. In any case, a person or enterprise shall be considered to be closely related to an enterprise if one possesses directly or indirectly more than 50 per cent of the beneficial interest in the other (or, in the case of a company, more than 50 per cent of the aggregate vote and value of the company’s shares or of the beneficial equity interest in the company) or if another person or enterprise possesses directly or indirectly more than 50 per cent of the beneficial interest (or, in the case of a company, more than 50 per cent of the aggregate vote and value of the company’s shares or of the beneficial equity interest in the company) in the person and the enterprise or in the two enterprises.
OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital (2017 Update)
Article 5: Permanent Establishment
For the purposes of this Convention, the term "permanent establishment" means a fixed place of business through which the business of an enterprise is wholly or partly carried on.
The term "permanent establishment" includes especially:
a) a place of management;
b) a branch;
c) an office;
d) a factory;
e) a workshop, and
f) a mine, an oil or gas well, a quarry or any other place of extraction of natural resources.
3 A building site or construction or installation project constitutes a permanent establishment only if it lasts more than twelve months.
4 Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Article, the term "permanent establishment" shall be deemed not to include:
a) the use of facilities solely for the purpose of storage, display or delivery of goods or merchandise belonging to the enterprise;
b) the maintenance of a stock of goods or merchandise belonging to the enterprise solely for the purpose of storage, display or delivery;
c) the maintenance of a stock of goods or merchandise belonging to the enterprise solely for the purpose of processing by another enterprise;
d) the maintenance of a fixed place of business solely for the purpose of purchasing goods or merchandise or of collecting information, for the enterprise;
e) the maintenance of a fixed place of business solely for the purpose of carrying on, for the enterprise, any other activity;
f) the maintenance of a fixed place of business solely for any combination of activities mentioned in subparagraphs a) to e), provided that the overall activity of the fixed place of business resulting from this combination is ;
provided that such activity or, in the case of subparagraph f), the overall activity of the fixed place of business, is of a preparatory or auxiliary character.
4.1 Paragraph 4 shall not apply to a fixed place of business that is used or maintained by an enterprise if the same enterprise or a closely related enterprise carries on business activities at the same place or at another place in the same Contracting State and
a) that place or other place constitutes a permanent establishment for the enterprise or the closely related enterprise under the provisions of this Article, or
b) the overall activity resulting from the combination of the activities carried on by the two enterprises at the same place, or by the same enterprise or closely related enterprises at the two places, is not of a preparatory or auxiliary character,
provided that the business activities carried on by the two enterprises at the same place, or by the same enterprise or closely related enterprises at the two places, constitute complementary functions that are part of a cohesive business operation.
5 Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 but subject to the provisions of paragraph 6, where a person is acting in a Contracting State on behalf of an enterprise and in doing so, habitually concludes contracts, or habitually plays the principal role leading to the conclusion of contracts that are routinely concluded without material modification by the enterprise, and these contracts are
a)in the name of the enterprise, or
b)for the transfer of the ownership of, or for the granting of the right to use, property owned by that enterprise or that the enterprise has the right to use, or
c)for the provision of services by that enterprise,
that enterprise shall be deemed to have a permanent establishment in that State in respect of any activities which that person undertakes for the enterprise, unless the activities of such person are limited to those mentioned in paragraph 4 which, if exercised through a fixed place of business (other than a fixed place of business to which paragraph 4.1 would apply), would not make this fixed place of business a permanent establishment under the provisions of that paragraph.
6 Paragraph 5 shall not apply where the person acting in a Contracting State on behalf of an enterprise of the other Contracting State carries on business in the first mentioned State as an independent agent and acts for the enterprise in the ordinary course of that business. Where, however, a person acts exclusively or almost exclusively on behalf of one or more enterprises to which it is closely related, that person shall not be considered to be an independent agent within the meaning of this paragraph with respect to any such enterprise.
7 The fact that a company which is a resident of a Contracting State controls or is controlled by a company which is a resident of the other Contracting State, or which carries on business in that other State (whether through a permanent establishment or otherwise), shall not of itself constitute either company a permanent establishment of the other.
8 For the purposes of this Article, a person or enterprise is closely related to an enterprise if, based on all the relevant facts and circumstances, one has control of the other or both are under the control of the same persons or enterprises. In any case, a person or enterprise shall be considered to be closely related to an enterprise if one possesses directly or indirectly more than 50 per cent of the beneficial interest in the other (or, in the case of a company, more than 50 per cent of the aggregate vote and value of the company’s shares or of the beneficial equity interest in the company) or if another person or enterprise possesses directly or indirectly more than 50 per cent of the beneficial interest (or, in the case of a company, more than 50 per cent of the aggregate vote and value of the company’s shares or of the beneficial equity interest in the company) in the person and the enterprise or in the two enterprises.
Article 5 Bibliography
Aaran Fronda, "BEPS and the Digital Economy: Why Is It so Taxing to Tax" (2014) 25:6 Intl Tax Rev 13 online: https://perma.cc/67ML-UHV8
Albert Baker, Paula Trossman, "OECD Model Treaty on PEs" (2011) 19:11 Canadian Tax Highlights.
Albert Baker & Robert McCullogh, "CRA on Treaty PEs" (2005) 13:11 Canadian Tax Highlights.
Alley, Clinton, and Joanne Emery, "Taxation of Cross-Border E-Commerce: Avoidance of Permanent Establishments and Multilateral Modifications to Tax Treaties" (2017) 28 J. INT'L TAX'N 38 <http://researcharchive.wintec.ac.nz/5562/>
Andrew F. McCrodan and Ivan P. Williams, "Transfer pricing in an E-Commerce Environment: Observations on the OECD Discussion Paper on Attribution of Profit to a Permanent Establishment", International Tax Planning Feature (2001) 49:3 Canadian Tax Journal 735.
Arnold, Brian. “Threshold Requirements for Taxing Business Profits under Tax Treaties” (2003) Bull Tax Treaty Monitor 476 https://perma.cc/W5D4-QUWS
Arthur Cockfield, “Reforming the Permanent Establishment Principle Through a Quantitative Economic Presence Test” (2003) 38 Can. Bus. L. J. 400-422 https://perma.cc/4AUM-GKPB
Arthur Cockfield, “Through the Looking Glass: Computer Servers and E-Commerce Profit Attribution” (2002) 94 TN 761-768. http://post.queensu.ca/~ac24/TNArticle.pdf
Arthur Cockfield, "Should we Really Tax Profits from Computer Servers?", Tax Notes International, Vol. 21, No. 21, 20 November, 2000, 2407.
Arthur Cockfield, "BEPS and Global Digital Taxation" (2014) Tax Notes International. https://www.taxnotes.com/tax-notes-international/base-erosion-and-profit-shifting-beps/beps-and-global-digital-taxation/2014/09/15/4582091
Arvind Skaar, Permanent Establishment (Deventer, Netherlands: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, 1991).
Ault, Hugh J. “Some Reflections on the OECD and the Sources of International Tax Principles” (2013) 70:12 Tax Notes Intl 1195, online: <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2287834>
Becker, Adam A. "Japan/International/OECD - Japanese Tax Reforms Square Up to BEPS Action 1 to Tackle Tax Challenges of the Growing Digital Economy" (2018) Bulletin for International Taxation IBFD , online: https://perma.cc/JZQ2-TN2J
Benjamin Hoffart, Permanent Establishment in the Digital Age: Improving and Stimulating Debate Through an Access to Markets Proxy Approach, 6 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 106 (2007). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njtip/vol6/iss1/6
Berglund, Martin. “Sweden: Can a Computer Server Constitute a Permanent Establishment?” in Eric CCM Kemmeren et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2014 (Amsterdam: International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation, 2014) 23 https://perma.cc/KC5F-UF3M
Bick, Jonathan. "Implementing E-Commerce Tax Policy" (2000) 13 Harvard Journal of Law & Technology https://perma.cc/RG33-KP8Z
Budnick, Scott. "Internet Taxation & Burkina Faso: A Case Study" (2004) 10 ILSA J Intl & Comp L 549 https://perma.cc/SC8N-XBL2
Campbell, Colin & Terry McDowell. “Canada” (2009) 94a Cahiers de Droit Fiscal Intl 169.
