• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Is my contract compliant with the 183-day rule?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Originally posted by rgeurts View Post
    The entity ultimately paying for my services is a UK based recruitment agency with no establishment in Belgium.
    First don't put your name on threads as they are searchable from the internet and anyone including tax officials can see them.

    Secondly the client has a permanent establishment in Belgium and they pay the agency who pay the company, which your wife is the director.

    So while the chain of the companies involved management is:
    Belgium -> UK -> UK the company who is your "economic employer" under Belgium tax law is permanently based in Belgium.
    "You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR

    Comment


      #12
      Originally posted by rgeurts View Post
      Hi Sue,

      Thanks for your reply.



      The entity ultimately paying for my services is a UK based recruitment agency with no establishment in Belgium.

      Regards
      Rim
      You're welcome.

      I doubt the UK recruitment agency is the economic employer, they will be billing your time onto someone else. If that someone else has a PE in Belgium, or is not based in the UK, then its caught.

      Comment


        #13
        Hi Sue,

        Thanks for the advice so far.

        Question:
        Article 15 says: "The remuneration is not borne by a permanent establishment which the employer has in the other state."

        Are you saying that the UK based recruitment agency is a permanent establishment (PE) of the Belgian based end client?

        Comment


          #14
          No, the Belgian client is the Belgian based PE.

          The economic employer is the person or entity which bears the cost of your employment, and benefits from your services. In this case that is not the UK recruitment agency. They are not paying for you to be in their offices in the UK, providing your services to them. The UK agency is an intermediary for a client. That client is paying them to pay you.

          Comment


            #15
            Rewording the DTA with places, to make more sense........

            (1) Subject to the provisions of Articles 16, 18 and 19 of this Convention, salaries, wages
            and other similar remuneration derived by a resident of a Contracting State (UK) in respect of
            an employment shall be taxable only in that State (UK) unless the employment is exercised in
            the other Contracting State (Belgium). If the employment is so exercised, such remuneration as is
            derived therefrom may be taxed in that other State (Belgium).

            (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of this Article, remuneration derived
            by a resident of a Contracting State (UK) in respect of an employment exercised in the other
            Contracting State (Belgium) shall be taxable only in the first-mentioned State (UK) if:

            (a) the recipient is present in the other State (Belgium) for a period or periods not exceeding in
            the aggregate 183 days within any period of 12 months; and

            (b) the remuneration is paid by, or on behalf of, an employer who is not a resident of
            the other State (Belgium); and

            (c) the remuneration is not borne by a permanent establishment or a fixed base which
            the employer has in the other State (Belgium).

            Comment


              #16
              Stick to the mantra; tax is due where the work is done.

              Simples.

              Comment


                #17
                Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
                If you are the only director when you move location e.g. out if the UK, so does the management of your company.
                This is not true, in order for there to be a permanent establishment in the destination state there must firstly be an establisment (constituting, at a mimimum, premises from which a business can be run) and secondly it must be permanent.

                If the OP stays in a b&b then there are no business premises for his company and hence no establishment, and if s/he stays for less than 183 days then it is not permanent. Therefore not liable for Belgian taxes. QED.

                ISTM the complicating factors are that the OP will stay at his/her parents' house (hence possibly an establishment) and also may be working for more than the initial year (probably still not permanent but a bit of a red rag to the BTA). Under these circumstances we are all left guessing as to the legal outcome if the situation arose but I personally would stay in a b&b instead.

                Boo2

                Comment


                  #18
                  Originally posted by rgeurts View Post
                  Hi Sue,

                  Thanks for the advice so far.

                  Question:
                  Article 15 says: "The remuneration is not borne by a permanent establishment which the employer has in the other state."

                  Are you saying that the UK based recruitment agency is a permanent establishment (PE) of the Belgian based end client?
                  SE and stek are both saying that and they are both wrong. Your employer is YourCo whiche is a UK registered Ltd Co. having no permanentvestablishment in Belgium. Unless your parent's house is a permanentcestablishment of YourCo.

                  Boo

                  Comment


                    #19
                    Originally posted by Boo View Post
                    This is not true, in order for there to be a permanent establishment in the destination state there must firstly be an establisment (constituting, at a mimimum, premises from which a business can be run) and secondly it must be permanent.

                    If the OP stays in a b&b then there are no business premises for his company and hence no establishment, and if s/he stays for less than 183 days then it is not permanent. Therefore not liable for Belgian taxes. QED.

                    ISTM the complicating factors are that the OP will stay at his/her parents' house (hence possibly an establishment) and also may be working for more than the initial year (probably still not permanent but a bit of a red rag to the BTA). Under these circumstances we are all left guessing as to the legal outcome if the situation arose but I personally would stay in a b&b instead.

                    Boo2
                    There is no 'exemption' for paying local tax, EU or not, simple as. You trot this miguided claptrap out everytime this topic comes up.

                    Would you expect to work in say Japan and pay no local tax? No, same for EU, there is no special treatment.

                    Comment


                      #20
                      Originally posted by Boo View Post
                      SE and stek are both saying that and they are both wrong. Your employer is YourCo whiche is a UK registered Ltd Co. having no permanentvestablishment in Belgium. Unless your parent's house is a permanentcestablishment of YourCo.

                      Boo
                      Remnds me of Blackadder, Boo is Rum, everyone else is everyone else, and the crew is 183 days.......

                      Edmund: Look, there's no need to panic. Someone in the crew will
                      know how to steer this thing.

                      Rum: The crew, milord?

                      Edmund: Yes, the crew.

                      Rum: What crew?

                      Edmund: I was under the impression that it was common maritime practice
                      for a ship to have a crew.

                      Rum: Opinion is divided on the subject.

                      Edmund: Oh, really? [starting to get the picture]

                      Rum: Yahs. All the other captains say it is; I say it isn't.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X