BEPS MLI

Argentina deposits instrument of ratification of the MLI

On 29 September 2025, Argentina deposited with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) its instrument of ratification of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Multilateral Instrument (MLI) and confirmed its MLI positions.

With respect to the permanent establishment (PE) provisions, Argentina confirmed its preliminary positions and did not make any additional reservations. Therefore, all the PE provisions will generally be applicable to Argentina's Covered Tax Agreements (CTAs) to the extent that there is a matching position between Argentina and the other contracting state.

The MLI will enter into force for Argentina on the first day of the month following the expiration of a period of three calendar months beginning on the date its instrument of ratification was deposited, i.e., on 1 January 2026.

PE tax rulings

Denmark: Home office and partial presence insufficient to create PE

On 16 September 2025, the Danish Tax Council issued binding ruling SKM2025.525.SR addressing whether a foreign group's Chief Commercial Officer (CCO), residing partly in Denmark, created a PE in Denmark.

The company was incorporated and managed abroad, with all executive and board-level decisions taking place outside Denmark. It had no office, employees or infrastructure in Denmark and served the Danish market exclusively through independent third-party distributors. The CCO worked approximately two days per week from a home office in Denmark (approximately 40% of total time) and performed the remainder of his work abroad. He neither negotiated nor concluded contracts on behalf of the company, and his employer did not require that his duties be carried out from Denmark. The company provided only a one-off home office allowance of DKK 8,000 (approximately US$1,250).

In its assessment, the Danish Tax Council highlighted that a fixed place of business requires that the foreign enterprise has a place at its disposal in Denmark where core business activities are conducted. The CCO's home office did not meet this threshold, as the company neither demanded that he work from Denmark nor assumed responsibility for the premises. The modest allowance provided for office equipment was considered insufficient to establish that the home office was at the company's disposal.

The Council also ruled out the existence of an Agency PE, noting that the CCO did not habitually conclude contracts or play a decisive role in their conclusion. On this basis, the Danish Tax Council concluded that the CCO's partial presence in Denmark did not give rise to a PE in Denmark.