JurisprudenceIn 2014, the Leuven Magistrates Court issued a judgment that was criticized for failing to apply the physical presence rule set out in section 15. The case concerned a Belgian resident, an employee of a German company, who provides services mainly in Germany and sometimes in third countries, but not in Belgium. With regard to the tax administration, the Court held that the services provided outside Germany are, in this case, inextricably linked to the factory in Germany, which means that the physical condition of presence was not necessary to give Germany full tax administration. In this way, the “headquarters” approach, which had already been applied to truck drivers (but which has not recently been applied by the Supreme Court of Belgium), was applied by the Court of Justice. On 9 October 2015, the same issue was dealt with by the Court of Appeal in Liège, this time in a Belgian-Dutch case. The Court held that the physical presence in the Netherlands had to be proven in order for the salary of a Dutch employer to be taxable in the Netherlands. Therefore, the salary of days spent in third countries could not be taxable in the Netherlands, but was taxable in Belgium. The taxpayer argued that the days spent outside the Netherlands were closely related to dutch days and his Dutch employment, since he was receiving instructions in the Netherlands and his journey was beginning or always ending. However, the Court found that the physical presence test had to be applied. The bilateral agreement between Belgium and LuxembourgThe question of the evaluation of this case law in relation to the bilateral Belgian-Luxembourg agreement on cross-border employment can be raised. In 2015, the two governments agreed on the joint application of a so-called 24-day rule, according to which the Belgian/Luxembourg tax administration is not affected, in accordance with Article 15, in cross-border employment situations, if employment outside the country where employment is normally exercised does not exceed 24 days per year. In accordance with Article 1 of the DBAA, the benefit of a DBAA agreement applies only to residents.
A non-resident cannot therefore apply for discharge under sections 90, 90A and 91. Therefore, a non-resident should not complete the FSI and TR calendars. The AI plan does not apply to non-residents. It must be deposited by nationals in India who hold foreign assets abroad. In accordance with Article 1 of the DBAA, the interest of a DBAA agreement will only apply to a resident recently concluded in Belgium and Luxembourg on the application of Article 15 of 2015, and the bilateral agreement reached between Belgium and Luxembourg in 2015 on the application of Article 15 has led to developments requiring monitoring to determine whether they are being respected by other states. The basic principle of Article 15 OECD Convention Models Belgian tax payers are taxable on their global income, i.e.: