Montenegro: Montenegro-Azerbaijan DTT analysis

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Montenegro: Montenegro-Azerbaijan DTT analysis

zivkovic.jpg

Jelena Zivkovic

In March 2013 Montenegro and Azerbaijan signed a treaty for the avoidance of double taxation (a double tax treaty (DTT)) aimed at strengthening economic and trade relations between the two countries. The agreement came into force in January 2014. The agreement is applicable on taxes in both countries, including corporate income tax and personal income tax, as well as capital gains tax regardless of the type and method of collection.

In line with the agreement, a resident is considered to be a physical person or a legal entity which is a taxpayer in the country due to the residency, temporary residency or seat of the company management.

In situations when a physical person is resident of both countries, the person will be liable for taxation in the country of permanent residency.

Permanent establishment (PE), in line with the DTT, is a permanent place from which a company fully or partially undertakes its business activities, including a company seat, branch, representative office, factory, workshop, mine, ship or any other place from which exploration of natural resources is undertaken. Additionally, a PE will be considered to exist at a construction site where works are being performed for a period exceeding 12 months.

Any income generated from immovable property located in either of the contracting states may be subject to tax in the state where the immovable property is located.

Corporate profits are taxed in the contracting state in which they are realised except if a company has business activities in the other state via a permanent establishment. If the company is undertaking activities in the other state through a permanent unit, the corporate profits will be taxed in that other country up to the amount of the profit generated in that state.

The treaty provides 10% withholding tax rates (WHT) for dividends (Article 10), interest (Article 11) and royalties (Article 12).

Exchange of information defined in Article 26 will allow the Competent Authorities of both states to exchange information deemed relevant for the administration or enforcement of domestic laws in relation to taxes, as long as such laws are not in breach of the DTT.

Jelena Zivkovic (jelena.zivkovic@eurofast.eu)

Eurofast Global, Podgorica Office

Tel: +382 20 228 490

Website: www.eurofast.eu

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The climbdowns pave the way for a side-by-side deal to be concluded this week, as per the US Treasury secretary’s expectation; in other news, Taft added a 10-partner tax team
A vote to be held in 2026 could create Hogan Lovells Cadwalader, a $3.6bn giant with 3,100 lawyers across the Americas, EMEA and Asia Pacific
Foreign companies operating in Libya face source-based taxation even without a local presence. Multinationals must understand compliance obligations, withholding risks, and treaty relief to avoid costly surprises
Hotel La Tour had argued that VAT should be recoverable as a result of proceeds being used for a taxable business activity
Tax professionals are still going to be needed, but AI will make it easier than starting from zero, EY’s global tax disputes leader Luis Coronado tells ITR
AI and assisting clients with navigating global tax reform contributed to the uptick in turnover, the firm said
In a post on X, Scott Bessent urged dissenting countries to the US/OECD side-by-side arrangement to ‘join the consensus’ to get a deal over the line
A new transatlantic firm under the name of Winston Taylor is expected to go live in May 2026 with more than 1,400 lawyers and 20 offices
As ITR’s exclusive data uncovers in-house dissatisfaction with case management, advisers cite Italy’s arcane tax rules
The new guidance is not meant to reflect a substantial change to UK law, but the requirement that tax advice is ‘likely to be correct’ imposes unrealistic expectations
Gift this article