United States: Remain Vigilant On Indian Permanent Establishments, Even After The Favorable e-Funds Decision

The U.S. and Indian competent authorities are famously at loggerheads over the principles to be applied in transfer-pricing double-tax cases.  Some of the important issues involved are:  the appropriate markup on costs for services; when and how to reward location savings; and whether marketing intangibles exist.  Virtually all of these double-tax cases involve a U.S. parent company ("U.S. Parent"), its Indian subsidiary, and a transfer pricing adjustment made by the Indian Revenue Service.  In recent months, the two competent authorities have been in discussions to establish mutually agreeable principles for resolving the disputes.

But transfer pricing is not the only issue on the table.  Many current competent authority cases involve the Indian IRS's assertion that a U.S. Parent has a permanent establishment ("PE") in India and that substantial profits should be attributed to that PE.  The U.S. competent authority undoubtedly is seeking to establish principles for resolving PE cases as well, and was recently given a boost by the Delhi High Court's taxpayer-favorable decision in the e-Funds case (TS-63-HC-2014 (DEL)). 

In this alert, we first discuss the very constructive PE principles laid down by the e-Funds court.  We caution, however, that Indian PE risk remains high, and conclude by suggesting some concrete steps for mitigating that risk.

The e-Funds Case

The U.S. parent (e-Funds Corp.) and its indirect U.S. subsidiary (e-Funds, Inc.) conducted an electronic payments business, and engaged their Indian affiliate ("e-Funds India") to perform back office and data entry services.  In a comprehensive and articulate analysis, the court drew on the holding of the Indian Supreme Court in the Morgan Stanley case, and addressed all three kinds of potential PEs – fixed place of business, services, and agency -- and resolved them in a manner consistent with international norms.  The court found that neither of the U.S. companies (together, the "assessees") had a PE in India under the terms of the U.S.-India Treaty, and laid out some sensible principles for making that determination:

  • The mere existence of an Indian subsidiary does not create an Indian PE of a U.S. Parent.  Conversely, the fact that an Indian subsidiary exists does not preclude a finding that the U.S. Parent has a PE.
  • A U.S. Parent will have a fixed place of business PE (under Treaty Article 5(1)) only if U.S. Parent (1) has the right to use a location in India (such as an Indian subsidiary's facilities), and (2) in fact carries out activities at that location (3) on a regular basis:  "None of the authorities including the tribunal have held that the two assessee[s] had right to use any of the premises belonging to e-Fund India. . . .In the absence of any such finding Article 5(1) cannot be invoked and applied."  Other fixed place of business PE considerations:
    • The mere existence of a contract for services between U.S. Parent and the Indian subsidiary does not create a fixed place of business PE of U.S. Parent. 
    • U.S. Parent's access to an Indian location on the Article 5(2) list (e.g., "place of management", "branch", "office", "factory") does not necessarily create a PE.  The requirements of Article 5(1) must first be satisfied.
  • The following factors are not relevant to a fixed place of business PE analysis:
    • "The fact that e-Fund India provides various services to the assessee and was dependent for its earnings upon the two assessees is not the relevant test to determine and decide location PE." 
    • "The fact that e-Fund India did not bear sufficient risk is irrelevant when deciding whether location PE exists." 
    • "The fact that e-Fund India was reimbursed the cost of the call centre operations plus 16%  . . .  is not relevant for determining location or fixed place PE." 
    • "Neither provision of any software, intangible data, etc. whether free of cost or otherwise, makes e-Funds India an agency or fixed place PE of the two foreign assessees."
    • The "existence of [a] PE does not depend upon transfer of assignment or sub-contracting work/services to India, with an intent and purpose to save costs and to increase profitability of the assessee resident abroad." 
    • The "contention and finding recorded that e-Fund India had provided necessary input or information to e-Fund Corp or e-Fund Inc. to enable them to enter into contracts which were sub-contracted or assigned to e-Fund India, will not make e-Fund India a permanent establishment of the assessee."
  • A services PE (Article 5(2)(l)) exists only if U.S. Parent's "employees or other personnel" perform services in India.  The employees of the Indian subsidiary are not automatically U.S. Parent's "other personnel".
    • Where U.S. Parent seconded employees to the Indian subsidiary, no PE exists if the employees' activities are stewardship in nature:  "merely because the non-resident assessee[s] to protect their interest, for ensuring quality and confidentiality has sent its employees to provide stewardship services, will not make the Indian subsidiary or another entity, a PE of the non-resident company." 
    • The court also indicated, though it was not necessary to its opinion because of the particular facts of the case, that no PE exists if the seconded employees are controlled by and engaged in activities that are the business of the subsidiary and not the U.S. Parent.
  • If the Indian activities of an enterprise are limited to "preparatory or auxiliary" activities described in Article 5(3), there is no PE, even if the PE requirements of Article 5(1)/(2) have been met:  "Paragraph 3 . . . does not create a PE but has a negative connotation and activities specified when carried on do not create a PE." 
  • The U.S.-Indian treaty includes two agency PE provisions:
    • Article 5(4) (based on OECD model) is the typical dependent agent PE provision, which the court found not to exist in the-Funds case: 
      • "It is not the case of the Revenue that e-Funds India was authorized and habitually exercised authority to 'conclude' contract." 
      • A dependent agent PE is not created merely because a U.S. Parent assigns or sub-contracts services to its Indian subsidiary.
    • Article 5(5) (based on UN Model treaty):  An otherwise independent agent can become a PE if the agent's activities are both "wholly or mostly wholly on behalf of foreign enterprise and the transactions between the two are not made under arm's length conditions."  The e-Funds court found no such relationship to exist because there was no dispute that the transactions were made under arm's length conditions.

