Issue: № 7, 2025
Doi: https://doi.org/10.37634/efp.2025.7.3
This paper examines the impact of the global BEPS (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) and GloBE (Global Anti-Base Erosion) initiatives on the taxation of profits attributable to permanent establishments (PEs) in the digital age. The author analyzes the current challenges to the international tax system posed by business digitalization, capital mobility, the existence of low-tax jurisdictions, and the growing imbalance in the allocation of taxing rights between source and residence countries. The study reviews key provisions of the BEPS Action Plan–particularly Actions 1, 5, 7, 13, and 14 – that directly affect the regulation of PE profits. It focuses on preventing artificial avoidance of PE status, expanding the concept of economic presence, and reforming transfer pricing approaches. Special attention is given to the GloBE rules under Pillar Two, which introduce a global minimum tax rate (15%) for multinational enterprises. A critical analysis is conducted on the potential implications of these rules for PEs, particularly given their lack of separate legal personality. The paper substantiates the need to adapt national tax legislation to modern international standards, while ensuring tax fairness, avoiding double taxation, and maintaining transparency. The author proposes approaches to attributing PE profits under GloBE rules, considering global group income, allocation mechanisms, and inter-jurisdictional coordination. The findings are practically relevant for legal professionals, tax consultants, and policymakers engaged in international tax reform. The development of digital technologies is fundamentally transforming the global economy and the challenges faced by national tax systems. The classical concept of permanent establishment, based on the criteria of physical presence, is losing its effectiveness, particularly in the context of the rapid growth of platforms, services, cloud computing, and transnational electronic business models. It has been specifically established that national tax systems, including Ukraine’s, are insufficiently adapted to the GloBE standards. The absence of mechanisms for accounting global income, synchronizing with the rules of the parent company's jurisdiction, and determining effective tax rates complicates the implementation of the new approaches.
Keywords : permanent establishment, BEPS, GloBE, digital economy, transfer pricing, OECD
References:
1. OECD. Addressing the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy. Action 1 – 2015 Final Report. Paris, 2015. 140 p.
2. OECD. Preventing the Artificial Avoidance of Permanent Establishment Status. Action 7 – 2015 Final Report. Paris, 2015. 84 p.
3. OECD. Transfer Pricing Documentation and Country-by-Country Reporting. Action 13 – 2015 Final Report. Paris, 2015. 152 p.
4. OECD/G20. Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Economy: Global Anti-Base Erosion Model Rules (Pillar Two). Paris, 2021. 270 p.
5. OECD/G20. Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Economy. Report on Pillar One Blueprint. Paris, 2020. 228 p.
6. United Nations. Model Double Taxation Convention between Developed and Developing Countries. New York, 2021. 264 p.
7. Harris P. International Tax Law: Principles and Policy. Cambridge, 2020. 568 p.
8. Hoffart B. Taxing the Digital Economy. Amsterdam, 2019. 302 p.
9. Shcholkina H.V. Digital Economy and Tax Challenges: International Initiatives and National Perspectives. Bulletin of the Tax Service of Ukraine. 2022. No. 4. pp. 17–23. (in Ukrainian).
10. Bilyk O.V. Taxation of transnational corporations in the context of globalization. Financial law. 2023. No. 1. pp. 44–50. (in Ukrainian).