Kendelse af 20-12-2017 - indlagt i TaxCons database den 28-01-2018

Faktiske oplysninger

[person1], CPR-nr.. [...], driver virksomheden [virksomhed1], SE-nr. [...1]. Af hjemmesiden http://[...].pl/ fremgår, at Danmark er et nøglemarked, ligesom der under kontaktoplysninger er angivet et polsk og et dansk telefonnummer (+45 [...]).

Virksomheden er momsregistreret som udenlandsk virksomhed uden herboende repræsentant og er registreret på en adresse i Polen.

Virksomhedens aktivitet i Danmark er indenfor byggeri/renovation.

Klageren har beskrevet virksomhedens aktivitet i Danmark således:

“Description about our activities In Danmark.

[virksomhed1] is general building company. We working for privet clients and cooperate with Danish companys. We have own managers on all building sides. Our workers are skilled and educated.They are professional workers. We provide warranty on all kind of work we do.

We specialized in:

We started our activities in Danmark in May 2012. From May 2012 until December 2012 we employed in total 25 workers. We delegate to work in Danmark 5 workers in May, in December 16 workers.”

Klageren har indberettet salgsmoms for 2. – 4. kvartal 2012 på henholdsvis 73.561 kr., 151.383 kr. og 115.483 kr.

Af den polske resultatopgørelse for perioden 1. januar 2012 til 31. december 2012 fremgår en omsætning på omregnet 2.968.717 kr. Køb af varer og materialer udgør 36.717 kr., vederlag 399.279 kr. og andre udgifter 2.017.776 kr. Der er ved omregningen fra polske zloty anvendt Nationalbankens gennemsnitskurs for 2012 på 178,0540.

På alle fakturaerne er anført ”renovation works”, som for hovedparten af tilfældene beløber sig til mellem 15.000 kr. og 20.000 kr. Fakturaerne er udskrevet i perioden 21. maj 2012 og frem. Den af SKAT opgjorte omsætning i Danmark svarer til 85 % af den samlede omsætning ifølge den polske resultatopgørelse.

Faktureringsadressen er virksomhedens adresse i [by1], Polen, mens betalingsanvisning er virksomhedens forretningskonto i [finans1], Danmark.

Klageren har lejet en erhvervslejlighed beliggende på adressen [adresse1], [by2]. Klageren har til SKAT forklaret, at hun anvender lejligheden som kontor, når hun er i Danmark.

Lejligheden er på 98 m², indeholdende 3 værelser, køkken og bad. Lejemålet er ifølge kontraktens § 1 indgået, fordi lejer ønsker at have sin virksomhed placeret med en megen central beliggenhed. Det lejede skal ifølge kontraktens § 2 anvendes til kontor og må ikke uden udlejers skriftlige samtykke anvendes til andet formål. Ifølge lejekontraktens § 3 er lejeaftalen trådt i kraft den 17. februar 2012 med mulighed for opsigelse til udgangen af september 2012, jf. § 4, herefter med seks måneders varsel. Lejen udgør 27.900 kr. inkl. forbrug pr. kvartal og betales forud, jf. § 7.

Der foreligger opkrævning for 3. og 4. kvartal 2012 samt betaling herfor.

Virksomheden har afholdt udgifter til bredbånd på adressen [adresse1], [by2]. Der er opkrævning for perioden 16. juli 2012 – 15. januar 2013. Klageren har til SKAT forklaret, at hun betaler for internet på adressen, fordi hun anvender internet i sit arbejde, når hun er i Danmark.

SKAT har forespurgt til afholdelse af udgifter, som fremgår af forretningskontoen benævnt ”workf.” og lign. samt udgift til [person2].

Klageren har til SKAT forklaret, at arbejdsstyrken er en polsk virksomhed, som hun samarbejder med, at El-bud er hendes tidligere svigerfars virksomhed, samt at [person2], er hendes ansatte.

Herudover er der afholdt udgifter til benzin, togbilletter, broafgift til Storebælt, samt mindre udgifter til håndværktøj.

