Elisabetta Pfister
One Uber as a digital business location?
Based on the concrete example of Uber , the aim of this paper is to find answers to the following questions: Can users play a decisive role in the value creation of a company in the digital economy? And if so, how can they be used to address the challenges of taxation in the digital economy?
QUICK READ
Nowadays, services can be offered and obtained worldwide with almost no physical presence on site. This makes the digital economy a challenge for international tax law, whose standards provide for taxation of a company's profits at the place where they are earned. As a rule, foreign economic transactions resulting from cross-border business activities may only be taxed if there is a close domestic link in the form of a physical permanent establishment. This is in tension with the business models of the digital economy, which do not necessarily require a physical presence. The question therefore arises whether the almost 100-year-old taxation and linkage principles still adequately capture digital models.
The users, their personal data, the influx and use of data can be considered as new points of contact. Can they really play a decisive role in the value creation of a company in the digital economy? And if so, how can they be used to meet the challenges associated with the taxation of the digital economy? Based on the concrete example ofUber , the aim of this paper is to find answers to these questions.
Please log in to read the article or to download it as PDF...
JavaScript is not activated in your web browser
Please activate JavaScript so that you can read the contents of zsis) in full text.
Here you will find instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your web browser. If you have any questions, please feel free to write to hello@zsis.ch.
1. Introduction
We all know it: a dinner with friends in a restaurant in the city of Zurich, a good glass of wine, a little chat ... and inevitably we miss the last tram home. What next? Uber Order a ride with us, of course.
Uber serves as an intermediary for journeys by private individuals. The business model of Uber distinguishes itself by a special feature: Uber-services can only be obtained via an app. The user does not need to know his location or carry money with him. All he has to do is download the corresponding app, open it and register, find a free driver, wait for him, get into his car and drive off. Finally, in order to Uber ensure the reliability of, both the user and the driver must evaluate the quality of the previous trip.01 belongs to a multitude of new, Internet-based business models that have emerged from digitisation: Uber is an example of the so-called Sharing Economy.02
But what do the Sharing Economy have Uber to do with (inter)national tax law?
Digitisation and the unstoppable progress of information and communication technology (ICT)03 have a strong impact on all areas of everyday life and consequently on the economy. Digitisation has brought about a major change in the traditional economy, which in turn has led to the emergence of new business models. These business models are characterised in particular by mobility and intangible assets. Services can be offered and obtained worldwide at low cost and with almost no physical presence on site.04 In other words, digitisation exerts a strong influence on how, where and by whom the added value of a company is generated. This makes the digital economy a challenge for international tax law, whose standards de lege lata stipulate that a company's profits should in principle be taxed at the place where they are generated.05 In order to determine the place where income is generated, the main criterion nowadays is the physical presence of a company in a state. As a rule, foreign economic transactions resulting from cross-border business activities may only be taxed if there is a close domestic link in the form of a physical permanent establishment.06 This is in tension with the business models of the digital economy, whose activities do not necessarily require a physical presence in a state. Consequently, the question arises whether the almost 100-year-old taxation and linkage principles are still proportionate and up-to-date and whether they do justice to the taxation of new digital business models such as those ofUber
The users, their personal data, the influx and use of data can be considered as new connecting factors. Can they really play a decisive role in the value creation of a company in the digital economy? And if so, how can they be used to meet the challenges of taxing the digital economy? Based on the concrete example ofUber , the aim of this paper is to find answers to these questions.
2. digitization ...
2.1 The Sharing Economy business model
Teaching and practice do not agree on the concept of the Sharing Economy. In addition to the term Sharing Economy, expressions such as "economy of sharing", "collaborative economy", "peer-to-peer economy" or "demand economy" are common. In general, however, the Sharing Economy can be understood as the collective sharing, exchange, lending, renting or giving of goods and services. At the core of the Sharing Economy are the digital switching platforms that offer all kinds of goods and services and are open to all Internet-enabled subscribers.07
The Sharing Economy comprises three basic platform models: the so-called consumer-to-consumer (C2C) model, which deals with business between users; the business-to-business (B2B) model, which focuses on trade between companies; and the business-to-consumer (B2C) model, which deals with bartering between suppliers and consumers.08
Furthermore, there are also differences between these intermediary platforms with regard to the remuneration of the goods and services offered. While intermediary platforms such as Airbnb09 accommodation against payment, other providers such as CouchSurfing10 they are available free of charge or only for a small compensation. Differences are also apparent with regard to the financing of the switching platforms themselves. Depending on the orientation of the goods and services offered, the use of these intermediary platforms can be free of charge or against payment. Whereas the free switching platforms are financed by advertising, users of paid switching platforms generally pay flat monthly fees.11
As the next section will show, the Sharing Economy represents an economic form that can only (continue to) exist through the users and their personal data.
2.2 The Digital Economy as a Participating Economy
The digital economy is an economy that puts user collaboration first.12 It is about a participatory economy, which goes further than an "ecosystem enabling a continuous, symbiotic and reciprocal relationship of value exchange".13 ...to be labeled.14 This is also demonstrated by the example of Uber. As explained above, a user must first download the appropriate app, open it and log in to order a ride. After each ride, the user must also rate its quality.15 By his behaviour, the user (un)consciously Uber surrenders his personal data. This data represents an enormous potential forUber : Uber collects the data, analyses it and uses it to offer better (services) and consequently generate income and profits.
User participation is of particular importance not only for the Sharing Economy but for all business models of the digital economy. Facebook and Google also bear witness to this. Facebook and Google are among the companies in the digital economy that generate their main revenues from online advertising and the implementation of targeted marketing concepts.16 Facebook and Google are platform companies that offer users a free and digitalised service and at the same time provide rentable advertising space.17 By collecting and evaluating user data, Facebook and Google can tailor advertising to the users concerned and thus generate profits.18 As in the case of the business model ofUber , users thus participate in the business activities as well as in the generation of profits of Facebook and Google by handing over their data.
These examples show that users provide a part of the business activity with the transfer of their data. It follows that users play a crucial role in the value creation of a company in the digital economy, so that they can even be considered part of the value chain.19
3. ... and law
3.1 The fiscal challenge
The new business models are characterised by the mobility and flexibility of both companies and users and by the central importance of intangible assets (especially in the form of user data). These characteristics also make the digital economy a challenge for (inter)national tax law. Mobility, flexibility and intangible assets have made economic processes so dynamic that the traditional tax-law links - such as the link to the physical presence of a company in a country - no longer seem up-to-date. Companies operating online can carry out their business activities and generate income in a country without being physically present there. The lack of physical presence means that companies in the digital economy can generate income in a country without being subject to taxation there.20
The challenge in terms of tax law is now to find more modern tax law points of reference that can adequately replace or supplement the physical presence that has been pushed into the background. It would be conceivable in the future to use this as a basis for determining the place of taxation for users and the associated supply of their data. The aim of the next sections is to test this hypothesis.
3.2 Previous disputes and possible solutions
3.2.1 The OECD proposals
3.2.1.1 The Ottawa Ministerial Conference
The first discussion of the fiscal challenges for the taxation of the digital economy dates back to the 1998 Ottawa Ministerial Conference.21 As a result, the final report "Electronic Commerce: Taxation Framework Conditions" was published.22 This report stressed that the principles applicable to the taxation of the traditional economy (neutrality, efficiency, reliability and comprehensibility, effectiveness and fairness, flexibility) should also apply to the taxation of e-commerce.23 He also stated that an adjustment of the existing taxation principles would only be possible if the tax sovereignty of the states and a fair distribution of the tax burden were preserved.24 These principles still represent an essential reference point in the context of the discussion on how to meet the challenges of taxation in the digital economy.25 Based on this final report, various proposals for solutions to meet the challenges of the digital economy have been published over the years.26
3.2.1.2 The BEPS project
In order to combat profit reduction and profit shifting in countries with low or no taxation, the OECD and the G20 have been working on the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project (BEPS project) since 2013. Among other things, the BEPS project addresses the challenges for taxation in the digital economy in BEPS Action Point 1.27
The final report on Action Point 1 was published in October 2015,28 the introduction of a withholding tax and a consumer tax on digital transactions29 also provided for the creation of a new tax link in the form of a substantial digital presence and, consequently, the existence of a digital permanent establishment.30 This approach was intended to allow the taxation of companies in the digital economy that carry out their business activities in a State without having a physical presence there.31 The determination of the significant digital presence was envisaged on the basis of turnover factors, digital factors and/or user-related factors.32 Since the OECD member states could not agree on this, no concrete implementation took place at that time.33
Due to the complexity of the issue, the OECD was asked by the G20 Summit 2017 to continue to look for new solutions to address the challenges of taxing the digital economy.34 Subsequently, in spring 2018, the OECD published the interim report "Tax Challenge Arising from Digitalisation - Interim Report 2018".35 With regard to the proposal to create a new starting point with the element 'essential digital presence', the interim report concludes that users would be a useful reference criterion for identifying essential digital presence, as they would contribute to the value added of a company by providing their data.36 However, there are significant differences of opinion between the countries involved in the BEPS project regarding the role of
users and their data in the value creation of a company.37 Nevertheless, the search for a concrete and definitive solution continues. The final report is planned for 2020.38
3.2.2 The EU Commission's proposal
In spring 2018, the EU Commission published a proposal for a directive laying down rules for company taxation of a significant digital presence.39 In particular, this proposal provides for taxation of the profits of a company in the digital economy in the State where they are generated without the physical presence of that company.40
Basically, the EU Commission is proposing to expand the definition of a permanent establishment and thus to create a new point of contact in the form of a significant digital presence.41 According to the proposal of the EU Commission, the existence of a significant digital presence should be determined on the basis of the income from the provision of digital services or the number of users or the number of contracts concluded. According to the EU Commission, the application of alternative criteria is intended to cover all business models of the digital economy. These criteria are also intended to emphasize that the business models of companies operating online are based on the users and, in particular, on the value added generated by the users. Furthermore, such a link should ensure equal treatment of all EU member states regardless of their size, exclude minor cases and not discriminate against start-up companies from a tax law perspective.42
According to the proposed directive, a significant digital presence is deemed to exist if the turnover of a digital business in the place concerned exceeds EUR 7 million, or if the number of users exceeds 100,000, or if the number of business contracts for the digital services offered exceeds 3,000. 43 In particular, the central importance of the user in determining a significant digital presence should be emphasised.44
A concrete timetable for the entry into force of the Directive on taxation of the digital economy has not yet been set.45
3.3 Tax assessment based on the example of Uber
3.3.1 The concept of permanent establishments - an overview
At the international level, the concept of a permanent establishment is anchored in the OECD Model Convention on Income Taxation (OECD-MA) and in the corresponding double taxation agreements (DTAs). The concept of a permanent establishment is of decisive importance for internationally active companies: it represents the point of departure for the allocation of the right of taxation between competing states and is therefore one of the decisive prerequisites for the taxation of income from cross-border business activities.46 Thus, a State may tax the profits of an enterprise resident in another State only if the enterprise concerned carries on its business in that State through a permanent establishment situated there (Art. 7 OECD-MA).47 A permanent establishment within the meaning of the Convention is any fixed place of business through which the business of an enterprise is wholly or partly carried on (Art. 5 para. 1 OECD-MA).
De lege lata is in favour of the existence of a permanent establishment, with a few exceptions48 - both the permanent reference to the earth's surface and the physical presence are assumed.49 These prerequisites are in tension with the characteristics of the digital economy: mobility, flexibility and the central importance of intangible assets.50 It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the concept of the permanent establishment is no longer up-to-date and adequate. This almost 100-year-old concept has not kept pace with the rapid development of digitalisation. Nevertheless, as explained above, this term, in an adapted form, represents one of the possible solutions for the taxation of the business models of the digital economy, so that international tax law does not need a profound paradigm shift. One of the reasons is that the permanent establishment is a special form of the source principle.51 This principle stipulates that income must be taxed primarily or exclusively in the state in whose territory it is generated. The origin of the income is therefore decisive.52 Digitisation has led to a softening of national borders, so that taxation at source is the most appropriate solution to meet the challenges of the digital economy. This is exactly what would be achieved by an adapted concept of the permanent establishment.
3.3.2 A Uber as digital permanent establishment?
3.3.2.1 Introduction
The service provided by Uber the company was already in existence before digitisation. Taxi and transport companies also existed before that. What is new about the service Uber offered by the company is that the users can no longer be considered only as consumers, but also as their producers. The production of products and the provision of services is no longer one-sided, but rather two-way, with a division of labour between the manufacturers and the users. It can therefore be said that the users are (have become) "prosumers".
3.3.2.2 The term "prosumer
The term "prosumer" goes back to Alvin Toffler, who first used this expression in his 1980 work "The Third Wave".53 The term "prosumer" refers to those persons who are both producers and consumers of the products they use.54
3.3.2.3 The users as "prosumers
Nowadays, the concept of "prosumers" is applied especially in the field of energy. One example of this is the owners of solar plants, who are both energy producers and energy consumers: They can obtain energy and also produce and deliver it to the grid via the solar system. In the course of the energy turnaround, the "prosumers" are thus seen as the supporting pillar of energy value creation.55 The situation is similar with the business models of the digital economy.
The example of online shops shows this similarity particularly clearly. At first glance it seems that there is no difference between a physical shop and an online shop. As with a physical shop, online shops offer users their products, services and a contract. The online shops differ, however, in that the users are simultaneously buyers and sellers or manufacturers and consumers. The products and services are selected and purchased by the users themselves and the users must also arrange payment themselves. Let's look at the example of Amazon56 more details: If a user wants to buy a book, he or she must first search for and select it on the corresponding search mask. In order to find out further whether the book is worth reading, the user can rely on the ratings already given by other users, who thus take on the role of the seller. Finally, payment is made by credit card and is therefore handled by the user himself. At the end of the (sales) process, not only the user has an advantage - the book - but also Amazon. Amazon earns money through the sale of books and through the personal data of the users, by analysing and using the data to offer better (services) and thus generate income and profits.
Another "prosumer" example is the online dating platforms such as Parship or Elite Partner.57 At first glance, it appears that the online dating agency suggests possible future partners. However, this is not true: this proposal is merely the appropriate result of the self-assessment which is automatically generated on the basis of the user's own information. In other words, this proposal is the result of the information provided by users and the transfer of their data.58 In order to find a partner, a user must first submit his or her personal data to the online dating platform. In this way he offers himself "on the market". The user is thus the producer or manufacturer of the offered service, because he also offers himself. If the user finally wants to get to know a suitable partner, he has to take out a paid subscription. By taking out a subscription, the user is considered the acquirer or consumer of the offered service, i.e. of another user who also offers himself as a possible partner. Both examples show that users can be regarded as "prosumers" of the digital economy.
The above also applies to the business model of Uber. The users are both producers and consumers of the service offered by contributing to logistics, driving and control. As mentioned above, users do not need to know their location.59 Nevertheless, they play a decisive role in the logistics and planning of the journey from Uber. By using the corresponding app, a user can first be consciously geolocated. In order to find a free trip, he must then enter the desired destination. In this way, the potential driver already knows in advance the journey to be made. Accordingly, he or she can reject or accept the trip order. The driver's behaviour is thus influenced by the user's behaviour. Users must also evaluate the quality of the trip they have taken. This evaluation serves to ensure the reliability of Uber and consequently the (continued) existence of the company. Through this evaluation, the users Uber control and monitor the success of the company.
Against the background of what has been said, the thesis must finally be put forward that the users acting as "prosumers" at a certain location form a tax-law point of reference in the form of a substantial digital presence, especially since they are significantly involved in the generation and generation of income for digital entrepreneurs.
3.3.2.4 Tax consequences
If the tax law were now to be linked to the place where the "prosumers" are active, this could lead to the creation of a digital permanent establishment. However, it must be noted that the value of a business flowing from such a substantial digital presence is difficult to determine. One of the reasons for this is the lack of observable, measurable and comparable values and consequently the lack of corresponding market prices. In addition, the business models of the digital economy are too diverse to be typified in a single appropriate form.60
However, as explained above, international tax law does not need a profound paradigm shift.61 With the necessary adaptations to the particularities of digitisation and to the fact that users are "prosumers", the concept of the permanent establishment can in future also be used in the taxation of the business models of the digital economy. In my opinion, in order to develop a definition of a permanent establishment which is able to meet the needs and requirements of the digital economy, threshold values must be set which take into account the users and their role in the creation of value. Although still associated with various difficulties (such as problems of profit allocation or double taxation), the criteria developed by the EU Commission can provide a suitable starting point.62
4. final thoughts
The new technologies represent a real test for existing international tax law. Therefore, proposals and a rapid implementation strategy seem all the more important for a successful and efficient further development of this area of tax law.
In this respect, the proposition that users acting as 'prosumers' in a given location can provide a useful starting point in the form of a substantial digital presence, can be a valuable starting point to support both fiscal and economic change. This would lead to a paradigm shift in that a physical presence in the country concerned would no longer be necessary for the affirmative establishment. This paradigm shift can be well justified because users no longer play a purely passive role in the digital economy, but take an essential and active part in the process of generating income.
.
01 For the whole https://www.uber.com/de-CH/blog/basel/uber-in-der-schweiz/ (found online on 31 October 2018).
02 For more details on the functioning and features of the Sharing Economy, see chapter 2.1.
03 Information and communication technology includes all technologies that serve to inform, collect, store and transmit information; see Maria Megale, ICT (Information and Communication Technology), in: Maria Megale (eds.), ICT e diritto nella società dell'informazione, Torino 2012, 39 ff., p. 40.
04 OECD, Addressing the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy, Action 1 - 2015 Final Report, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, 2015, found online on 31 October 2018 at: https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/addressing-the-tax-challenges-of-the-digital-economy-action-1-2015-final-report_9789264241046-en#page1 (cited Final Report - Action 1).
05 Moris Lehner in: Vogel Klaus/Lehner Moris (eds.), Double Taxation Convention of the Federal Republic of Germany in the Field of Taxes on Income and Capital: Commentary on the Basis of the Model Conventions, 6th Ed., Munich 2015, Reason. DBA DE N 33 ff (cited DBAK editor).
06 For the full text Marc Vogelsang, Der Begriff der Betriebsstätte im schweizerischen und internationalen Steuerrecht, Zürich 2015, p. 1 (quoted by Vogelsang).
07 For example, Deloitte Schweiz, The sharing economy: Share and make money, How does Switzerland compare?, p. 5, found online on 31 October 2018 at: https://www2.deloitte.com/ch/en/pages/consumer-business/articles/the-sharing-economy.html (quoted Sharing Economy); Michael Haese, Current term: Sharing Economy, Wissenschaftliche Dienste des Deutschen Bundestages 2015, found online on 31 October 2018 at: https://www.bundestag.de/blob/377486/21fc4300787540e3881dbc65797b2cde/sharing-economy-data.pdf, passim; also Final Report - Action 1, p. 45.
08 Monopolies Commission Germany, Competition 2016, twenty-first main opinion of the Monopolies Commission pursuant to Section 44 (1) sentence 1 GWB, margin no. 1182, found online on 31 October 2018 at: https://www.monopolkommission.de/index.php/de/them/energie/88 (cited Monopolies Commission Germany).
09 Airbnb is an intermediary platform that offers the booking and rental of private accommodation (for more details see https://www.airbnb.ch/how-it- works, found online on 31 October 2018).
10 Like Airbnb, Couchsurfing offers the booking and rental of private accommodation (for more details see https://www.couchsurfing.com/#how-it-works, found online on 31 October 2018).
11 Whole Monopolies Commission Germany, margin no. 1184 f.
12 Including Pierre Collin/Nicolas Colin, Mission d'expertise sur la fiscalité de l'économie numérique: Rapport au Ministre de l'économie et des finances, au Ministre du redressement productif, au Ministre délégué chargé du budget et à la Ministre déléguée chargée des petites et moyennes entreprises, de l'innovation et de l'économie numérique, 2013, p. 49, found online on 31 October 2018 at: https://www.economie.gouv.fr/files/rapport-fiscalite-du-numerique_2013.pdf.
13 BEPS Monitoring Group, Address the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy, p. 3, found online on 31 October 2018 at: https://bepsmonitoringgroup.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/bmg-digital-economy-submission-2014.pdf
14 Jinyan Li, Protecting the Tax Base in a Digital Economy, Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper No. 78, p. 497, found online on 19 June 2020 at: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/scholarly_works/2672/.
15 For more on this, see Chapter 1.
16 Johannes Becker, Seminar C: Taxation of a digital presence, IStR 2018, p. 635 (cited Becker, IStR 2018); Ralf Kaumanns/Veit Siegenheim, Apple. Google. Facebook. Amazon. Strategies and Business Models simply to the point, Düsseldorf 2012, p. 20 ff., found online on 31 October 2018 at: https://www.medienanstalt-nrw.de/fileadmin/user_upload/lfm-nrw/Foerderung/Digitalisierung/Digitalkompakt/DK_05_Apple_Google_Facebook_Amazon.pdf (cited Kaumanns/Siegenheim); also Final Report - Action 1, p. 62 f.
17 Becker, IStR 2018, p. 635; Kaumanns/Siegenheim, p. 20 et seq.; also Final Report - Action 1, p. 62 et seq.
18 Becker, IStR 2018, p. 635; Kaumanns/Siegenheim, p. 20 et seq.; also Final Report - Action 1, p. 62 et seq.
19 The fact that the digital economy is a participatory economy is of crucial importance for the assessment of the role of users and their personal data in the taxation of the digital economy contained in Part 3.3.
20 On the whole, inter alia Becker, IStR 2018, p. 635; Heinz-Klaus Kroppen/Susann van der Ham, Die digitale Betriebsstätte: Value-added taxation in the age of digitalisation, IWB 2018, S. 336 f. (cited Kroppen/van der Ham, IWB 2018); Final Report - Action 1, p. 3 and p. 101; Christoph Wicher, The Taxation of the Digital Economy: Discussions at EU level
move into the next round, IWB 2018, p. 576 (cited Wicher, IWB 2018).
21 OECD, Addressing the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, 2014, p. 25 ff., found online on 31 October 2018 at: https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/addressing-the-tax-challenges-of-the-digital-economy_9789264218789-en#page1 (cited Digital Economy); Final Report - Action 1, p. 17 f. and p. 20; Wicher, IWB 2018, p. 576.
22 OECD, Electronic Commerce: Taxation Framework Conditions, A Report by the Committee on Fiscal Affairs, Ottawa 1998, https://www.oecd.org/ctp/consumption/1923256.pdf, passim (cited Ottawa).
23 Ottawa, p. 3.
24 OECD, Taxation and Electronic Commerce, Implementing the Ottawa Taxation Framework Conditions, Paris 2001, p. 228, found online on 31 October 2018 at: https://www.oecd.org/tax/consumption/Taxation%20and%20eCommerce%202001.pdf.
25 Digital Economy, p. 24; Final Report - Action p. 1, p. 17, p. 20 and p. 152.
26 The OECD has, for example, proposed the introduction of a withholding tax on digital transactions and the introduction of a consumption tax (so-called "equalisation levy") (for the full Final Report - Action 1, p. 136 ff.; OECD, Explanatory Statement, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, 2014, p. 8, found online on 31 October 2018 at: https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/beps-project-explanatory-statement_9789264263437-en#page1 (cited Explanatory Statement).
27 For more details, see the official website of the BEPS project, found online on 31 October 2018 at: http://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/.
28 Final Report - Action 1, passim.
29 For the full Final Report - Action 1, p. 136 ff; Explanatory Statement, p. 8.
30 Final Report - Action 1, p. 107 ff.
31 Daniel Fehling, The tax challenges of the digital economy: The OECD report on Measure 1 of the BEPS Action Plan, IStR 2015, p. 799 (cited Fehling, IStR 2015).
32 Final Report - Action 1, p. 107 et seq.; Fehling, IStR 2015, p. 799; Matthias Mitterlehner, Profit shifting and tax avoidance in the digital economy, SWI 2016, p. 62.
33 Wicher, IWB 2018, p. 577.
34 OECD, Brief on the Tax Challenges Arising from Digitalisation: Interim Report 2018, 2018, p. 2, found online on 31 October 2018 at: https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/brief-on-the-tax-challenges-arising-from-digitalisation-interim-report-2018.pdf.
35 OECD, Tax Challenges Arising from Digitisation - Interim Report 2018: Inclusive Frame- work on BEPS, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, Paris 2018, passim, found online on 31 October 2018 at: https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/tax-challenges-arising-from-digitalisation-interim-report_9789264293083-en#page1 (cited Interim Report 2018)
36 Interim Report 2018, Chapters 2 and 5.
37 For more details see Interim Report 2018, Chapter 2; Sebastian Benz/Julian Böhmer, Taxation of Digital Entrepreneurs, The OECD Interim Report 2018 and the Draft EU Package of Measures, DB 2018, p. 1234; Kroppen/van der Ham, IWB 2018, p. 335.
