| 10/10/2006||Sweden||Agreement with proposal|
| 9/15/2006||United Kingdom||We agree with all the recommendations made by the AEG.|
| 9/15/2006||Latvia||After deep discussions and expert consultations we basically support the
1993 SNA Update Issues.|
| 7/31/2006||Israel||We agree with the recommendations of the AEG on this subject.|
| 7/27/2006||Egypt||We agree with the AEG recommendation concerning the unincorporated branches. We also like SNA to be more closely with the BPM.|
| 7/25/2006||Central Bank of Costa Rica||We agree with the recommendations of the AEG on this issue. |
| 11/29/2005||Tadjikistan||Термин "branch" требует определения; не вполне ясно, является он эквивалентом "заведения"?|
| 6/30/2005||Slovak Republic||We agree with AEG recommendations in issues of treatment of multi-territory enterprises, holding companies and special purpose entities as well as with criteria for recognition of branches.|
| 6/30/2005||Serbia and Montenegro||We agree with the recommendations made at the December 2004 meeting of the AEG.|
| 6/3/2005||Central Bank of Venezuela||We agree with the recommendations on the treatment of branches, particularly with making the criteria of physical presence to identify a branch more flexible. We also agree with the importance given to the fact that the enterprises are subject to income tax, even if the tax is not paid. With respect to not having a complete set of accounts, this does not seem to significantly affect the estimates of real macroeconomic aggregates either. |
Even though it is not necessary for all criteria to be satisfied to identify a branch, this should not be left to the discretion of the compilers in each country, since this would detract from the international comparability of the results
| 5/19/2005||Bank of Indonesia||BI supports to incorporated the issues of branches with the TFHPSA.|
| 5/18/2005||Central Bank of Chile||We agree with the recommendations on the treatment of branches, which on some issues modify the treatment of the balance of payments. In this sense, physical presence is justified only for nonfinancial units whose production of assets or services requires real or movable goods. Likewise, the criteria of being subject to tax rather than that of actually paying them is more certain to consider that a branch is an autonomous unit of the institution. Finally, flexibility is necessary to decide on segregating a branch from its international parent. In this context, full accounting is a decisive criterion in practice. In Chile, it is not possible to prepare international company branch accounts if the branches do not have independent accounts and do not file annual income tax returns other than to declare whether or not they incur taxes. |
| 5/16/2005||Croatian National Bank||We agree in general with the AEG recommendations that physical presence criteria would apply only to industries which require physical presence and that indicator of presence would be the fact that branch is subjected to income taxation by law rather than paying income taxes. Also, the criteria for the recognition of unicnorporated branches should be harmonized in both SNA and BPM.|
| 5/16/2005||Eastern Caribbean Central Bank||We agree that physical presence is not required for a branch to be recognized. Being subject to income tax laws should replace paying income tax as an indicator of the existence of a branch. All criteria should be considered as indicators for a separate branch but not all criteria have to be met. Even if the entity does not have a full set of accounts, if it engages in production, it should be treated as a branch.|
| 5/13/2005||National Bank of Kazakhstan||We consider that all the proposed criteria are sufficient for recognition the branches of foreign companies as residents. However for activities non-requiring physical presence legal, statistical and tax registration of unit in compiling economy is necessary.|
| 5/12/2005||European Central Bank||ECB supports the conclusions.|
| 5/10/2005||USA||The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis endorses the recommendations made by the AEG.|
| 5/10/2005||National Bank of Moldova||With reference to the above subject we support the recommendation that the physical presence is not required for a branch to be recognized and that not all criteria have to be met. Definitions and concepts should be provided on treatment and recognition of such activities.|
We also agree that the requirement to pay taxes to the host country be replaced with “being subject to any applicable tax law”.
