The Concept of the (Neither) Permanent (nor an) Establishment and the (Destination Favourable) Attribution of Profits

Giannis Psarakis
{"title":"The Concept of the (Neither) Permanent (nor an) Establishment and the (Destination Favourable) Attribution of Profits","authors":"Giannis Psarakis","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3362752","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The concept of the permanent establishment is fast approaching its hundredth year. When it was firstly shaped, it was destined to serve specific policies by tackling certain inconveniences. In order to achieve that, the economic climate (the business status quo) had to be taken into account, so as for the given regulation to be adjusted. All the above happened and the result was brilliant. Though, things have not remained the same throughout this century; after all, should this have happened, it would have been alarming. It is oxymoron - but also true - that nowadays, a permanent establishment does neither need to be permanent, nor even an establishment. Arguably, a sceptical approach, indicatively focused on the condition of the permanence and the fixedness for establishing a PE, through its history, may demonstrate that the time passage has led to a dysfunction. A new nexus is imperatively needed. This article ends with a thought-provoking question, regarding the need of a new method for the calculation of tax liability when a permanent establishment is ascertained; given that the policy - which dictates the measures deployed - cannot be but closely related to the problems it aspirates to solve. Having said that, not only have the problems changed, but they have also proliferated; so maybe the policy (and as a consequence the fundaments of the measures deployed) must also be differentiated.","PeriodicalId":330166,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","volume":"120 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3362752","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The concept of the permanent establishment is fast approaching its hundredth year. When it was firstly shaped, it was destined to serve specific policies by tackling certain inconveniences. In order to achieve that, the economic climate (the business status quo) had to be taken into account, so as for the given regulation to be adjusted. All the above happened and the result was brilliant. Though, things have not remained the same throughout this century; after all, should this have happened, it would have been alarming. It is oxymoron - but also true - that nowadays, a permanent establishment does neither need to be permanent, nor even an establishment. Arguably, a sceptical approach, indicatively focused on the condition of the permanence and the fixedness for establishing a PE, through its history, may demonstrate that the time passage has led to a dysfunction. A new nexus is imperatively needed. This article ends with a thought-provoking question, regarding the need of a new method for the calculation of tax liability when a permanent establishment is ascertained; given that the policy - which dictates the measures deployed - cannot be but closely related to the problems it aspirates to solve. Having said that, not only have the problems changed, but they have also proliferated; so maybe the policy (and as a consequence the fundaments of the measures deployed) must also be differentiated.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利润(非)永久(非)建立与(目的地有利)归属的概念
常设机构的概念正迅速接近其100周年。当它最初形成时,它注定要通过解决某些不便来服务于特定的政策。为了实现这一目标,必须考虑到经济气候(商业现状),以便对规定进行调整。所有这些都发生了,结果是辉煌的。然而,在整个世纪,事情并没有保持不变;毕竟,如果发生这种情况,那将是令人担忧的。如今,常设机构既不需要是常设机构,甚至也不需要是一个机构,这是自相矛盾的,但也是事实。可以说,一种怀疑的方法,通过其历史,明确地关注建立PE的持久性和固定性的条件,可能表明时间的流逝导致了功能障碍。迫切需要一种新的关系。本文以一个发人深省的问题结束,关于确定常设机构时需要一种计算纳税义务的新方法;鉴于该政策- -它决定了所采取的措施- -只能与它渴望解决的问题密切相关。话虽如此,问题不仅发生了变化,而且还在激增;因此,或许政策(以及因此而采取的措施的基础)也必须有所区别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Misdirected Recipients of Tax Reform: Section 199A, its True Beneficiaries, and Application to Low- and Middle- Income Residents Consistent Taxation in a Cashless Society Is It Time to Eliminate Federal Corporate Income Taxes? Brief of Amici Curiae Former Government Officials in Support of Respondents, CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service Allocating COVID-19 State Aid Equitably – The Case of Denmark
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1