38 For more details, see Interim Report 2018, Chapter 5.
39 EU Commission, Taxation: Commission sets out path towards fair taxation of the Digital Economy, press release of September 21, 2017, passim, found online on October 31, 2018 at: https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/32599/taxation-commission-sets-out-path-towards-fair-taxation-digital-economy_en (cited Press release - Digital Economy); EU Commission, Proposal for a Council Directive laying down provisions for business taxation of a significant digital presence of March 21, 2018, COM(2018) 147 final, passim, found online on October 31, 2018 at: https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/proposal_significant_digital_presence_21032018_de.pdf (cited Digital Economy Directive); Wicher, IWB 2018, p. 578.
40 The proposal for a directive also contains standards on the allocation of profits, which refer to the so-called profit-split method and classify the collection, storage, dissemination and user data as factors for the allocation of profits (for the whole press release - Digital Economy, passim; Digital Economy Directive, p. 10 and p. 13 f.).
41 Digital Economy Directive, p. 7.
42 For the entire Digital Economy Directive, p. 9; also Becker, IStR 2018, p. 637; Kroppen/van der Ham, IWB 2018, p. 342; Wicher, IWB 2018, p. 578.
43 Digital Economy Directive, p. 18.
44 Kroppen/van der Ham, IWB 2018, p. 342.
45 As at 31 October 2018.
46 Zum Ganzen Vogelsang, p. 1.
47 DBAK-Görl, Article 5 DBAK DE N 2.
48 These include, for example, the construction and installation work in accordance with Art. 5 para. 3 OECD-MA, the independent representative in accordance with Art. 5 para. 5 in conjunction with para. 6 OECD-MA and the service establishment regulated in N 41.11 of the Commentary on the OECD-MA or in Art. 5 para. 3 lit. b UN Model; for more details see René Schreiber/Kersten A. Honold/Roger Jaun, in: Martin Zweifel/Michael Beusch/René Matteotti (eds.), Commentary on Swiss Tax Law: International Tax Law, Basel 2015, Art. 5 OECD-MA N 27 ff., N 94 and N 109 ff.
49 i.a. DBAK-Görl, Art. 5 DBA DE N 12; OECD, Commentary on the Articles of the Model Convention, published by the Fiscal Committee of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD Publishing, Paris 2014, Art. 5 OECD-MA N 5.
50 Front, Chapter 1.
51 Thomas Egner, Internationale Steuerlehre, Wiesbaden 2015, p. 7.
52 U.a. DBAK-Lehner, reason. DBA DE N 11; Harald Schaumburg in: Harald Schaumburg (Ed.), International Tax Law, 4th ed., Cologne 2017, margin no. 6.2. and 6.6.
53 Alvin Toffler, The third Wave, New York/Toronto/London/Sydney/Auckland 1980, passim.
54 Robert D. Atkinson/Andrew McKay, Digital Prosperity, Understanding the Economic Benefits of the Information Technology Revolution, ITIF 2007, p. 25, found online on 31 October 2018 at: http://www.itif.org/files/digital_prosperity.pdf.
55 For the whole https://www.bmwi-energiewende.de/EWD/Redaktion/Newsletter/2016/06/Meldung/direkt-erklaert.html (found online on 31 October 2018).
56 Amazon is an e-commerce company that was founded in 1994 by Jeff Bezos (on the history of Amazon, Richard L. Brandt, Mr. Amazon: Jeff Bezos and the rise of amazon.com, Berlin 2012, passim)
57 Parship and Elitepartner are websites that serve the purpose of finding a partner (found online on 31 October 2018 at www.parship.ch and www.elitepartner.ch).
58 Arnold F. Rusch/Philipp Klaus, Online Dating Agency - Contract Content, Qualifications and Problems, AJP 2011, pp. 1572 f. and p. 1580.
59 Front, Chapter 1.
60 Becker, IStR 2018, p. 638.
61 Front, Chapter 3.3.1.
62 Cf. chapter 3.2.2.