Takeaway – Risk of PE Assessment in India Remains High

Although the Delhi High Court gave e-Funds a resounding win, the outcome likely would have been different if the Court had found some of the following facts, which were either not substantiated by the assessing officer or were found not to be present in the e-Funds case:

  • U.S. Parent's employees made regular use of the Indian subsidiary's facilities;
  • U.S. Parent's non-seconded employees and other personnel performed services in India, either for U.S. Parent or for the Indian subsidiary;
  • Employees seconded from U.S. Parent to the Indian subsidiary performed non-stewardship activities and were under the control of or compensated by U.S. Parent;
  • Employees of the Indian subsidiary managed operations outside of India (e.g., in the United Kingdom), which might have supported a "place of management" PE assertion;
  • The Indian subsidiary had and habitually exercised authority to enter into contracts on behalf of U.S. Parent; or
  • The Indian subsidiary acted wholly or mostly "on behalf of" U.S. Parent and their inter-company transactions were not priced at arm's length.

The wide-ranging opinion summarizes numerous other fact scenarios that might or might not have led to a PE determination.  PE determinations in India thus remain highly fact-intensive and subjective. 

In addition, the court's opinion left doubts on some key issues:

  • When, under Article 5(5), will the activities of an agent for a foreign enterprise be treated as "devoted wholly or almost wholly on behalf of that enterprise"?
  • What standards/whose views are applied in determining whether the transactions are priced at arm's length?
  • What quantum of non-stewardship activities of employees seconded from U.S. Parent to the Indian subsidiary is sufficient to create a PE, and how is the pertinent control test evaluated?

Suggested Practices for Mitigating PE Risk

The e-Funds decision thus highlights the need for continued diligence on the PE front.  In that regard, we believe the following practices can be helpful in mitigating PE risk, in India and elsewhere:

Know the local law:  The e-Funds court found that U.S. Parent would have been taxable under local law, but that the Treaty trumped.  Where a U.S. treaty is not available, local law will provide the rule and be determinative.

Set up and maintain consistent corporate governance:  From board resolutions to invoicing, all documentation should be consistent with the chosen form for the local presence.  The separate legal status of the local entity must be established and preserved.  The entity must be functionally independent and adequately capitalized.  Its documented and observed assets and risks must be consistent with the chosen structure.  And personnel should be made aware of the chosen structure, and operate within that framework.  Decide whether employees should receive regular training on the PE risk, and how that training should be provided to avoid simple mistakes.

Get your transfer pricing right:  This is a good practice in itself, but also helps mitigate PE risk.  Under the special terms of Article 5(5) of the U.S.-Indian treaty, getting the transfer pricing right will ensure that there is no independent agency PE.  Article 5(5) may reflect that non-arm's length transfer pricing, if significant, calls into question whether the subsidiary has the substance – i.e., wherewithal – to fund its own operations.  And from a practical standpoint, getting the transfer pricing wrong makes a PE assertion more likely as an alternate assessment for achieving the total local income that the tax authority believes is appropriate.  Getting the transfer pricing right, on the other hand, may limit the damage if a (services) PE is found to exist; in the Morgan Stanley case, the Indian Supreme Court concluded that arm's length transfer pricing may fully compensate both the Indian subsidiary and any agency PE that it creates for the foreign parent. 

Avoid creating a fixed place of business:  In the e-Funds case, the U.S. Parent did not have a fixed place of business in India.  But, it is easy to create a fixed place, if there is an office set aside at the subsidiary for use by foreign visitors, or if the foreign company regularly rents hotel or apartment rooms on a long-term basis.   It is essential for the foreign party to avoid taking actions, intentionally or unintentionally, that could be found to create a fixed place of operations within India. 

Decide whether a PE is unavoidable:  If the local operation is highly integrated with one or more U.S. or other foreign operations, is a PE avoidable?  If not, it may be preferable simply to admit a PE exists, and report accordingly.  This ensures that the taxpayer will have good books and records to demonstrate the income attributable to the PE.  In addition, a PE filing should help mitigate the local penalties for non-filing (e.g., loss of deductions, penalties, interest, confrontational posture with tax authority), and may reduce the tax authority's incentive to make transfer pricing assessments on the local subsidiary.

*     *     *

The e-Funds case undoubtedly is a step in the right direction for Indian PE risk.  The court referred to and relied on relevant OECD and UN commentary, as well as secondary sources, and reached the right conclusions.  But it is only one court.  The Indian IRS is likely to continue searching for PE issues, and those issues are likely to remain a major sticking point in the U.S.-India competent authority relationship. 

This article is designed to give general information on the developments covered, not to serve as legal advice related to specific situations or as a legal opinion. Counsel should be consulted for legal advice.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions