Analysing BEPS Action 7 in the Context of Agency PEs

IF 0.8 Q2 LAW Intertax Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.54648/taxi2024003
Mihir Naniwadekar
{"title":"Analysing BEPS Action 7 in the Context of Agency PEs","authors":"Mihir Naniwadekar","doi":"10.54648/taxi2024003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article considers whether the revisions to the dependent agent permanent establishment (DAPE) provisions in the OECD Model Convention (as a result of BEPS Action 7) provide a framework for solving the problem of artificial avoidance of DAPE status. It argues that the ‘avoidance’ was not so much the use of artificial structures but the lack of guidance over the appropriate interpretational approach to be adopted in applying the provisions. Solving the problem then required redrafting them in order to provide substantial interpretative guidance on adopting a substance-based interpretational approach. An analysis of the redrafted provisions and an examination of the interpretational issues arising from them shows that the larger problem of avoidance of DAPE status is not truly addressed because they continue to privilege legal concepts rather than commercial concepts. The result is that the changes to Article 5(5) do effectively address the specific problem of commissionnaires, but they fail to provide enough guidance to adjudicators to adopt a substance-based approach towards handling newer structures that will undoubtedly be devised by tax advisors. At the same time, the changes to Article 5(6) appear to draw some boundaries on the ability of multinational groups to avoid DAPE status; however, this is again not a solution that appears to be justified in principle. Ultimately, by adopting a patchwork of solutions to tackle specific problems, the BEPS rewrite may perhaps have missed an opportunity to clarify the underlying interpretative approach and cannot be truly said to have solved the problem of artificial avoidance of DAPE status at a more general level.\nPermanent establishments, dependent agent PEs, BEPS Action 7, independent agents","PeriodicalId":45365,"journal":{"name":"Intertax","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intertax","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/taxi2024003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article considers whether the revisions to the dependent agent permanent establishment (DAPE) provisions in the OECD Model Convention (as a result of BEPS Action 7) provide a framework for solving the problem of artificial avoidance of DAPE status. It argues that the ‘avoidance’ was not so much the use of artificial structures but the lack of guidance over the appropriate interpretational approach to be adopted in applying the provisions. Solving the problem then required redrafting them in order to provide substantial interpretative guidance on adopting a substance-based interpretational approach. An analysis of the redrafted provisions and an examination of the interpretational issues arising from them shows that the larger problem of avoidance of DAPE status is not truly addressed because they continue to privilege legal concepts rather than commercial concepts. The result is that the changes to Article 5(5) do effectively address the specific problem of commissionnaires, but they fail to provide enough guidance to adjudicators to adopt a substance-based approach towards handling newer structures that will undoubtedly be devised by tax advisors. At the same time, the changes to Article 5(6) appear to draw some boundaries on the ability of multinational groups to avoid DAPE status; however, this is again not a solution that appears to be justified in principle. Ultimately, by adopting a patchwork of solutions to tackle specific problems, the BEPS rewrite may perhaps have missed an opportunity to clarify the underlying interpretative approach and cannot be truly said to have solved the problem of artificial avoidance of DAPE status at a more general level. Permanent establishments, dependent agent PEs, BEPS Action 7, independent agents
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
在机构 PE 的背景下分析 BEPS 行动 7
本文探讨了对《经合组织示范公约》中从属代理人常设机构(DAPE)条款的修订(作为 BEPS 行动 7 的结果)是否为解决人为规避 DAPE 地位的问题提供了一个框架。报告认为,"规避 "的问题并不在于人为结构的使用,而在于在适用这些规定时缺乏对适当解释方法的指导。要解决这个问题,就需要重新起草这些条款,以便为采用基于实质内容的解释方法提供实质性的解释指导。对重新起草的条款的分析以及对由此产生的解释问题的研究表明,避免 DAPE 地位的更大问题并没有得到真正解决,因为这些条款继续优先考虑法律概念而不是商业概念。其结果是,对第 5 条第(5)款的修改确实有效地解决了委托代理的具体问题,但却未能为裁决者提供足够的指导,使其采用基于实质的方法来处理税务顾问无疑会设计出的更新的结构。同时,对第 5 条第(6)款的修改似乎为跨国集团规避 DAPE 地位的能力划定了一些界限;然而,这似乎也不是一个原则上合理的解决方案。归根结底,BEPS 的重写采用了各种拼凑的解决方案来解决具体问题,也许错失了澄清基本 解释方法的机会,也不能说真正解决了在更广泛的层面上人为规避 DAPE 地位的问题。
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
Intertax
Intertax LAW-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
50.00%
发文量
45
期刊最新文献
(In)congruence Between Taxation, Spending, and Representation: The Ambiguous Character of Tax-based Contributions Taxing Powers of the European Union Judicial Review of the EU Own Resources Decision by the ECJ Protecting EU Financial Interests in the Collection of Tax-Based Own Resources Article: Conflicts between Directives that Require Taxation of Income and Tax Treaties: The Effectiveness of the EU Primacy-based Conflict Rule
×
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