Disclaimer
This edited version has been archived due to the length of time since original publication. It should not be regarded as indicative of the ATO's current views. The law may have changed since original publication, and views in the edited version may also be affected by subsequent precedents and new approaches to the application of the law.

You cannot rely on this record in your tax affairs. It is not binding and provides you with no protection (including from any underpaid tax, penalty or interest). In addition, this record is not an authority for the purposes of establishing a reasonably arguable position for you to apply to your own circumstances. For more information on the status of edited versions of private advice and reasons we publish them, see PS LA 2008/4.

Edited version of your written advice

Authorisation Number: 1012963554789

Date of advice: 26 February 2016

Ruling

Subject: Permanent Establishment

Question 1

Do the activities undertaken by the Employee in their private residence in Australia for Company X constitute a permanent establishment in Australia within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Australia and Country X's Double Tax Agreement (Country X agreement)?

Answer

No.

Question 2

If the answer to Question 1 is yes, will the income attributable to that permanent establishment be included in Company X's assessable income under subsection 6-5(3) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997)?

Answer

Not applicable.

This ruling applies for the following periods:

1 July 20XX to 30 June 2016

The scheme commences on:

1 July 20XX

Relevant facts and circumstances

1. Company X is a resident company incorporated in Country X and is a resident of Country X for tax purposes. It is in the business of providing investment management services to investment funds (the Funds).

2. The value of the Funds' assets under management is approximately US$X billion. Australian investments account for less than 10% of this amount.

3. Company X has a small number of employees, which include Position Managers, who make investment recommendations based on research and due diligence conducted by themselves and the relevant research analysts, and the Chief Investment Officer (CIO), who makes investment decisions for the Funds. Neither the CIO nor Company X's Position Managers are Australian tax residents.

4. In addition to research conducted on the particular investment, the CIO takes into account the following factors when making investment decisions:

5. In assessing these factors, the CIO may conduct their own research and solicit input from other research analysts and Position Managers as appropriate.

6. Company X's meetings and investment decisions take place in Country X.

7. All of Company X's research analysts are currently located in Country X, with the exception of the Employee, who is employed in Australia.

The Employee

8. The Employee works exclusively for Company X in their private residence in Australia, and is provided with infrastructure by Company X in order to perform thier role. This includes a phone, a laptop that is able to access the Company X network, printer and scanner.

9. As with all other employees of Company X, the Employee reports to the CIO and Chief Operating Officer.

10. In accordance with the employment contract between the Employee and Company X, the responsibilities of the Employee include (but are not limited to) provision of industry and sectoral information, investment analysis, and monitoring and updating of all relevant data and information in relation to relevant investments.

11. The Employee's work involves preparing financial models and analysis of industry related data and macroeconomic data. The Employee also engages in discussions with companies and external industry sources in order to develop investment theses to make recommendations to Company X.

12. There is no commercial rationale for the Employee to be based in Australia - Company X is merely accommodating the personal circumstances of the Employee.

13. The Employee is not responsible for the investment decisions Company X implements for the Funds.

14. Further, the Employee does not:

Relevant legislative provisions

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997

section 6-5(3)

International Tax Agreements Act 1953

section 4

Agreement between Australia and the Government of Country X republic for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income, and Protocol [1969] TS 14 (Country X Agreement)

Article 4

Article 5

Reasons for decision

Question 1

Subsection 6-5(3) of the ITAA 1997 provides that the assessable income of a foreign resident taxpayer includes ordinary income derived directly or indirectly from all Australian sources during the income year, and other ordinary income that a provision includes as assessable income on some basis other than having an Australian source.

Any applicable tax treaty referred to by the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 (Agreements Act) must be considered to determine whether Australia has a taxing right in respect of the income derived in Australia by a foreign resident taxpayer.

Section 4 of the Agreements Act incorporates that Act with the ITAA 1997 so that those Acts are to be read as one and states that the provisions contained in the Agreements Act have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent with those contained in the Income Tax Assessment Acts.

Relevant to this case, section 7 of the Agreements Act states that the provisions of Country X Agreement, so far as those provisions affect Australian tax, have the force of law.

Article 5 of the relevant agreement states that the business profits of an enterprise of Country X shall be only taxable in Country X unless the enterprise carries on business in Australia through a permanent establishment situated in Australia.

The term 'permanent establishment' is defined in Article 4(1) of the Country X Agreement as:

The phrase 'fixed place of business' is not defined in the Country X Agreement.

Taxation Ruling TR 2001/13 discusses the Commissioner's views about interpreting tax treaties. Paragraph 104 of Taxation Ruling TR 2001/13 states that the Commentaries on OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital (OECD Commentary) provide important guidance on interpretation and application of the OECD Model and will often need to be considered, as a matter of practice, in interpreting tax treaties, at least where the wording is ambiguous.

Paragraph 2 of the OECD Commentary on Article 5 (which in the OECD Model Tax Convention is the article defining 'permanent establishment') provides further guidance on what constitutes as a 'permanent establishment' and a 'fixed place of business':

Further, the OECD Commentary provides that the term 'place of business' covers any premises, facilities or installations used for carrying on the business of the enterprise, whether or not they are used exclusively for that purpose. It is immaterial whether the premises, facilities or installations are owned or rented by or is otherwise at the disposal of the enterprise.

Prima facie, based on the above criteria, Company X has a 'permanent establishment' in Australia within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Country X Agreement as:

However, Article 4(4) of the Country X Agreement provides a list of business activities that will not constitute a permanent establishment, even if that activity is carried on through a fixed place of business. Notably, paragraph 4(4)(e) provides:

Paragraph 24 of the OECD Commentary elaborates on what is meant by 'preparatory or auxiliary' by stating that the decisive criterion on whether a fixed place of business is conducting activities which are 'preparatory or auxiliary', is whether or not the activity of the fixed place of business in itself forms an essential and significant part of the activity of the enterprise as a whole.

In the present case, it is considered that while financial research and analysis on potential investment opportunities is essential to Company X making appropriate investment decisions for the Funds, the Employee's work in itself is not considered a significant part of Company X's activities for the following reasons:

Also, the fact that Company X has other research analysts based in Country X carrying out the same or similar work as the Employee supports the view that the Employee's activities carried out in Australia do not constitute a significant part of Company X's operations. The Employee being based in Australia is merely to accommodate the Employee's personal circumstances, as opposed to Company X conducting significant operations in Australia that may constitute as a permanent establishment.

Taking into account all of the factors mentioned above, it is considered that on balance the work of the Employee in their private residence in Australia is, of itself, not a significant part of Company X's core activity of providing investment management services. The Employee's work contributes to only a small portion of the total investments Company X carries out for the Funds. Hence, the Employee's activities are considered preparatory or auxiliary activities of Company X.

Accordingly, although the Employee's private residence in Australia is a fixed place of business under Article 4(1) of the Country X Agreement, it is not considered a permanent establishment by virtue of paragraph 4(4)(e).

Article 4(5) of the Country X Agreement provides an alternate test of whether an enterprise has a permanent establishment. It provides:

As mentioned previously, the Employee does not negotiate or conclude contracts on behalf of Company X. Further, the employment contract between Company X and the Employee provides that the Employee has no authority to bind Company X, except to the extent that the Employee is authorised. This would indicate that the Employee does not have, nor habitually exercises, an authority to conclude contracts for or on behalf of Company X. Accordingly, Article 4(5) of the Country X Agreement does not apply.

Having established that the activities that the Employee conducts in their private residence in Australia are not more than preparatory or auxiliary in the context of Company X's activities as a whole, the Employee's residence in Australia is not deemed to be a permanent establishment of Company X, pursuant to paragraph 4(4)(e) of the Country X Agreement, despite being a fixed place of business under Article 4(1) of the Country X Agreement.

Question 2

As the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, this question is not applicable.


Copyright notice

© Australian Taxation Office for the Commonwealth of Australia

You are free to copy, adapt, modify, transmit and distribute material on this website as you wish (but not in any way that suggests the ATO or the Commonwealth endorses you or any of your services or products).