Select Tax and Transfer Pricing Issues in Case of Transactions between the Head Office and its Permanent Establishment
Mayur B. Nayak | Tarun Kumar G. Singhal | Anil D. Doshi | Mahesh G. Nayak Chartered Accountants
BACKGROUND
With
the ever-evolving tax world, in light of the BEPS Project and the
resultant Multilateral Instrument, transactions involving physical
presence in India would be under greater scrutiny for the constitution
of a Permanent Establishment (‘PE’). Once it has been concluded that a
PE exists in a particular jurisdiction, one of the key issues to be
navigated is in respect of the profit attributable to the PE. The
concept of a PE deems the PE to be considered as a separate taxable
entity from the Head Office (‘HO’) for limited specific purposes. In
this article, the authors analyse some of the interesting issues which
arise due to ‘transactions’ between the PE and the HO. The topic of
profit attribution to the PE and the interplay between the tax treaties
and domestic law as well as transfer pricing provisions is a vast topic
in itself and in this article only the limited issues of ‘transactions’
between the PE and the HO are considered.
WHETHER TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN PE AND HO WOULD TRIGGER INCOME TAX IMPLICATIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE HO
Article 7(2) of the UN Model Tax Convention 2021 provides as follows:
“Subject
to the provisions of paragraph 3, where an enterprise of a Contracting
State carries on business in the other Contracting State through a
permanent establishment situated therein, there shall in each
Contracting State be attributed to that permanent establishment the
profits which it might be expected to make if it were a distinct and
separate enterprise engaged in the same or similar activities under the
same or similar conditions and dealing wholly independently with the
enterprise of which it is a permanent establishment.”
Therefore, Article 7(2) forms the genesis behind treating a PE of a taxpayer as an independent and separate entity.
Further,
while Article 7(3) of the UN Model restricts the claim of deduction in
respect of certain payments such as royalty, fees, commission, or
interest by the PE to its HO, while computing the profits attributable
to the PE, the language differs in various DTAAs entered by India. For
example, one would not find such restriction in Article 7 of the India –
Singapore DTAA.
Similarly, Para 7(2) of the OECD Model 2017 provides as follows:
“For
the purposes of this Article and Article [23 A] [23 B], the profits
that are attributable in each Contracting State to the permanent
establishment referred to in paragraph 1 are the profits it might be
expected to make, in particular in its dealings with other parts of the
enterprise, if it were a separate and independent enterprise engaged in
the same or similar activities under the same or similar conditions,
taking into account the functions performed, assets used and risks
assumed by the enterprise through the permanent establishment