Chen, Catherine. "Taxation of Digital Goods and Services" (2015) 70 NYU Ann Surv Am L 421 at 422 https://perma.cc/4TYZ-734B
Colabella, Rachel. "The Phenomenon of Double Taxation and the Interpretation of Article V (Permanent Establishments) of the Canada-U.S. Income Tax Convention (1980), (1995) 33 Alta. L. Rev. 626. http://dx.doi.org/10.29173/alr1133
Cui, Wei, The Digital Services Tax: A Conceptual Defense (October 26, 2018). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3273641 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3273641
Devereux, Michael P. “Taxation of Outbound Direct Investment: Economic Principles and Tax Policy Considerations” (2008) 24:8 Oxford Rev Econ Pol’y 698, online: https://perma.cc/V9D9-D2XR
Elliffe, Craig. “Meaning of ‘Permanent Establishment’ in Article 5 of Double Tax Conventions” (2011) 22:4 J Intl Tax, online: <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1625603>
Fleming, Jr, J Clifton. “A Note on the Zimmer Case and the Concept of Permanent Establishment” in Michael Lang et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2011 (Alphen on the Rhine: Kluwer Law International, 2012) 107, online: <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2079317>
Forgione, Aldo. "Clicks and Mortar: Taxing Multinational Business Profits in the Digital Age" (2003) 26 Seattle UL Rev 731 https://perma.cc/T39Z-WTU2
Forst, David L. "Old and New Issues in the Taxation of Electronic Commerce, 14 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 711 (1999) https://perma.cc/A8QX-J4NB
Gelin, Stéphane. “France: Conseil d’État, Zimmer Ltd: French Commissionaire and PE under the France UK DTC” in Michael Lang et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2011 (Alphen on the Rhine: Kluwer Law International, 2012) 97 https://perma.cc/4FDE-DRGE
Gianni, Monica. “The OECD’s Flawed and Dated Approach to Computer Servers Creating Permanent Establishments” (2014) 17 Vand J Ent & Tech L 1, online: https://perma.cc/G98J-AWF4
Gill, Ronan & Tom Collins. “Permanent Establishment: Up in the Clouds?” in Mila Gasco, ed, Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on e-Government (Academic Conferences and Publishing International Ltd, 2012) 287
Gordon, Lance B, Alicia N Peressada & Lilo A Hester. “Analysis of Construction PEs under U.S. Income Tax Treaties” (2009) J Intl Tax 32 https://perma.cc/DCD6-TB9W
Hellerstein, Walter, ‘Jurisdiction to Tax in the Digital Economy: Permanent and Other Establishments,’ (2014) 68 Bull Intl Tax 6 https://perma.cc/8SJD-T8YC
Hinnekens, Richard L. Doenberg & Luc. "Electronic Commerce and International Taxation", (2000-2001) 24 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev. 233 https://perma.cc/ADJ6-GG2B
Hourdin, Pierre-Marie. “Is the Construction PE Clause in the OECD Model Treaty Satisfactory?” (2014) Tax Notes Intl 229 https://perma.cc/ADR9-48HF
Jim Cockery et al. Taxes, "The Internet and the Digital Economy" (2013) Revenue Law Journal, 23:1 128-143 https://perma.cc/M8XX-4B3P
Jiménez, Adolfo Martín. “Spain: Are Activities in Vessels, Geographically Concentrated Areas and Director’s Homes PEs?” in Eric CCM Kemmeren et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2014 (Amsterdam: International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation, 2014) 3, online: https://perma.cc/J9QP-MZLV
Jiménez, Adolfo Martín. “Spain: The Spanish Position on the Concept of PE: ‘Complex Operative Settlements’ and ‘Industrial Dependent Agents’ as PEs”in Michael Lang et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2015 (Vienna: Linde, 2016) 121 https://perma.cc/8Y3S-CJN8
Jinyan Li, Arthur Cockfield, J. Scott Wilkie, International Taxation in Canada (Toronto: LexisNexis, 2018) Fourth Edition.
Joel Nikitman, "The Painter and the PE" (2009) 57:2 Canadian Tax Journal 213-258. https://www.ctf.ca/ctfweb/Documents/PDF/2009ctj/09ctj2-nitikman.pdf
Julie Bellamare, "Evolution of the Permanent Establishment Concept" (2017) 65:3 Canadian Tax Journal 728.
Kamath, Shrikant S. “Foreign Company Can Deduct Salary Expense for Employees of Indian PE, Tribunal Says” (2009) Tax Analyst, Doc 2009-18945.
Kamath, Shrikant S. “US Company's Temporary Assignment of Personnel to India Does Not Constitute PE” (2010) Tax Analyst, Doc 2010-12451.
Keith Evans, "Leased Equipment: When Does a Permanent Establishment Exist?" (2002) 50:2 Canadian Tax Journal. https://www.ctf.ca/ctfweb/Documents/PDF/2002ctj/2002ctj2_evans.pdf
Kirsch, Michael S., "Tax Treaties and the Taxation of Services in the Absence of Physical Presence" (2016) 41 Brook. J. INT'L. 1143 <https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1472&context=bjil>
Kobetsky, Michael. International Taxation of Permanent Establishments (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011)
Kristina I. Novak, Mark P. Thomas and Cym H. Lowell, “United States: Treatment of Intangibles under New US Tax Regime” (July/August 2018) Vol.25, No.4 International Transfer Pricing Journal 257-66
Kyrie E. Thorpe, "International Taxation of Electronic Commerce: Is the Internet Age Rendering the Concept of Permanent Establishment Obsolete?, (1997) Emory International Law Review Vol. 11, 633, online: https://perma.cc/V7S2-9U45
Lee Sheppard, News Analysis: Permanent Establishment Italiano, (2018) Tax Notes International.
