This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: the purposes of applying article xxix a(2)(e). These two examples provided in the technical explanation are contradictory in nature. in some cases it is necessary to determine ultimate ownership, while in others it is not. it appears that this incongruity represents an attempt to rationalize the result that would have applied if the test were stated in the affirmative, rather than the negative.
in many situations, determining the ultimate ownership of a payee under article xxix a(2)(e) may be extremely difficult. The difficulty arises because the article requires not only knowledge of the ultimate ownership of the payee but also knowledge of whether the payee meets the income requirements of the base-erosion test.
in a manner similar to that described above in reference to article xxix a(2)(d), the technical explanation clarifies that the lookthrough principles introduced by the protocol should be applied in conjunction with the ownership test in article xxix a(2)(e).27 For example, if a us-resident individual owns a us LLC, which in turn owns a us C corporation, the us C corporation also satisfies the ownership re...
View Full Document