721.8 kB - Poledna | Boss | Kurer

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Real Estate and Property Taxes 63Ireland’s Revenue Chair Offers Property Tax UpdateFrench Property Tax Rules Under FireItaly To Renew Home Tax CreditsScots Ponder Amendments To Property Sales TaxEnvironmental Taxes 69European Commission RecommendsCar Tax For EstoniaBrussels Challenges British Yacht Fuel Tax BreaksSwiss Federal Council Rejects Energy Tax InitiativeFTT 67Centre For Policy Studies Raises Concerns Over FTTFTT Scale-Back On The Cards?SMEs 72Spain’s Fiscal Package Fosters ‘Entrepreneurial Culture’Singapore Plugs Benefits For SMEs Of e-FiledSimplified Tax FormIRS Facilitates Extension Of US Empowerment ZonesTAX TREATY ROUND-UP 75CONFERENCE CALENDAR 77IN THE COURTS 89THE JESTER'S COLUMN 98The unacceptable face of tax journalismFor article guidelines and submissions, contact GTW_Submissions@wolterskluwer.com
FEATURED ARTICLESISSUE 30 | JUNE 6, 2013Substance Requirements Of AForeign Permanent EstablishmentOf A Swiss Finance Companyby Walter H. Boss and Stefanie Monge,Poledna Boss Kurer AG, ZurichI. IntroductionOn October 5, 2012 the Swiss Federal Supreme Courtdecided a leading case in the area of international taxallocation with respect to federal corporate incometax. 1 The issue was whether a foreign permanent establishment("PE") of a Swiss finance company witha rather lean infrastructure qualified as a PE underSwiss domestic tax law if compared to the figuresshown in the P&L statements of the Swiss company.One should note that the Swiss company had obtaineda ruling from the competent cantonal taxadministration in which it had been agreed that theprofits attributed to the foreign PE would be exemptfrom Swiss taxation.II. Factual BackgroundThe company at issue, hereinafter referred to as XAG, was a Swiss company domiciled in the cantonof Zug, belonging to a Swiss group of companies.The group holding company, of which X AG was awholly owned subsidiary, was also domiciled in thecanton of Zug. The statutory purpose of X AG wasthe financing of the group. For that purpose X AGmaintained a PE on the Cayman Islands with anoffice and four part-time employees.On August 10, 1999 the tax administration of thecanton of Zug approved a ruling request submittedby the parent company of X AG. Therein it wasagreed that in case the group financing would bedone through a foreign PE of a Swiss finance groupcompany, the profits attributed to the foreign PEwould be exempt from taxation in Switzerland.Up to the fiscal year 2004 the Zug tax administrationallocated the net financial income of X AG resultingfrom granting inter-company loans to the CaymanIslands PE, which in essence means that the net financialincome of X AG was exempt from taxationin Switzerland. In the course of 2004 the Federal TaxAdministration ("FTA") – the supervisory authorityof the cantonal tax administrations with respect tofederal income tax – instructed the Zug tax administrationto investigate concerning the existence of aPE on the Cayman Islands. In early 2005 the Zugtax administration informed X AG that the FTA wasof the view that its business activity on the CaymanIslands did not meet the requirements of a PE. Consequently,as of January 1, 2005 the Zug tax administrationrefused to exempt the net financial incomeof X AG from federal corporate income tax.5
Page 1 and 2: GLOBAL TAX WEEKLYa closer lookISSUE
Page 3: GLOBAL TAX WEEKLYa closer lookISSUE
Page 7 and 8: taxation treaties concluded by Swit
Page 9 and 10: FEATURED ARTICLESISSUE 30 | JUNE 6,
Page 13 and 14: UK, its offshore dependencies, and
Page 15 and 16: financing and all forms of financia
Page 17 and 18: Th e Government pointed out in part
Page 19 and 20: Talks are now underway. The TIEA wi
Page 21 and 22: through which they can clamber in o
Page 23 and 24: fi nally, and most egregiously, the
Page 25 and 26: office space, or own tangible asset
Page 27 and 28: extended for 2 years in December 20
Page 29 and 30: Financial transactions ( e.g. inter
Page 31 and 32: OECD Section E - Redraft On Safe Ha
Page 33 and 34: suggests that the following items m
Page 37 and 38: State Interest And IntangibleExpens
Page 39 and 40: States generally define "intangible
Page 41 and 42: Code Sec. 1563(controlledgroup)Stat
Page 43 and 44: ConnecticutGeorgiaIllinoisIndianaRe
Page 45 and 46: Rhode IslandTennesseeVirginiaWest V
Page 47 and 48: Table 4. Comprehensive Income Tax T
Page 49 and 50: include federal interest income, st
Page 51 and 52: Recurring IssuesRestructuring of th
Page 53 and 54: M&A. Nick has extensive experience
Page 55 and 56:
and consumers." As Germany and Chin
Page 57 and 58:
on many levels. The panel found tha
Page 59 and 60:
equirements placed on the states, i
Page 61 and 62:
NEWS ROUND-UP: COUNTRY FOCUS - ITAL
Page 63 and 64:
NEWS ROUND-UP: REAL ESTATE AND PROP
Page 65 and 66:
ates - such that, in 2014, the 4 pe
Page 67 and 68:
NEWS ROUND-UP: FTTISSUE 30 | JUNE 6
Page 69 and 70:
NEWS ROUND-UP: ENVIRONMENTAL TAXESI
Page 71 and 72:
Finally, the Federal Council veheme
Page 73 and 74:
Singapore Plugs Benefits For SMEsOf
Page 75 and 76:
TAX TREATY ROUND-UPISSUE 30 | JUNE
Page 77 and 78:
CONFERENCE CALENDARISSUE 30 | JUNE
Page 79 and 80:
Key speakers: John Capasso (Alvarez
Page 81 and 82:
Key speakers: TBA6/27/2013 - 6/27/2
Page 83 and 84:
6/14/2013 - 6/14/2013http://www.con
Page 85 and 86:
THE CYPRUS BAIL-OUT ANDFOREIGN CLIE
Page 87 and 88:
Chair: Jonathan Levy (Partner, Reyn
Page 89 and 90:
IN THE COURTSISSUE 30 | JUNE 6, 201
Page 91 and 92:
on including the profit from the do
Page 93 and 94:
deduct VAT as a result of incomplet
Page 95 and 96:
where the taxpayer had somehow offs
Page 97 and 98:
een paid in the destination State.
Page 99 and 100:
that Spain has gone its own way fir
show all

721.8 kB - Poledna | Boss | Kurer

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?