Li, Jinyan, International Taxation in the Age of Electronic Commerce: A Comparative Study._Toronto, ON: Canadian Tax Foundation, 2003. Print.
Li, Jinyan, The Concept of Permanent Establishment in China's Tax Treaties, 7 Int'l Tax & Bus. Law. 120 (1989) https://perma.cc/UQ8A-4TFP
Lincoln, Charles, "The Myth of "Separate Enterprises" in International Taxation: Approaches to Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments" (2017) 22 Trinity L. REV. 30 <https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/trinlr22÷=10&id=&page=>
Lisa Spinosa & Vikram Chand, “A Long-Term Solution for Taxing Digitalized Business Models: Should the Permanent Establishment Definition Be Modified to Resolve the Issue or Should the Focus Be on a Shared Taxing Rights Mechanism?” (2018) 46: 6/7 International Tax Review 476-494. https://perma.cc/K8GM-6SY4
Litwińczuk, Hannah. “Poland: Has the Non-resident Company as a Shareholder of the Polish SKA a Permanent Establishment in Poland?” in Michael Lang et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2015 (Vienna: Linde, 2016) 101 https://perma.cc/8Y3S-CJN8
Lynette Olivier, "The Permanent Establishment Requirement in an International and Domestic Taxation Context: An Overview" (2002) South African Law Journal 119, 866 https://perma.cc/XD8R-GGBG
Maisto, Guglielmo, “Italy: Italian PE of Slovenian Citizen Who Acted as Tourist Intermediary for a Slovenian Ski Club” in Erin CCM Kemmeren et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2014 (Amsterdam: International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation, 2014) 17 https://perma.cc/NSW8-SZCS
Maitrot de la Motte, Alexandre. “France: Is There Symmetry between State of Taxation and State of Deduction of Expenses?” in Eric CCM Kemmeren et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2014 (Amsterdam: International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation, 2014) 41 https://perma.cc/NSW8-SZCS
Matias Milet, "Permanent Establishments Through Related Corporations Under the OECD Model Treaty" (2007) 55:2 Canadian Tax Journal 289-330. https://www.fcf-ctf.ca/CTFWEB/Documents/PDF/2007ctj/2007ctj2-milet.pdf
McLure, Jr, Charles E. “Source-Based Taxation and Alternatives to Concept of Permanent Establishment” in Canadian Tax Foundation, ed, 2000 World Tax Conference Report (Toronto: Canadian Tax Foundation, 2000).
Nerudová, Danuše. “Czech Republic: 2 Afs 29/2012-18” in Michael Lang et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2013 (Vienna: Linde, 2014) 95 https://perma.cc/TP7A-CL35
Nerudová, Danuše. “Czech Republic: Service Permanent Establishment” in Eric CCM Kemmeren et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law around the Globe 2012 (Vienna: Linde, 2013) 55 https://perma.cc/5YW5-TR9G
Nitikman, Joel. “More on Services PEs – What is a Connected Project?” (2014) 62:2, Canadian Tax Journal 317 - 82 https://perma.cc/ZN3N-JHJQ
Nitikman, Joel. “The Painter and the PE” (2009) 57:2 Can Tax J 213, online: https://perma.cc/Y6BX-V6JC
Nogueira, João Félix Pinto. “Portugal: PE and Non-Discrimination Regarding Domestic Relief for Double Economic Taxation” in Eric CCM Kemmeren et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2014 (Amsterdam: International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation, 2014) 293, online: https://perma.cc/BP9S-9A53
Olbert, Marcel & Spengel, Christoph. "International Taxation in the Digital Economy: Challenge Accepted?" (2017) World Tax Journal https://perma.cc/P7ZY-268G
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. “Interpretation and Application of Article 5 (Permanent Establishment) of the OECD Model Tax Convention” (2011-2012), online: https://perma.cc/8Y57-YFK4
Perrou, Katerina. “Greece: Construction Permanent Establishment” in Eric CCM Kemmeren et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law around the Globe 2012 (Vienna: Linde, 2013) 63, online: https://perma.cc/VE37-GSSJ
Peter Hongler, " Blueprints for a New PE Nexus to Tax Business Income in the Era of the Digital Economy", IBFD Working paper 20 January 2015.
