Permanent Establishment Risk: When Cross-Border Activity Becomes a Taxable Presence
- Extax Oceania
- 13 hours ago
- 3 min read
A business does not need a sign above an office door to create a taxable presence in another country. A project site, a person who habitually concludes contracts, a place used to conduct core business or, in some circumstances, a cross-border home office can raise the permanent-establishment question.
The practical question is not whether the group opened a branch. It is whether its real activity created enough presence for another country to tax part of the business.
The label matters because a permanent establishment can connect business profits to a jurisdiction and bring related filing, profit-attribution, payroll, indirect-tax and administrative obligations. The answer is not produced by one global checklist: domestic law, the applicable treaty and the actual facts must be read together.
Start with the activity, not the entity chart
A foreign company may have no local subsidiary while its people negotiate with customers, supervise installation, manage projects or work from a recurring location. Conversely, owning a subsidiary does not by itself make the subsidiary a permanent establishment of its parent. The analysis follows the functions performed, authority exercised and places available to the foreign enterprise.
The relevant questions include whether a location is sufficiently fixed, whether it is at the enterprise’s disposal, whether business is carried on through it and whether an exclusion for preparatory or auxiliary activity applies. Agent, construction, service and natural-resource provisions can introduce different thresholds, depending on the treaty.
Five fact patterns that require early review
People who negotiate or conclude contracts, or play the principal role leading to their conclusion.
Project, construction, installation or supervisory activity that continues across connected contracts or periods.
Recurring access to an office, customer site, project location or other place used for core business.
Employees working across borders from home where the location also serves a commercial purpose.
Several activities or group entities that may need to be considered together rather than in isolation.
Remote work has made the evidence more important
The OECD’s 2025 Model Tax Convention update added detailed guidance about cross-border remote work. It examines facts such as permanence, the proportion of working time spent in the other country and whether there is a commercial reason for the employee’s presence there.
That guidance does not replace the text of a particular treaty or domestic rules. It does show why an informal “work from anywhere” approval can become a corporate-tax issue. The employee’s role, customer contact, geographic market, employer requirements and use of the home all need to be understood.
Questions for an early diagnostic
Which people perform core revenue-generating, contract or management activity outside the company’s home jurisdiction?
What locations do they use, how regularly and for how long?
Can anyone negotiate or conclude contracts, or materially determine the terms accepted by the enterprise?
Are projects or connected scopes divided across related contracts or entities?
Does the relevant treaty contain construction, service, agent or resource-specific provisions?
What filings, profit attribution, transfer pricing, payroll, GST or VAT consequences follow if a presence exists?
Build a fact register before taking a position
Useful evidence includes travel and remote-work calendars, location approvals, job descriptions, contract workflows, project scopes, customer interaction records, premises arrangements and intercompany agreements. The register should identify the country, person or project, relevant dates, authority, activity, treaty and unresolved facts.
A short diagnostic cannot determine every treaty outcome. It can show where the group is relying on assumptions, where specialist advice is required and which operational controls should be introduced before the facts become difficult to change.
The Extax diagnostic
Extax can coordinate the issue map across jurisdictions and technical disciplines. The first output should be a defensible presence register and decision path—not a generic conclusion reached without the underlying evidence.
Comments