The decision of the Court of Appeal of Ghent dated 29 March 2022 (n°2021/AR/46) concerns the interpretation and application of the residence tie-breaker rule of Article 4 (in this case, §3) of the Belgian-Hong Kong DTC of 10 December 2003 (called “Agreement between the Kingdom of Belgium and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of Chinaâ€). As a quick reminder, the tie-breaker rule is a treaty provision that is used in case a taxpayer – individual or legal person – is considered a resident by both contracting states (so-called dual residence1 situation). In this regard and considering the aims, the structure (distributive rules), and the application of an international tax treaty (DTC), it is essential that a person is regarded as a resident of only one contracting state in order to avoid double taxation issues (as a rule, if one of the contracting states is regarded as the state of residence, the other contracting state, in principle, loses its taxing power)2. Conversely, from the taxpayer’s point of view, it can be of great interest and advantage to be regarded as a resident of the contracting state in which the tax burdens are low(er). To achieve that goal, some company structures that have or do not have an operative activity may be incorporated. In the case at hand, the person in question (e.g. the taxpayer and appellant) is a company that has its main office in Belgium and also operates from China and Hong Kong. This raises the question of where its “seat of effective management†is located and therefore the issue of the allocation of the taxing powers in such a case. In several European countries (e.g. Belgium, Germany, Italy, or the Netherlands), the “place of effective management†is used as a (the) test of corporate residence. Common law countries have developed a similar but differently interpreted test of corporate residence of central management and control of “where the central management and control actually abidesâ€.3 Its interpretation depends ...