Pinto, Dale. “The Need to Reconceptualize the Permanent Establishment Threshold” (2006) 60:7 Bull for Intl Tax 266, online: https://perma.cc/WR9F-LUEP
Pinto, Dale. "Options To Address the Direct Tax Challenges Raised by the Digital Economy—A Critical Analysis" (2017) Canadian Tax Journal https://perma.cc/MBR6-UPW9
Pistone, Pasquale. “Italy: Can Agent Activities of an Italian Subsidiary Constitute a Permanent Establishment of Its Foreign Parent?” in Michael Lang et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2013 (Vienna: Linde, 2014) 73 https://perma.cc/3XEM-9S3Y
Pistone, Pasquale. “Italy: Construction and Dependent Agency PE” in Michael Lang et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2011 (Alphen on the Rhine: Kluwer Law International, 2012) 113 https://perma.cc/W8FN-F4XM
Pistone, Pasquale. “Italy: No Permanent Establishment for Toll Manufacturers without Participation in Strategic Decision-Making” in in Michael Lang et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2015 (Vienna: Linde, 2016) 115 https://perma.cc/CE83-66KJ
Qiu, Dongmei. “Permanent Establishment: An Evolving Concept Under China’s Tax Treaties (1983-2013)” (2014) 3 Brit Tax Rev 274, online: https://perma.cc/EG6L-2YDK
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 https://perma.cc/5K5D-6P3Z
Reimer, Ekkehart, Nathalie Urban & Stefan Schmid, eds. Permanent Establishments: A Domestic Taxation, Bilateral Tax Treaty and OECD Perspective (Alphen on the Rhine: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2011)
Roeleveld, Jennifer. “South Africa: Cross Border Partnerships” in Michael Lang et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2011 (Alphen on the Rhine: Kluwer Law International, 2012) 121 https://perma.cc/5WAP-RFSQ
Ruth Mason and Leopoldo, “The Illegality of Digital Services Taxes under EU Law: Size Matters” University of Virginia School of Law, Law and Economics Paper Series 2018 https://perma.cc/YT3U-EN9X
Sanghavi, Dhruv. “Tax Treaty Entitlement Issues Concerning Dual Residents” (2015), online: https://perma.cc/KL24-QX9Y
José Ángel Gómez Requena, Saturnina Moreno González, "Adapting the Concept of Permanent Establishment to the Context of Digital Commerce: From Fixity to Significant Digital Economic Presence" (2017) 45:11 Intertax https://perma.cc/NND4-4WHQ
Schaffner, Jean, How Fixed Is a Permanent Establishment? (Kluwer Law International 2013)
Sheppard, Lee A. "Digital Permanent Establishment and Digital Equalization Taxes" (2018) Tax Notes International https://perma.cc/5AMV-LD34
Skaar, Arvid A. Permanent Establishment: Erosion of a Tax Treaty Principle (Boston: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, 1991) chapters 6-7.
Soler Roch, María Teresa. “Spain: Permanent Establishment – The Concept of ‘Fixed Place of Business’ and the Concept of ‘Dependent Agent’” in Michael Lang et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2013 (Vienna: Linde, 2014) 81 https://perma.cc/8XGQ-CM6T
Steenkamp, Lee-Ann. “The Permanent Establishment Concept in Double Tax Agreements between Developed and Developing Countries: Canada/South Africa as a Case in Point” (2014) 13:3 Intl Bus & Econ Research Journal 539 https://perma.cc/6SJ5-3Y88
Vann, Richard. “Travellers, Tax Policy and Agency Permanent Establishments” (2010) 6 Brit Tax Rev 538, online: https://perma.cc/W924-JJEQ
Villegas, Alvaro. “Bolivia: Total E&P Bolivie Sucursal Bolivia, a PE of Two French Companies at the Same Time” in Michael Lang et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2015 (Vienna: Linde, 2016) 109 https://perma.cc/W8F5-RN9V
Willard B. Taylor, Virginia L. Davies, and Janice McCart, "Policy Forum: A Subsidiary as a Permanent Establishment of Its Parent" (2007) 55:2 Canadian Tax Journal 333-345 https://perma.cc/B5A2-YCPJ
Yalti, Billur. “Turkey: The Permanent Establishment Issue in Case of Movable Place of Business” in Michael Lang et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2011 (Alphen on the Rhine: Kluwer Law International, 2012) 129 https://perma.cc/JD72-J8D9
Zimmer, Frederik. “Norway: Agency Permanent Establishment” in Eric CCM Kemmeren et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law around the Globe 2012 (Vienna: Linde, 2013) 69 https://perma.cc/UK6G-PYT8
Article 5 Cases
Amadeus Global Travel v ADIT, 30 November 2007, (2008) 113 TTJ Delhi 767 (India).
American Income Life Insurance Company v The Queen, 2008 TCC 306.
American Life Insurance Co. v. Her Majesty the Queen, 16 May 2008, United States Tax Court (United States)
AT Kearney Ltd v JDIT(2006)(India).
Audiencia Nacional [National Court], 25 April 2013, No 169/2010 (Spain).
Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Fiscal Court), I B 101/98, 17 December 1998, Bundesfinanzhof/NV, 1999, 753 (Germany).
Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Tax Court), IR 30/07, 4 June 2008, Bundesfinanzhof/NV, 2008, 1749 (Germany).
Bundesfinanzhof (German Federal Tax Court), IR 80-81/91, 3 February 1993, Internationales Steuerrecht, 1993, 226 (Germany).
Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Fiscal Court), I R 87/04, 3 August 2005, Bundessteuerblatt, 2006, II, 220 (Germany).
Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Fiscal Court), I R 99/97, 21 April 1999, Bundessteuerblatt, 1999, II, 694 (Germany).
Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Fiscal Court), I R 116/93, 14 September 1994, Federal Tax Gazette, Bundessteuerblatt, 1995, II, 238 (Germany).
Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Fiscal Court), IR 130/83, 18 December 1986, Bundesfinanzhof/NV, 1988, 119 (Germany).
Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Tax Court), IR 292/81, 23 January 1985, Bundessteuerblatt, 1985, II, 13, 417 (Germany).
Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Fiscal Court), IIR 12/92, 30 October 1996, Bundessteuerblatt, 1996, II, 12 (Germany).
Bundesgericht/Tribunal federal (Federal Supreme Court), 102 ATF 264, 17 September 1977, Steuerrevue, 1997, 12, 553 (Switzerland).
Case 23/93, 11 June 1993, 93 ATC 288 (Australia).
Centrica India Offshore Private Ltd v CIT, 14 March 2012, (2014) 270 CTR (Delhi) (India).
Cheek v The Queen, [2002] 2 CTC 2115 (TCC).
Columbia Sportswear Company v DIT, 8 August 2011 (India).
Conseil d’État [Supreme Administrative Court], 31 March 2010, Zimmer Ltd, No 304715, 308525 (France).
Conseil d’État [Supreme Administrative Court], 31 March 2010, Zimmer Ltd, No 304715, 308525 (France) (expert testimony).
Conseil d’État [Supreme Administrative Court], 1 October 2013, Société BNP Paribas, No 351982 (France).
Conseil d’État (French Administrative Court), 16095, 29 June 1981, Droit Fiscal, 1981, 33, 1, 111 (France).
Conseil d’Etat (Supreme Administrative Court), 224407, 20 June 2003, Revue Jurisprudence Fiscale, 2003, 10, 803 (France).
Conseil d’État (Supreme Administrative Court), 304715 – 308525, 31 March 2010 (France).
Corte di Cassazione [Supreme Court of Cassation], 9 April 2010, No 8488 (Italy).
Corte di Cassazione [Supreme Court of Cassation], 29 February 2012 (9 March 2012), No 3769 (Italy).
Corte di Cassazione [Supreme Court of Cassation], 30 September 2014, Italian Fashion Factors, (Italy).
Corte Supreme di Cassazione (Supreme Court), 7682, 25 May 2002 (Italy).
Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Supreme Court), 8488, 9 April 2010 (Italy).
Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Supreme Court), 13579, 11 June 2007 (Italy).
Cour d’Appel Bruxelles (Court of Appeal, Bruxelles), 1992-02-18, 18 February 1992, Algemeen Fiscaal Tijdschrift, 1992, 281 (Belgium).
Crown Forest Industries Ltd. v. Canada, 1995 CanLII 103 (SCC), [1995] 2 SCR 802
Delmas France Mumbai v ADIT, 11 January 2012 (India).
Dudney v the Queen, [2000] 2 CTC 56.[C1]
Dy Director of Income Tax v SET Satellite (Singapore) Pte Ltd(2007) (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal India).
Epcos AG, Germany v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(2008) (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal India).
Ericsson Radio Systems AB (EAB), Motorola Inc. (MI) and Nokia Networks OY (NOY) v Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,22 June 2005, (2005) 96 TTJ Delhi 1 (India).
Federal Arbitration Court, N A40-58575/11-129-248, 2 August 2012 (Russia).
Fiebert v MNR, [1986] 1 CTC 2034 (TCC).
Finanzgericht (Court of First Instance, Schleswig-Holstein), II 1224/97, 6 September 2001, Entscheidungen der Finanzgerichte, 2001, 1535 (Germany).
Finanzgericht Baden-Wurttemberg (Court of First Instance of Baden-Wurttemberg), 3K 309/91, 11 May 1992, Internationales Steuerrecht, 1992, 104 (Germany).
FinanzgerichtMunster (Tax Court of First Instance), 9K 6931/98, 6 November 2000, Entscheidungen der Finanzgerichte, 2001, 234 ( Germany).
Fowler v MNR, [1990] 2 CTC 2351 (TCC).
GE Capital Finance v Commissioner of Taxation, [2007] FCA 558 (Australia).
Gerechtshof Den Haag (Court of Appeal, The Hague), BK 07/00604, 15 July 2008, Vakstudie Nieuws, 2008/56.24 (Netherlands).
Gerechtshof’s-Gravenhage (Court of Appeal of The Hague), 101/82 MII, 28 March 1983, Beslissingen in Belastingzaken, 1984, 279 (Netherlands).
Global Industries Asia Pacific Pts Ltd v DIT, 15 February 2012, [2012] 24 taxmann.com 16 (India).
Grundlingh v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services, [2009] ZAFSHC 88 (South Africa).
Guidant v Commissioner(United States).
Gulf Offshore NS Limited v The Queen, 2006 TCC 246.
Hof van Beroep Antwerpen (Court of Appeal, Antwerpen), 1984-04-12, 12 April 1984, Algemeen Fiscaal Tijdschrift, 1984, 34, 12, 243 (Belgium).
Hof van Beroep Gent (Court of Appeals, Gent), 2002-06-18, 18 June 2002, Jurisprudence Fiscale, 2003, 2003/99, 361 (Belgium).
Hof van Beroep Gent (Court of Appeals, Gent), 2004-11-30, 30 November 2004, Fisko-Service, 2005, 0454/2020, 100 (Belgium).
Hof van Beroep Gent (Court of Appeals, Gent), 2005/AR/477, 16 January 2007, De Fiscale Koerrier, 2007, 487 (Belgium).
Hoge van Beroep Antwerpen (Court of Appeal, Antwerpen), 1984-04-12, 12 April 1984, Algemeen Fiscaal Tijdschrift, 1984, 34, 12, 243 (Belgium).
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (The Netherlands Supreme Court), 17.812, 24 March 1976, Beslissingen in Belastingzaken, 1976, 121* (Netherlands).
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (The Netherlands Supreme Court), 21.286, 24 November 1982, Beslissingen in Belastingzaken, 1983, 301 (Netherlands).
Hoge Raad der Nederlander (The Netherlands Supreme Court), 32709, 9 December 1998, Beslissingen in Belastingzaken, 1999, 267c* (Netherlands).
Hojesteret (Supreme Court), 1 afdeling, 142/2001, 5 February 2004, Tidsskrift for Skatter, 2004, 162 (Denmark).
Hojesteret (Supreme Court), 7/1991, 25 June 1996, Tidsskrift for Skatter og Afgifter, 1996, 532 (Denmark).
Hoyesterett (Supreme Court), 2004-01003-A, 8 June (Norway).
Hoyesterett (Supreme Court), 56/994, 10 June 1994, Norsk Retstidende Rt, 1994, 752 (Norway).
Hoyesterett (Supreme Court), HR-2011-02245-A, (sak nr 2011/755), 2 December 2011 (Norway).
Hoyesterett (Supreme Court), RT 1997 s 653, 29 April 1997, Utv, 1997, 717 (Norway).
Inverworld Inc v Commissioner, 12 May 1997, 73 TCM 2777 (United States).
ITA Nos 1548 and 1549/Kol/2009 [2016-TII-372-KOL-TP-SB) (India).
JDIT v AT Kearney Ltd(2003) (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal India).
Knights of Columbus v The Queen, 2008 TCC 307.
Lagmannsrett Bergen (Court of Appeal, Bergen), Scanwell AB and Mats Johanson v Municipality of Stavanger, Gulating, 330-1989, 15 March 1991, Utv, 1989, 720 (Norway).
Ladmannsrett Hamar (Court of Appeal, Hamar), 91-01618 A, 16 June 1992, Utv, 1991, 666 (Norway).
Landsskatteretten (Danish Administrative Tax Court), LSR 641-1220-1, 24 June 1996, Tidsskrift for Skatter og Afgifter, 1996, 619 (Denmark).
Landsskatteretten (National Tax Tribunal), 1988-4-564, 15 December 1988, Tidsskrift for Skatter, 1989, 117 (Denmark).
Linklaters LLP UK v ITO, 16 July 2010 (India).
M Fabrikant and Sons Inc v DIT,31 March 2011, [2011] 9 taxmann.com 286 (Mumbai) (India).
Masri v MNR, [1973] CTC 448 (FCTD).
McDermott Industries v Commissioner of Taxation of The Commonwealth of Australia, 29 April 2005, [2005] FCAFC 67 (Australia).
