Information technology is a driving factor in the process of globalisation. Improvements in the early 1990s in computer hardware, software and telecommunications greatly increased people’s ability to access information. (The Levin Institute, 2013). Globalisation is not a new concept however the pace of integration of national economies and markets has substantially increased in recent years (OECD, 2013e: 7). It can be argued that ‘globalisation’ began with Christopher Columbus and Vasco da Gama (O’Rourke and Williamson, 2000), but the term has only been in existence since the 1960s (Jeffery, 2002). It can be said that information technology has been the most recent major catalyst for global integration (The Levin Institute, 2013) which has enabled globalisation to change the way in which companies do business (PWC, 2013a). In relation to the globalisation of the world’s economies, the concept of ‘a permanent establishment’ has gained significant importance worldwide, due to the direct impact on the tax revenue generated (Nayyar, 2010). In the current era of cross-border transactions and the increase in international trade and commerce among nations, there is a continuous movement of human capital across borders. One of the most significant results of globalisation is the noticeable impact of one country’s domestic tax policies on the economy of another country. Double taxation has an adverse effect on trade and services. Taxation of the same income by two or more countries (juridical double taxation) would constitute an unfair burden on the taxpayer. (Aimurie, 2013). Many countries agree that in order to eliminate double taxation, a base of clear and predictable international tax rules must be applied in order to give certainty to both governments and businesses (OECD, 2013e: 7). Hence the question of taxing rights is created. The possibility of creating a permanent establishment in a jurisdiction by a company or its employees or an agent arises as well as the taxing rights of the tax authorities. This research report will examine the concept of a permanent establishment and its application in commercial business activities, the building and construction industry and in the activities of an agent.

A research report submitted to the Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Commerce (specialising in Taxation) / According to South African domestic law, the term ‘place of effective management’ is ‘one of the tests used to determine the residency of a person, other than a natural person’ (South African Institute of Tax Practitioners, 2010, p.549). The term ‘place of effective management’ is not defined in the South African Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 and there is very limited case law in South Africa which deals specifically with the matter. In an attempt to clarify the term, the South African Revenue Service issued Interpretation Note 6: Resident: Place of effective management (persons other than natural persons) (2002) where, as noted by Olivier and Honiball (2008, p.82), ‘emphasis is placed on where important decisions are implemented and not where such decisions are taken’ as the ‘place of effective management’. This is contrary to international guidelines, which typically focus on where important decisions are taken (Olivier and Honiball, 2008, p.75). Key Words: Board of directors, central management and control, control, day-to-day decisions, Discussion Paper on Interpretation Note 6, Interpretation Note 6, key decision making, OECD Model Tax Convention, place of effective management

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

A research report submitted to the Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Commerce (specialising in Taxation). / There has been significant advances in the international arena with regards to global economic growth and trade, as well as enormous competition by countries to attract inward foreign direct investment from multinational enterprises (MNEs) to ensure the sustainability of their own economies. Fundamentally the contentious issue is the possibility of double taxation (DT), due to the dual residency of the MNE. The MNE operates in various markets which results in cross-border transactions, whether physical or electronic, and this ultimately means that different tax jurisdictions will become applicable and enforceable by each relevant country. These dual resident MNEs could be seen as a tax resident in both countries and thus be liable for tax obligations in both of these countries. This would therefore lead to the same income incurring DT or double non-taxation (DNT), which would have a devastating impact on that MNE. This lead to the establishment of double taxation treaties, agreements and conventions (DTA’s), between various countries which are aimed at addressing this imbalance. As technology advances at an alarming rate, so too does the possibility of abuse of tax treaties. Two important criteria are ‘the place of effective management’ (POEM) and the ‘permanent establishment’ (PE), which are critical to the determination of the correct tax jurisdiction where the dual resident MNE will incur various tax liabilities. These concepts, POEM and PE, can be confusing but are imperative, in order to prevent DT, and which could prejudice the relevant fiscus, as well as an attempt to avoid any conflict between the taxing regimes. An interesting facet of the POEM and PE conundrum is the interpretation by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (’the OECD’) Model Tax Convention (MTC) compared to the interpretations by the South African Revenue Service (SARS). Another area of contention for MNEs is the current enormous global focus on the concept of Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS), which is under great scrutiny, and is of great concern for the majority of revenue authorities. These authorities are intensifying their focus on improving and enforcing anti-avoidance provisions to prevent taxation leakage in their respective tax jurisdictions. This shift in priorities opposes one of a MNE’s main business objectives which is to maximize profits, by either diverting, extracting and/or distributing profits out of a high tax paying jurisdiction into a lower tax paying jurisdiction. This will consequently create an additional business risk which emphasises the need for international tax expertise. The international tax expert is a valuable business team member, as their knowledge and expertise is imperative for the mitigation of possible tax risks, correct interpretation and application of the relevant tax legislation on the business flows of the MNEs as a result of operational expansion or any cross-border transactions or activities. Key Words: Taxation, Tax Treaties, Agreements, BEPS, Conventions; Cross-border, Double Taxation; Dual Residency; International tax, Multinational enterprises; Permanent Establishment, Place of Effective Management; OECD Model Tax Convention; Tax Intelligence, Tax Jurisdictions