| 5/9/2005||Australia||Australia agrees with the AEG recommendations|
| 5/9/2005||Maldives||Branches are quite common in many industries such as banks, transportation and other service industries. Branch is an extension of the operation of the parent company and in general decisions are made in the main company. In some branches, the revenue is forwarded to the parent company. Branches are generally registered as unincorporated enterprise even if it is quite large. We wish to agree with the AEG decision.|
| 5/9/2005||United Kingdom||We agree that physical presence is not required for a branch to be recognized. Being subject to income tax laws should replace paying income tax as an indicator of the existence of a branch. All criteria should be considered as indicators for a separate branch but not all criteria have to be met. Even if the entity does not have a full set of accounts, if it engages in production, it should be treated as a branch.|
| 5/9/2005||Central Bank of Iran||We are in favor of AEG recommendations.|
| 5/6/2005||Turkey||We agree with the recommendations made by the Advisory Expert Group on National Accounts at its second meeting in December 2004.|
| 5/6/2005||Commonwealth of Independent States ||The term “branch” needs definition; it is not entirely clear whether it is equivalent to “establishment”?|
| 5/6/2005||Macao, SAR China||We agree with the recommendations.|
| 5/5/2005||Sweden||We agree that the present requirements need to be more flexible and therefore approve of the recommendations that physical presence should only be required when necessary for production and that being subject to income tax should replace paying income tax. However, we would rather see a fixed sets of requirements instead of the suggestion that the criteria should be taken as a set of pick and choose indicators. |
| 5/4/2005||Denmark||Statistics Denmark agrees that physical presence should not be required for recognition of a branch (notional unit).|
| 4/29/2005||Norway||Statistics Norway supports the views of the AEG.|
| 4/29/2005||Central Bank of Colombia||El Banco de la República de Colombia esta de acuerdo con la adopción de los conceptos sugeridos en las preguntas relacionadas con la identificación de sucursales,, pues estos permitirán mejorar las estadísticas y facilitar la comparación entre países.|
| 4/28/2005||Trinidad and Tobago||We agree with the recommendations of the AEG.|
| 4/25/2005||Bank of Sierra Leone||With reference to the above subject we agree with the recommendations of the Expert Group on National Accounts (AEG) especially where there is harmonization of definitions and other concepts between the Balance of Payments (BOP) and system of National Accounts (SNA).|
| 4/19/2005||Singapore||We agree that the physical presence requirement for recognition of a branch should be limited to activities that require physical presence. However, it would be useful if operational guidelines and definitions could be provided on the treatment and recognition of such activities. |
We agree that the requirement to pay income taxes to the host country be removed and replaced with “being subject to any applicable tax laws”, and that this be viewed as an indicative rather than essential requirement. This would allow for flexibility in the recognition of branches, such as in cases of tax-exemption.
| 4/13/2005||Bank of Korea||We are generally in agreement with the recommendations of Advisory Export Group(AEG).
(1) We agree that physical presence is not required for a branch to be recognized.
(2) We assent to AEG`s recommendation that being subject to income tax laws should replace paying income tax as an indicator of the existence of a branch.
(3) We agree that not all of the criteria needed to be met. We have the same opinion that the criterion of engaging in significant production of goods and services should be considered more importantly than the criterion of maintaining a complete and separate set of accounts.
| 4/12/2005||Greece||We agree with the recommendations of the AEG on the issues for which a decision has been taken, at the December 2004 meeting of the group.|
| 4/11/2005||The Netherlands||We agree with the recommendations made at the December 2004 meeting of the Advisory Expert Group on National Accounts.|
| 4/11/2005||Central Bank of Kuwait||Kuwait agreed that:|
(a) Physical presence is not required for a branch to be recognized.
(b) Being subject to income tax laws should replace paying income tax as an indicator of the existence of a branch.
(c) All criteria should be considered as indicators for a separate branch but not all criteria have to be met. Even if the entity does not have a full set of accounts, if it engages in production, it should be treated as a branch.
| 4/11/2005||Bank of Tanzania/National Bureau of Statistics||We concur with AEG recommendation.|
| 4/11/2005||Hong Kong, China||We support AEG recommendation that physical presence is not a necessary condition for a branch to be recognized and being subject to income tax laws should replace paying income tax as an indicator of the existence of a branch. The criteria for identifying a branch should be harmonized with BPM and clearly specified.|
| 4/11/2005||Germany|| m2(c)de25b3; |
| 4/11/2005||Malawi||I fully endorse the recommendations of the Expert Group on National Accounts.|
| 4/11/2005||Central Bank of The Netherlands||We support the three recommendations regarding the recognition of branches.|
| 4/11/2005||Philippines ||-Will this provision apply to the following: Traveling and representative offices of airline/ocean transport and trading companies in the Philippines; Buying agents of foreign enterprises who negotiate with domestic local producers for the purchase of their goods/services; and Foreign agents who transact with domestic recruitment companies for the hiring of workers / professionals? At present these are not included as part of domestic production.
-There are some criteria that can serve as indicators of the operations of branches such as payment of income tax, physical presence, registration, having a separate financial statement, etc. There should be some flexibility in the treatment of branches since this affects not only those that produces goods but those that produces services as well (financial services).
-Allocation of the unit using pro rata basis seems to be more practical considering that some compilers may question the applicability of a “predominant territory”. Specific guidelines are needed if ever this concept/term will be adopted.
| 4/11/2005||Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey||Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey (CBRT agrees with the recommendations that physical presence should be limited to activities that require physical presence and being subject to income tax laws should be taken as an indicator of a branch rather than a requirement.|
| 4/11/2005||Russian Federation||We agree with the recommendations made by the AEG on National Accounts. |
| 4/11/2005||South African Reserve Bank||We accept the recommendations of the AEG.|
| 4/11/2005||South Africa||South Africa agrees with the recommendations.|
| 3/18/2005||Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics||PCBS support the decision of the committee in this regard.|