Medtronic and Consolidated Subsidiaries v Commissioner(United States).
MNR v Placrefid Ltd, [1992] 2 CTC 198 (FCTD).
Morgan Stanley v DIT (IT), [2007] 292 ITR 416 (Supreme Court India).
Name not disclosed v Commissioner of Inland Revenue, 17 August 1965, 3 NZTBR 49 (New Zealand).
Name not disclosed v Commissioner of Taxation, 5 August 1987, 87 ATC 942 (Australia).
Perfetti SPA v ACIT, 31 October 2007, [2014] 41 Taxman 358 (Delhi) (India).
Pioneer Overseas Corporation v ADIT, Nos 1868, 1869, 1870 and 1871/Del/2005, 24 December 2009, [2010] 37 SOT 404 (India).
Rechtbank Breda (District Court, Breda), AWB09/563, 25 May 2009, Vakstudie Nieuws, 2009/37.8 (Netherlands).
Rechtbank van EersteAanleg Gent (Court of First Instance, Gent), G1 2008/0446, 15 May 2008, De Fiscal Koerier, 2008, 560 (Belgium)
Rechtbank van EersteAanleg Luik (Court of First Instance, Liege), 9 December 2004, Fiscoloog Internationaal, 2005, 256, 7 (Belgium).
Rolls Royce Singapore Pvt Ltd v ADIT, 30 August 2011, [2011] 202 Taxman 45 (Delhi) (India).
Rolls Royce Plc v ADIT, 19 April 2005, [2005] 148 Taxman 66 (India).
Saipem UK Limited v Canada, 2011 FCA 243.
Shahmoon v MNR, [1975] CTC 2361 (TRB).
Skatterättsnämnden [Board for Advance Tax Rulings], 12 June 2013, No 125-11/D, rev’d Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen [Supreme Administrative Court], 6 December 2013, No 4890-13 (Sweden).
Superintendencia Tributaria General [Full Chamber Bolivian Supreme Court], 30 December 2013, Total E&P Bolivie Sucursal Bolivia, (June 2014), No 628/2013 (Bolivia).
Supreme Administrative Court, 13 January 2011, No 9 Afs 66/2010-189 (Czech Republic).
Supreme Administrative Court, 29 May 2012, No 2 Afs 29/2012-18 (Czech Republic).
Supreme Administrative Court, 16 March 2011, No 838/2011 (Greece).
Supreme Administrative Court, Third Chamber, 25 October 2010, Nos E.2009/4489, K.2010/3276, (Turkey).
Supreme Court, 2 December 2011, Dell Products v The State (2011), HR-2011-02245-A (Norway).
Supreme Court, 9 March 2013, No 1107 (Italy).
Taisei Fire and Marine Insurance Co Ltd et al v Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 2 May 1995, 104 TC 535 (United States).
Tingrett Stavanger (Stavanger Court Court, Stavanger), 00-260A, 18 September 1980, Utv, 1980, 596 (Norway).
Tingrett Stavanger (District Court Stavanger), 99-00421, 9 December 1999, Utv, 2000, 143 (Norway).
Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central [Central Administrative Court], 15 March 2012, No 00/2107/2007 (Spain) (the “Spanish Dell Case”).
Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central [Central Administrative Court], 0657/2003, 2 March 2006 (Spain).
Tribunal Supremo [Supreme Court], 12 January 2012, DSM Nutritional Products Ltd (formerly Roche Vitamins Europe LTD) v Agencia Estatal de Administración Tributaria, No 1626/2008 (Spain).
Tribunal Supremo [Supreme Court], 18 June 2014, No 1933/2011 (Spain).
UAE Exchange centre Ltd v Union of India, 13 February 2009, [2009] 183 Taxman 495 (Delhi) (India).
Verwaltungsgericht Zurich (Administrative Court, Zurich), A 00 131, 28 August 2000, Luzerner Gerichts-und Verwaltungsentscheide, 2000, II, 25 (Switzerland).
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Administrative Court), 2000/15/0118, 18 March 2004 (Austria)
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Supreme Administrative Court), 2004/15/0001, 22 April 2009 (Austria).
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Administrative Court), 96/14/ 0084, 21 May 1997, VwSlg, 7183 F/1997 (Austria)
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Supreme Administrative Court), 98/14/0026, 19 March 2002 (Austria).
Voivodeship Administrative Court, Warsaw, 2 January 2014, No III SA/Wa 1146/13 (Austria).
Wolf v The Queen, 2002 FCA 96, rev’g [2000] 1 CTC 2172 (TCC).
Wuslich v MNR, [1991] 1 CTC 2473 (TCC).