Indian High Court rules on permanent establishment of GE group entities

Tax Hot Topics newsletter The Delhi High Court recently upheld a ruling by Indian tax authorities that found General Electric (GE) group entities selling products to customers in the country had fixed place and dependent agent permanent establishments (PE).

The group entities involved in the dispute and their specific roles are described below:

  • GE overseas entities: sells products to customers in India
  • GE International Operations Company Inc., US (GEIOC): operates a liaison office (LO) in India to act as a communication channel
  • GE India Industrial Pvt. Ltd (GEIIPL): provides limited market support services to GE overseas entities
  • GE International Inc, US (GEII): a nonresident entity that performs payroll services for expatriates who work in India to support various businesses of the GE group.

The tax authorities conducted a survey at the LO premises and recorded interviews with various employees. On the basis of information gathered during the survey and the post-survey enquiries, the tax authorities concluded:

  • The LO premises were being used by the GE overseas entities for business operations and therefore constituted a fixed place PE.
  • The expatriates and Indian employees constituted a dependent agent PE of the GE overseas entities due to sales-related activities of the GE group entities.

GE contested the tax authorities’ findings, claiming that a PE should not be created by the GE entities’ activities. On the issue of the fixed place PE specifically, GE argued that the expatriates and the employees of GEIIPL did not have the authority to conclude contracts and were merely carrying on a marketing nature for the GE overseas group entities. As such, it believed the activities were of a “preparatory or auxiliary” function and fell within the exception provided by Article 5(3) of the India-U.S. income tax treaty. However, the High Court did not agree with this interpretation. It concluded that performance of vital responsibilities related to finalizing contracts and prominent involvement in the process clearly indicated that the GE group entities carried on business in India. On the dependent agent issue, GE relied on OECD commentary and argued that to constitute agency PE, employees should negotiate “all” elements of the contract. However, the High Court noted the referenced OECD commentary also states that a lack of active involvement by an enterprise in transactions may be indicative of a grant of authority to an agent. The court held that “lack of” does not mean "none” and, accordingly, the term “authority to conclude” should not require handling “all” elements and details, but undertaking activities which are “core” in nature.

GE further argued that activities of the agent should be devoted wholly, or almost wholly, on behalf of a single enterprise. This argument also did not find favor with the court as the activities performed for GE group entities were intermingled and there were no separate agreements or different payments. Thus, the High Court held that the marketing and sales support employees were involved in core elements of the contract, and therefore such activities created a dependent agency PE.

The ruling has expanded the scope of agency PE by reducing the threshold for agents’ activities from negotiating all elements to negotiating core elements. U.S. multinational enterprises with market support entities in India would need to evaluate their existing arrangement to mitigate risk of forming a PE in India. The GE group entities have an option to further file an appeal against this ruling before the Apex Court, which would provide finality to this dispute.

David Sites
Partner, Washington National Tax Office
T +1 202 861 4104

David Zaiken
Managing Director, Washington National Tax Office
T +1 202 521 1543

Cory Perry
Senior Manager, Washington National Tax Office
T +1 202 521 1509

Mike Del Medico
Manager, Washington National Tax Office
T+1 202 521 1522

Tax professional standards statement
This content supports Grant Thornton LLP’s marketing of professional services and is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. If you are interested in the topics presented herein, we encourage you to contact us or an independent tax professional to discuss their potential application to your particular situation. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed herein. To the extent this content may be considered to contain written tax advice, any written advice contained in, forwarded with or attached to this content is not intended by Grant Thornton LLP to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.

The information contained herein is general in nature and is based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal or tax advice provided by Grant Thornton LLP to the reader. This material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader’s specific circumstances or needs and may require consideration of tax and nontax factors not described herein. Contact Grant Thornton LLP or other tax professionals prior to taking any action based upon this information. Changes in tax laws or other factors could affect, on a prospective or retroactive basis, the information contained herein; Grant Thornton LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any such changes. All references to “Section,” “Sec.,” or “§” refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.