Af bilagsmaterialet fremgår en form for kørselsregnskab. Af kørselsrapporten fremgår blandt andet:

SKAT har spurgt virksomheden, om der foreligger flere kørselsrapporter. Virksomheden har forklaret, at der ikke er tale om egentlig kørselsregnskab, men at det er en bogholder, der har vist, hvordan et kørselsregnskab skal laves for eksempel, når der lejes biler i Danmark.

SKATs afgørelse

Den skattepligtige indkomst er ansat til 2.523.757 kr.

Som begrundelse har SKAT anført følgende:

”Det er SKATs opfattelse, at virksomheden er begrænset skattepligtig til Danmark, idet virksomheden har fast driftssted her i landet. Virksomheden er derfor skattepligtig iht. kildeskattelovens § 2 stk. 1 nr. 4.

Der er i det opgjorte beløb ikke fratrukket udgifter til løn til ansatte samt udgifter til underentreprenører. Såfremt virksomheden ønsker fradrag for løn samt underentreprenører, skal der sendes dokumentation for udbetalt løn samt fakturaer vedr. betaling til underleverandører. Vedr. løn skal der foreligge oplysninger om den enkelte lønmodtager.

(...)

Ved begrundelsen af, at der er fast driftssted i Danmark, er der henset til, at virksomheden har lejet lokaler i Danmark. Af lejekontrakten fremgår, at der er tale om erhvervslejemål, som anvendes til kontor og indehaver har oplyst, at hun har internet på adressen fordi hun bruger det som kontor i Danmark.

Der er fast forretningssted i Danmark, dvs. en fysisk indretning, hvorfra virksomheden ledes. Det er i den forbindelse underordnet om der er tale om lejede eller ejede lokaler. Da virksomheden har lejet lokaler i Danmark fra 2012, mener SKAT, at virksomheden har haft fast driftssted i Danmark fra 2012.

Af kommentar nr. 4.1 til artikel 5 i OECD´s modeloverenskomst fremgår bl.a at det er tilstrækkeligt, til at konstituere fast driftssted, at et foretagende har et vist areal til rådighed, når arealet anvendes til forretningsmæssig virksomhed. Der kræves ikke nogen formel juridisk ret til at anvende arealet.

Af kommentar 6 til artikel 5 i OECD´s modeloverenskomst fremgår bl.a. at eftersom forretningsstedet skal være fast, følger det heraf, at et fast driftssted kun kan antages at foreligge, hvis forretningsstedet har en vis grad af varighed, det vil sige, at det er af ikke blot midlertidig karakter. Den praksis som medlemslandene har haft med hensyn til tidsperioden, har ikke været ensartet, men erfaringen har vist at et fast driftssted normalt ikke er anset for at foreligge, hvis en virksommed i et land er udøvet gennem et forretningssted, der blev opretholdt i mindre end seks måneder.

Det bemærkes i den anledning, at lejekontrakten er indgået i februar 2012 med mulighed for opsigelse pr. 30.9.2012. Der foreligger husleje betaling for perioden 1.10. – 31.12.2012 hvilket betyder, at lejemålet har en varighed over 6 måneder, og driftsstedet også ud fra en betragtning kan anses som fast.

Af kommentar 7 til artikel 5 i OECD´s modeloverenskomst fremgår bl.a at for at et forretningssted skal udgøre et fast driftssted, skal det foretagende, der benytter det, udøve sin virksomhed helt eller delvis gennem det. Virksomheden behøver ikke at være permanent i den forstand, at der ikke er nogen afbrydelse i driften, men driften skal udøves på regelmæssig måde.

Af kommentar 10 til artikel 5 i OECD´s modeloverenskomst fremgår bl.a. at et foretagendes virksomhed udføres hovedsagelig af driftsherren eller af personer, der er i et ansættelsesforhold til foretagendet (personale).

Talmæssig opgørelse af skattepligtig indkomst:

Såfremt der kan dokumenteres udgifter til lønninger og underentreprenører, kan der fratrækkes udgifter vedr. dette.”

Klagerens opfattelse

Der er nedlagt principal påstand om, at den skattepligtige indkomst skal nedsættes til 0 kr.

Subsidiært er der nedlagt påstand om, at resultat af fast driftssted skal nedsættes med fradragsberettigede udgifter.

Til støtte for de nedlagte påstande er anført følgende:

“I hereby appeal the above decision and move for a motion to dismiss it on the grounds of fouls legal basis and inadequate consideration of legally relevant facts.

Reasoning

1. In respect to applicable law,

The Republic of Poland and The Kingdom of Denmark entered into a convention on avoiding

double taxation and preventing tax evasion in respect to tax on income and assets on December the 6th 2001, hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”. According to Article 1 of the Convention it applies to persons who are residents of one or both Contracting States.

[person1] is running an enterprise in the form of solo proprietorship and she is dully incorporated in Poland.

Exhibit 1 – Exempt from Polish solo proprietorship registry stating [person1] is a registered solo proprietor under the company name of [virksomhed1]

Therefore the Convention applies to Mrs. [person1] and the laws of The Kingdom of Denmark cannot be applied omitting the Convention.

The fact not disputed between the parties is that [person1] is running a business enterprise. This constitutes Article 7 of the Convention applicable in the subject matter and allows us to proceed to reasoning on income tax.

2. In respect to income tax,

According Article 7 Section 1 of The Convention between The Republic of Poland and The Kingdom of Denmark on avoiding double taxation and preventing tax evasion in respect to tax on income and assets, hereinafter referred to as Convention,

The profits of an enterprise of a Contracting State shall be taxable only in that State unless the enterprise carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein. If the enterprise carries on business as aforesaid, the profits of the enterprise may be taxed in the other State but only so much of them as is attributable to that permanent establishment.

This provision states that primarily, enterprise is taxed in its own Contracting State. Taxing an enterprise in the Other Contracting State requires extraordinary circumstances, namely an enterprise must have a permanent establishment in the Other Contracting State. If this condition is met the enterprise can be taxed in the Other Contracting State but only to the extent the profits can be attributed to the permanent establishment located in the Other Contracting State. Therefore clearly taxing an enterprise in the Other Contracting State is an exemption from the general rule of being taxed in the Contracting State. In order to enforce taxation in Other Contracting State.

a. permanent establishment,

In the case at hand SKAT must prove that [virksomhed1] has a permanent establishment in The Kingdom of Denmark. Then SKAT is allowed to tax [virksomhed1] only on the profits it can attribute to the permanent establishment in The Kingdom of Denmark. SKAT fails on both obligations. Furthermore SKAT uses Danish tax law without applying the Convention to the subject matter which is a clear violation of the Convention itself. By trying to assume income is profit SKAT violates Article 7 Section 1 of the Convention. SKAT uses state law to calculate the amount of tax due. This creates a contradiction when trying to enforce the applicable provision of the Convention. SKAT calculates income tax and states that [virksomhed1] did not provide any proof of cost deductible against income where the Convention in the provision mentioned above clearly states that only attributable profits are taxed. Clearly SKAT is aware of the fact that the enterprise beard the costs of salaries among others and repeatedly asks for documents. This however is not a matter of courtesy of tax authority, this only shows that SKAT is acting in bad faith.

What we have here is SKAT trying to stretch its authority over Polish enterprise and force it to reincorporate in Denmark.

Premise leased by [virksomhed1] is not a permanent establishment. It is subject to exemption provided in Article 5 Section 5 subsection f) of the Convention:

“the maintenance of a fixed place of business solely for any combination of activities mentioned in subparagraphs a) to e), provided that the overall activity of the fixed place of business resulting from this combination is of a preparatory or auxiliary character.”

and therefore SKAT is not entiteled to exercise its tax jurisdiction over [virksomhed1]. No business is conducted from the premise. No clients are serviced at the premise. On page 4 of the decision SKAT cites Commentary 7 to Article 5 of OECD Model Convention which states that a business must be carried wholly or partly through the place of business in order to constitute a permanent establishment. In this case no part of business is carried through the leased premise.

The function of the fixed place in this case is purely auxiliary. The business of [person1] is providing services of qualified construction workers. The workers all come from Poland and they are all Polish citizens. One of the most important task of Mrs. [person1] is managing the administrative issues related to the employment and this can only be done in Poland.

b. where the business is managed from,

The business of [virksomhed1] is managed from Poland. No management work nor client service is conducted at the premise leased in Denmark. Mrs. [person1] has to travel to Denmark often in order to be able to provide services of her company in Denmark but the company is managed eksklusively from Poland. Mrs. [person1] would not travel between Poland and Denmark to the extent she dose if it was not necessary. She flew to Denmark and back to Poland 11 times in the second half of 2012. She would not have done that if it was possible to manage the business from Denmark.

Exhibit 2 – 11 plane tickets invoices for travels to Denmark.

Managing the enterprise cannot be done from Denmark as it requires personal attention to things like planning and executing marketing efforts, organizing employment, training employees, preparing procedures and improving company’s know-how planning the construction works all of which are done in Poland.

When you refer to [virksomhed1]s website you will find it never claimed to be based in Denmark. It is a construction company that operates in Poland but as most businesses it is happy to provide its services to customers in all of EU.

Exhibit 3 - [virksomhed1]s website http://[...].pl/

3. in respect to employment,

The issue of employee remuneration is dealt with in the Article 14 of the Convention. The provision reads:

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

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

a) the recipient is present in the other State for a period or periods not exceeding in the aggregate 183 days in any twelve month period commencing or ending in the fiscal year concerned, and

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

c) the remuneration is not borne by a permanent establishment which the employer has in the other State.

3. Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Article, remuneration derived in respect of an employment exercised aboard a ship or aircraft operated in international traffic, or aboard a boat engaged in inland waterways transport, may be taxed in the Contracting State in which the place of effective management of the enterprise is situated.

SKAT neglects the fact that in the pending case all three exemptions provided in subsections a) through c) of Section 2 Article 14 apply.

None of the employees of [virksomhed1] has spent more than 183 day in The Kingdom of Denmark in the prescribed period.

The remuneration is paid to the employees by [person1] who is a resident of The Republic of Poland and who is an eksklusive Polish citizen.

The remuneration is not paid to the employees by a permanent establishment which the employer has in Denmark, it is paid and dully accounted for by the only permanent establishment the employer has, which is located in [by1], Poland.

All employees are employed in Poland and all due taxes and benefits relevant to their employment are paid in Poland. The workers do not live in Denmark and they do not fall under Denmark tax jurisdiction. All of the Employees are paid in Poland with applicable extras for working abroad.

4. Expanses deductible against income tax,

Contrary to SKAT’s position on the costs deductible against income tax were far in exes of the 119.284,00 DKK it recognized. According to the books and followed by due filling with Polish Inland Revenue the expenses in the period 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2012 amounted to 1.357.484,64 zl, further deductions were applicable due to expenses beard in previous accounting periods in the amount of 218.645,83 zl. Therefore duly calculated taxable income amounted to 57.193,52 zl

Exhibit 4 – Accounting statement for the period 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2012

Summary

Business activity of [person1] is a model example of a functioning concept of a Single Market for Services Principal as prescribed in the EU Treaty. It is a Polish enterprise, operating in Poland and employing Polish workforce. This is the reason why it can provide high quality service to customers in Denmark while remaining competitive.

What SKAT is trying to do is to force the enterprise to move to Denmark and along with it, force all the people who work there to move to Denmark or to enforce a double taxation on both the enterprise and its employees. Neither is allowed and should face a firm response from the applet tax authority.”

Klagerens bemærkninger af 26. september 2017 til Skatteankestyrelsens sagsfremstilling

“In present taxation proceeding I sent a lot of important exhibits. In this way I proved that I am Polish tax payer. My tax obligation has been fulfilled in Poland. SKAT did not respond to this exhibits. I showed that I want to cooperate with tax authority. Unfortunately SKAT did not contact me. I have the suspicion that tax proceedings were ended, but tax authority did not notify me.

In spite of the above-mentioned circumstances, I present my position once again:

1. [virksomhed2] is registered in Poland. Business address is: ul. [adresse2] 17 /13, 43-316 [by10]. Since May 2012 I have leased flat located at the address [adresse1], This flat I have rented to have a place to sleep when I visited the Kingdom of Denmark. I have to stress that this flat was used by me only when I was coming to the Kingdom of Denmark. Sometimes employees slept there. Normally, I manage business from Poland, where I live and where my family lives.

I renewed lease agreement because I was satisfied with it. The flat is in convenient location. Furthermore, my employees have known this place well. My headquarters was in Poland where I had registered my business.

In my appeal of December 16th, 2013 I presented 11 plane tickets for travels to Denmark. It was proof that I normally lived in Poland, but I occasionally flew to The Kingdom of Denmark. If I had permanent lived in Denmark, I would not have flown to Den mark. It costed me a lot of money, so it would be unprofitable. Tax authority should consider this proof.

Tax authority could ask Polish tax administration to check the headquarters in Poland. Unfortunately tax authority probably has not done anything. It is the proof that tax authority did not do everything it could to thoroughly explain my case.

(...)

So premise leased by business was exempt in Article 5 section 5 subsection f). This flat had only auxiliary character for business. I could conduct business without this office, but it was easier for me. So it was not necessary. lwona [virksomhed2] has exported services from Poland to The Kingdom of Denmark.

European Court of Justice in case C-414/06 adjudicated that: “Indeed, and as is shown by the provisions of the Convention, a permanent establishment constitutes, under tax convention law, an autonomous entity (...) That definition of a permanent establishment as an autonomous fiscal entity is consonant with international legal practice as reflected in the model tax convention drawn up by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD}, in particular Articles 5 and 7 thereof." My business is not autonomous fiscal entity, so it cannot be defined as permanent establishment.

Commentary on Article 5 of Model Tax Convention on income and on Capital 2014 explains about permanent establishment: "This definition, therefore, contains the following conditions:

- the existence of a place of business, i.e. a facility such as premises or, in certain instances, machinery or equipment;

- this place of business must be fixed, i.e. it must be established at a distinct place with a certain degree of permanence;

- the carrying on of the business of the enterprise through this fixed place of business. This means usually that persons who, in one way or another, are dependent on the enterprise (personnel) conduct the business of the enterprise in the State in which the fixed place is situated."

All of this conditions have to be fulfilled in order for the place of business to be deemed as permanent. In either case, business cannot be recognized as permanent establishment. Tax authority did not prove that all of the above enlisted conditions were met in this case.

2. I paid for internet in the flat in the Kingdom of Denmark, because nowadays business cannot be conducted without access to the internet which constitutes access to long distance menace of communications. Which were absolutely necessary for me since I was running a business in Poland that provided services all over EU. What is more, internet is not big expenditure that hardly constitutes anything.

3. I used polish website: http://[...].pl/ where I put Danish phone number. Website is in Polish, English and French. It is normal for business which is conducted in all European Union. What is important on this website is no information in Danish was provided. It is proof that business did not provide services only in The Kingdom of Denmark, but for all European Union.

4. Tax authority did not check office opening hours. In case when the opinion of tax authority is right, office should have been opened from Monday till Friday. This was not the case here. I operated in Denmark only when I was coming to the Kingdom of Denmark from Poland. Unfortunately tax authority did not process all the evidence I provided nor did it process all other evidence at its disposal. It may have negative effect for all taxation proceeding in my case. What is more, burden of proof was on the tax authority and not on me.