The aim of this work is to evaluate the development of Article 15 Income from Employment of the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital, especially with the accent on the Commentary of this article. Furthermore, to analyze, with the assistance of selected double tax treaties concluded by the Czech Republic, whether the Czech Republic, thus the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the General Directorate of Finance, follow the trend in the development of Model Tax Convention and apply it to the newly concluded double tax treaties, i.e. whether the institutions listed above accept the OECD Model Tax Convention and its Commentary as an interpretative regulation to be followed when concluding double tax treaties with both OECD member countries and with non-member countries.

Ziel der vorliegenden Arbeit ist es, auf der Grundlage des OECD-Musterabkommens für einen in Deutschland unbeschränkt einkommensteuerpflichtigen Gesellschafter die steuerliche Behandlung einer Beteiligung an einer ausländischen intransparent besteuerten Personengesellschaft zu untersuchen. Auf der Grundlage dieser Ergebnisse wird geprüft, ob und gegebenenfalls unter welchen Bedingungen die Beteiligung an einer intransparent besteuerten Personengesellschaft steuerlich vorteilhafter ist als die Beteiligung an einer transparent besteuerten Personengesellschaft oder an einer Kapitalgesellschaft. Zu Beginn der Arbeit wird als Basis für den weiteren Fortgang die Auslegung von Doppelbesteuerungsabkommen und die Einordnung ausländischer Personen- und Kapitalgesellschaften im Hinblick auf die Anwendung des deutschen Steuerrechts und des Abkommensrechts untersucht. Die folgenden Kapitel beschäftigen sich mit der steuerlichen Behandlung bei der Gewinnentstehung, beim Gewinntransfer, bei Verlusten, bei Leistungsbeziehungen zwischen Gesellschaft und Gesellschafter sowie bei Einkünften aus Drittstaaten. Im Schlusskapitel werden die Ergebnisse vergleichend gegenüber gestellt und es erfolgt ein Steuerbelastungsvergleich.

Double taxation could arise in a situation where resident- resident conflicts occur. Resident–resident conflicts occur in the situation where both countries regard such a person as a “resident” for tax purposes under their domestic legislation. For that reason, all income that is earned by that person, irrespective of the jurisdiction it is earned in, will be subject to tax in both countries. In order to resolve these conflicts, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (“OECD’s”) Model Tax Convention contains a tie breaker clause which states that a non-individual shall be deemed to be a resident only of the State in which the ‘place of effective management’ is situated. It was found that although there were conflicting views, the expression ‘place of effective management’ was mainly determined with reference to the place where real management actually makes decisions on key business affairs of the company. Based on the following reasons it was concluded that using ‘place of effective management’ as a tie breaker rule was ineffective. • With improved communication technology and increased mobility of top level management, it makes it very difficult to pinpoint a single location where the ‘place of effective management’ is positioned; • Changes to the generic managerial structures seen in the past, makes it increasingly complex to determine where the ‘place of effective management’ is situated; and • There is no universal interpretation of the term ‘place of effective management’ within the international arena. Against the backdrop that each option for determining the ‘place of effective management, analysed in Chapter 4 had its own flaws, it is almost impossible to determine a company’s residency based on a single test. It was therefore, recommended that the tie breaker rule consist of a hierarchy of the following tests. 1. Deemed to be resident of the country in which place of effective management is situated, as defined by SARS’ interpretation. 2. Deemed to be a resident of the country in which its economic nexus is the strongest. 3. Conflict to be resolved by mutual agreement between the two Contracting States. / Thesis (M.Com. (Tax))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011.

Begreppet beneficial owner finns i artiklarna 10, 11 och 12 i OECD:s modellavtal och är viktigt då det krävs att en part utgör beneficial owner för att denne ska ha rätt till den skattelättnad som erbjuds i de relevanta artiklarna. Då begreppet är oklart har OECD gett ut förslag på nya kommentarer till det i avsikt att klargöra dess innebörd. Uppsatsens syfte är att utreda innebörden av beneficial owner i artiklarna 10, 11 och 12 i OECD:s modellavtal från ett tolknings och tillämpnings perspektiv. Av utredningen framkom att begreppet enbart bör tolkas enligt modellavtalet och att det ska tillämpas i situationer, i vilket en mottagare av en inkomst har en skyldighet relaterad till att vidarebefordra inkomsten till en annan part och därför agerar som en mellanhandel. Om en part har en sådan skyldighet kan denne inte utgöra beneficial owner. I nuläget är dock termen relaterad oklar och författaren anser att den bör klargöras av OECD snarast. Vid utredningen om en part utgör beneficial owner bör först ett legalt tillvägagångsätt användas för att undersöka om det finns en skyldighet relaterad till att vidarebefordra inkomsten i partens legala dokument. Om detta inte hittas bör därefter både ett legalt och faktabaserat tillvägagångsätt användas, vid utredningen av fakta och omständigheter för att se om det finns substans som visar på att parten i praktiken är bunden (som om att parten hade en kontraktuell eller legal skyldighet) att vidarebefordra inkomsten.   Författarens slutsats blev att en part för att utgöra beneficial owner måste vara den som har rätten att använda den mottagna inkomsten efter vilja och även vara den som faktiskt åtnjuter de ekonomiska fördelarna av denna. Vidare måste parten också behandlas som ägaren till inkomsten i skattehänseende i hemviststaten, då en skattelättnad inte bör ges om det inte föreligger en risk för dubbelbeskattning. / The term beneficial owner is contained in articles 10, 11 and 12 in the OECD Model Tax Convention and is of importance since it is required that a party is the beneficial owner in order to be entitled to the tax relief offered in the relevant articles. Since the term is unclear, OECD has published proposals for new comments to clarify its meaning. The purpose of this study is to investigate the meaning of the term beneficial owner in articles 10, 11 and 12 in the OECD Model Tax Convention from an interpretation and application perspective. The investigation revealed that the term should only be interpreted in accordance with the OECD Model Tax Convention and that it aims at a recipient who has an obligation related to forwarding an income to another party and who is therefore acting as an intermediary. If a party has such an obligation, then he cannot be the beneficial owner. At present the term related is unclear and the author thinks that it should be clarified by the OECD as soon as possible. When investigating whether a party is the beneficial owner a legal approach should be used first to examine whether there is an obligation related to forwarding the income in the party's legal documents. If this is not found, then both a legal and factual approach should be used when examining the facts and circumstances in order to see if there is substance to show that the party is in practice bound (as if that party had a contractual or legal obligation) to forward the income. The author's conclusion is that a part to be the beneficial owner must be the one who has the right to use the received income as they wish and also be the one who actually enjoys the economic benefits of it. Furthermore, the party must also be treated as the owner of the income for tax purposes in the State of residence, since tax relief should not be given unless there is a risk of double taxation.