5. I opened account for my business at [finans1], because it was easier for Danish customers to make payments this way, they didn't need to deal with different bank account format nor swift numbers when paying for building services. In European Union business can open an account in any country. It is fully legal, so tax authority cannot take it against me.

6. Most of my total revenue was from The Kingdom of Den mark, because price of building services is higher in The Kingdom of Denmark, than in Poland. In The Kingdom of Denmark I did fewer services than in Poland, but the revenue was higher. What is more in 2012 Poland was in economic crisis. It was the reason why my large part of my revenue originated from Denmark.

7. Tax authority in previous taxation proceeding basis on four arguments which are as follows:

a) Tax payer leased a flat in The Kingdom of Denmark;

b) Tax payer paid for internet in this flat;

c) Tax payer opened account at [finans1];

d) Most of revenue is from The Kingdom of Den mark.

All of them were disprove in my previous letters.

It needs to be highlighted that business lwona [virksomhed1] was managed from Poland. All employees come from Poland and were Polish citizens. I have done recruitment work only in Poland. From Poland I organized services in The Kingdom of Denmark. In Poland I planned and executed marketing efforts, trained employees, prepared procedures and improved company's know-how. Only when it was necessary I flew to Denmark. In the second half of 2012 I flew to Denmark and back to Poland 11 times. If I conducted business in The Kingdom of Denmark, I would not fly so often.

As I wrote thereover, all employees were Polish citizens. I paid remunerations and all benefits in Poland. Employees did not live in Denmark and they paid all taxes in Poland. It is important for interpretation Article 14 section 2 of the Convention, which states:,,Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1, remuneration derived by a resident of a Contracting State in respect of an employment exercised in the other Contracting State shall be taxable only in the firstmentioned State if:

a) the recipient is present in the other State for a period or periods not exceeding in the aggregate 183 days in any twelve month period commencing or ending in the fiscal year concerned, and

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

c)the remuneration is not borne by a permanent establishment which the employer has in the other State."

Employees earned in Poland, that alone excludes the possibility that I had permanent establishment in Denmark.

Tax authority neglected expenses deductible against income tax which I had presented in my Appeal. This attitude should be provided for tax authority. I sent my accounting statement for the period 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2012 with my appeal. Tax authority has all my documents which are necessary to calculated all possible taxes. Expenses were accurately presented in my previous letters.

Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides that: "Within theframework of the provisions set out below, restrictions on freedom to provide services within the Union shall be prohibited in respect of nationals of Member States who are established in a Member State other than that of the person for whom the services are intended." I exported services from Poland to The Kingdom of Denmark. European law prohibits any restrictions to provide services. It is one of the most important rules in European Union. Freedom to provide services makes it possible to export services to any member of European Union. Tax authority should recognize this premise in my case.

Summary

Please contact me if the taxation proceeding is still conducted. This case is really important for my business. Tax authority should inform me about all activities in this case. I want to cooperate with tax authority, but Danish tax administration did not send me any information about my case. Few years elapsed since last contact. In my opinion tax authority infringe deadline to finish this case.

In my previous letters I presented my attitudes which are as follows:

1) I leased a flat in Denmark, because I needed place where could I stay when I was coming to Denmark. It was comfortable for me and for employees. It was cheaper than renting a hotel. Possibility of internet connection is nowadays normal thing. I conducted business in all European Union, so internet connection was necessary. I presented 11 plane tickets invoices as a proof that normally I lived in Poland, but only when it was necessary I flew to The Kingdom of Denmark.

2) I organized business from headquarters in Poland. Here in Poland, I mainly contacted with my customers. Also in Poland I organized employment, because all of employees are Polish citizen. I paid them also in Poland.

3) Tax authority did not conduct all necessary evidence. For example tax authority could ask polish tax administration about business headquarters in Poland. Moreover, tax authority could checked how often business office in Denmark was opened. Tax authority could also hear the employees as witnesses. Tax authority did not inform me about these activities.

4) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ensures freedom to provide services in all countries of European Union.”

Landsskatterettens afgørelse

Skattepligt

Personer, der ikke er omfattet af fuld skattepligt efter kildeskattelovens § 1, og som udøver et erhverv med fast driftssted her i landet, er begrænset skattepligtige til Danmark. Det fremgår af kildeskattelovens § 2, stk. 1, nr. 4.

Skattepligten omfatter udøvelse af erhverv med fast driftssted her i landet eller deltagelse i en erhvervsvirksomhed med fast driftssted her.

Ved definitionen, fortolkningen og afgrænsningen af udtrykket ”fast driftssted” anvendes OECD´s modeloverenskomst artikel 5 med kommentarer. Det fremgår af cirkulære nr. 135 af 4. november 1988 om opkrævning af indkomst- og formueskat efter kildeskatteloven, punkt 12, litra d.

Klageren har siden den 17. februar 2012 rådet over en erhvervslejlighed beliggende i [by2].

Ifølge lejeaftalen skulle lejligheden anvendes som kontor for klagerens virksomhed. Klageren har oplyst, at hun har anvendt lejligheden under ophold i Danmark, og virksomheden har således også afholdt udgifter til internet på adressen.

Klageren har ikke oplyst om sit arbejde under ophold i lejligheden, og det er dermed ikke godtgjort, at klageren, som ejer af virksomheden, alene har udført arbejde af hjælpende eller forberedende karakter fra adressen, eller at lejligheden alene er anvendt til overnatning i strid med lejeaftalens formål.

På det foreliggende grundlag anses klageren for at have udøvet virksomhed helt eller delvist fra erhvervslejemålet i Kgs. [by2] over en periode på mere end 6 måneder.

Klageren er således begrænset skattepligtig til Danmark efter kildeskattelovens § 2, stk. 1, nr. 4.

Da klageren samtidig er fuldt skattepligtig til Polen, afgøres beskatningsretten til det resultat af virksomhed, som kan henføres til det faste driftssted i Danmark, efter dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomsten af 6. december 2001 mellem Danmark og Polen, artikel 7. Efter denne bestemmelse tillægges Danmark beskatningsretten.

Resultat af fast driftssted

Skattepligtige kan fradrage driftsomkostninger, dvs. de udgifter, der i årets løb er anvendt til at erhverve, sikre og vedligeholde indkomsten. Det fremgår af statsskattelovens § 6, stk. 1, litra a.

Det påhviler den skattepligtige at sandsynliggøre, at han eller hun har haft udgifter omfattet af statsskattelovens § 6, herunder udgifter til løn eller fremmed arbejdskraft.

[person1] har oplyst, at virksomheden har beskæftiget i alt 25 personer i Danmark i 2012.

Personer, der erhverver indkomst i form af vederlag for personligt arbejde i tjenesteforhold (lønmodtagere) udført her i landet, er efter interne danske regler begrænset skattepligtige heraf i medfør af kildeskattelovens § 2, stk. 1, nr. 1. Det forhold, at Danmark kan være afskåret fra at beskatte indkomsten i medfør af dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomsten mellem Danmark og Polen, undtager ikke virksomheden fra at skulle dokumentere udgiften.

Af Højesterets dom af 23. februar 2011, offentliggjort som SKM2011.209, følger, at SKAT er berettiget til alene at anerkende udgifter til løn i det omfang, de pågældende medarbejdere kan identificeres.

Virksomheden har ikke trods opfordring fra SKAT oplyst navne på ansatte.

Virksomheden har endvidere ikke dokumenteret, at der er sket levering af eller betaling for fremmed arbejdskraft. Der er ikke fremlagt kontrakter eller aftaler med underleverandører, som kan angive omfanget af ydelserne eller leveringsstedet, jf. således også Østre Landsrets dom af 14. december 2015, SKM2016.27. En bankkontoudskrift dokumenterer ikke, at der er tale om en udgifter vedrørende det faste driftssted.

Idet klageren ikke har dokumenteret yderligere udgifter, stadfæstes SKATs afgørelse.