26 Dec 2008

PwC´s Report on Canada´s International Tax Advantage

The Advisory Panel on Canada's System of International Taxation released its long-awaited final report on December 10, 2008. The report offers seventeen main recommendations, which, together with ancillary recommendations and suggestions, are intended to be "pragmatic, balanced and actionable advice to the Minister of Finance toward improving Canada's international tax system for the benefit of our country."A PricewaterhouseCoopers Tax Memo discusses the Panel's recommendations under the following headings:A. Taxation of Outbound Direct InvestmentB. Taxation of Inbound Direct InvestmentC. Non-Resident Withholding TaxesD. Administration, Compliance and Legislative Process.

Access the full PwC report on the Advisory Panel's recommendations here (pdf)



This Blog/Web Site ("Blog") does not to provide specific legal advice, it is for educational purposes only. This Blog is made available by the international adviser, lawyer or law firm for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice.

The Blog does not constitute legal advice and is not a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Any comment posted on the Blog can be read by any Blog visitor; do not post confidential or sensitive information. Any links from another site to the Blog are beyond the control of us.

By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog.

The Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional adviser or lawyer in your country.

Our firm and do not convey their approval, support or any relationship to any site or organization. The use of this Blog does not implicitly or explicitly convey any warranties or representations as to the accuracy of the information contained herein.

This Blog has created this privacy statement in order to demonstrate our firm commitment to privacy. The following discloses the information gathering and dissemination practices for this Blog.

This Blog takes your privacy very seriously. Our customers told us they want to see clear, easy-to-read information about our privacy commitments and policies. We have made our privacy policies easier to find and easier to read. And we're listening. We welcome your questions and feedback on our privacy policies, and invite you to contact us with your thoughts.

Customer Privacy Controls and Choices:
• You can review and correct your Personal Information collected by us.
• You can limit certain types of solicitation communications from AT&T, including marketing contacts made via telephone, e-mail and text messaging.
• We will provide you with notice of changes to this policy.

Our privacy commitments are fundamental to the way we do business every day. These apply to everyone who has a relationship with this Blog and visitors.
• We will protect your privacy and keep your personal information safe. We use powerful encryption and other security safeguards to protect customer data, when available.
• We will not sell your personal information to anyone, for any purpose. Period.
• We will fully disclose our privacy policies in plain language, and make our policies easily accessible to you.
• We will notify you of any revisions to our privacy policy, in advance. No surprises.
• You have choices about how this Blog uses your information for marketing purposes. Customers are in control.


This Privacy Policy identifies and describes the way This Blog uses and protects the information we collect about visitors. All use of this Blog is subject to this Privacy Policy.

Use of Location Information
• When your wireless device is on, it sends periodic signals to the nearest cell site. We use that information to provide your wireless services;
• You can use your wireless device to obtain a wide array of services based on the approximate location of the device, referred to as Location Based Services, or LBS. The information you receive in connection with your use of LBS may include advertisements related to your request and your location;

Online Activity Tracking and Advertising
• We collect information about your activity on this Blog for a number of purposes using technologies such as cookies, Web beacons, widgets and server log files.
• We and our advertising partners use that information, as well as other information they have or we may have, to help tailor the ads you see on our sites and to help make decisions about ads you see on other sites.

The Information We Collect, How We Collect It, And How We Use It

We collect different types of personal and other information based on your use of our products and services and our business relationship with you. Some examples include:
• Contact Information that allows us to communicate with you -- including your name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address;
• Equipment, Performance, Site Usage, Viewing and other Technical Information about your use of our network, services, products or Web sites.

We collect information in 2 primary ways:
• You give it to us when you register to provide comments;
• We collect it automatically when you visit our Blog.

We use the information we collect in a variety of ways, including to:
• Provide you with the best visitor experience possible;
• Deliver customized content that may be of interest to you;
• Address network integrity and security issues;
• Investigate, prevent or take action regarding illegal activities, violations of our Terms of Service or Acceptable Use Policies; and
• For local directory and directory assistance purposes.

Aggregate or Anonymous Information:

We may share aggregate or anonymous information in various formats with trusted entities’ only for purposes such as:
• Our knowledge, and offer of information that may be of interest to you;
• Universities, laboratories and other entities that conduct scientific research; and
• Media research companies for general information only.

25 Dec 2008

España: amnistia fiscal a lo lejos


"El Gobierno se divide ante la idea de una amnistía fiscal" es un articulo publicado el 26-12-2008 , por C.Cuesta/E.S.Mazo, en Expansion (www.expansion.com):

Presidencia ha lanzado el debate. El departamento de Solbes rechaza la posibilidad de aplicar una amnistía. Mientras, CiU y el círculo más cercano a Zapatero la defiende.


Jesús Caldera, desde la Fundación Ideas, y con el mandato de Presidencia del Gobierno de abrir el debate, lanzó la idea de la posible aplicación de una amnistía fiscal (ver EXPANSIÓN del 13 de diciembre). Y apenas dos semanas después se ha convertido ya en uno de los motivos de mayor debate y tensión dentro del Ejecutivo.

La idea contaba desde el primer momento con el apoyo del propio presidente del Gobierno, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. Y había sido respaldada en parte por el ministro de Industria, Miguel Sebastián, partidario del afloramiento del dinero negro que podría estar oculto en billetes acumulados por las familias (principalmente de 500 y 200 euros).

Caldera desarrolló la idea, centrándola en un plan de captación de dinero procedente de los paraísos fiscales, de forma que los capitales opacos e ilegales pudiesen cruzar las fronteras nacionales sin castigo penal. Además, según el plan de Caldera, podrían disfrutar de un régimen fiscal beneficiado en el momento de entrar en España.

Pero la idea no quedó ahí y ha levantado ya una intensa polémica tanto dentro como fuera del Gobierno. Los últimos debates mantenidos en Presidencia apuntaban ya a una amnistía, tanto para los capitales en el exterior como en el interior. Es decir, un plan de afloramiento general de dinero evadido y negro.

Los últimos estudios sobre economía sumergida elaborados por la Unión Europea aseguran que el volumen de actividad negra en España podría alcanzar el 22% de su PIB, es decir, más de 220.000 millones de euros.

Presidencia ha logrado un apoyo externo. CiU ha sido uno de los primeros que ha puesto manos a la obra en la labor de difundir la idea: un panel de expertos convocado por el partido catalán hace tres semanas ha incluido ya la idea de la amnistía fiscal como un remedio viable frente a la falta de liquidez y la caída de recaudación fiscal (más de un 11% en el año) que sufren las arcas tributarias nacionales. Este foro se nutre, además, de una petición pública lanzada por el Col.legi de Gestors de Catalunya: hacer una emisión de carácter extraordinaria de deuda a bajo interés, durante cuatro años, con el objetivo de aflorar dinero negro. De esta forma, se lograría financiación a bajo coste para ayudar, vía préstamos, a las pequeñas empresas. Una estrategia similar a la empleada por el Ejecutivo también socialista en 1991 (ver información adjunta).

La medida afectaría a dos colectivos adicionalmente: a los inspectores fiscales y al equipo de seguimiento del blanqueo, constituido en el Banco de España bajo el nombre de Servicio de Prevención del Blanqueo de Capitales (Sepblac) y que engloba a personal del Banco, de la Agencia Tributaria y del Tesoro. Fuentes de la Inspección han mostrado ya su rechazo total a una amnistía mientras que, fuentes internas de Economía, han señalado ya que la postura del personal del Banco de España no será distinta.

Dentro del propio Partido Socialista, el debate ha dividido a la formación. Pese al respaldo abierto de Caldera, numerosos colectivos han mostrado ya a la Ejecutiva su rechazo a una medida que beneficiaría a los contribuyentes defraudadores y con mayores recursos de todo el sistema fiscal español, algo que no consideran muy acorde con los supuestos principios del Partido Socialista.

No es algo nuevo para España

No sería la primera vez que se aprueba una amnistía fiscal en España. El último antecedente se remonta, de hecho, a 1991, fase previa a la última recesión y situación más parecida a la actual. Fue entonces cuando Carlos Solchaga, como ministro de Economía, ofreció a los suscriptores de pagarés del Tesoro (ajenos a los ojos de Hacienda) que pudieran regularizar su situación. Las opciones eran dos: la primera, canjear esos títulos por la que llamó Deuda Pública Especial, un activo libre de impuestos y que preservaba la identidad del inversor, aunque de menor rentabilidad.

La segunda alternativa pasaba porque esos suscriptores hicieran declaraciones complementarias por esos pagarés sin sanción. Un movimiento conjunto que permitió aflorar casi 780.000 millones de las antiguas pesetas (4.700 millones de euros) opacos para el Fisco desde 1991. Antes de aquella medida de Solchaga, entre 1977 y 1978, el Estado aprobó una amnistía en el IRPF y en Sociedades, que se basó en regularizar bienes ocultos, como fórmula, en el fondo, para vertebrar un buen funcionamiento del sistema fiscal en los comienzos de la democracia.

Entre una y otra etapa, el Ejecutivo de Aznar acusó al Gobierno saliente del PSOE de realizar una amnistía "encubierta", que, sin embargo, jamás se demostró.El PP denunció que el PSOE perdonó a determinadas empresas pagos por valor de más de 1.200 millones de euros.

21 Dec 2008

España: ventajas fiscales para filiales internacionales de matrices españolas


"Regalo fiscal para grupos con filiales en el exterior", articulo publicado el 20-12-08 , por C. Cuesta / E. S. Mazo para Expansion (www.expansion.com):

Los cambios legislativos de urgencia no dejan de llegar ante el temor a la gravedad de la crisis. Tan acelerados como desordenados. Y entre ellos, el Gobierno acaba de pactar con CiU uno de los más reclamados regalos de Navidad de las grandes empresas. Se trata de la eliminación del pago de impuestos por buena parte de los beneficios conseguidos en 2008 por las filiales en el exterior de las mayores compañías nacionales.


La reforma resuelve, así, un más que difícil y amargo trago para las empresas. El cambio de la norma contable asumido este año por las empresas ha supuesto la eliminación de la posibilidad de dotar provisiones por las filiales controladas en el exterior. Estas provisiones eran deducibles, con lo que, al desaparecer la provisión desaparece el incentivo fiscal. Pero se generaba un problema adicional.

En el año 2008 las provisiones siguieron dotándose. Provisiones que, en la mayoría de los casos, no se han utilizado porque el ejercicios se ha saldado, o se terminará de saldar, con beneficios. Y la norma fiscal exige que al deshacer la provisión se haga figurar su importe como un ingreso, es decir, que habría que pagar Impuesto de Sociedades (con un tipo fiscal del 30%) por todo este dinero. Y habría que hacerlo ahora, en medio del agravamiento de los problemas de liquidez de las compañías.

Pacto

La respuesta ha llegado a través de un pacto entre el PSOE y CiU. Y así, «con efectos exclusivos para el primer periodo impositivo que se inicie a partir del 1 de enero de 2008», se podrá deducir [...] «sin necesidad de imputación contable en la cuenta de pérdidas y ganancias, la diferencia positiva» procedente de esas provisiones no utilizadas «siempre que la parte de esa diferencia imputable a periodos impositivos iniciados antes de dicha fecha se corresponda con provisiones fiscalmente deducibles en dichos periodos y que se abonen a cuentas de reservas con ocasión de la primera aplicación del Plan General de Contabilidad» aprobado en 2007 o del «Plan General de Contabilidad de Pymes y los criterios contables específicos para microempresas», también de 2007.

Alivio fiscal

Los expertos consultados por EXPANSIÓN no han tardado en reaccionar a la noticia. Y estiman que el alivio fiscal se acercará a los 2.000 millones de euros, «una cantidad más que considerable en medio de la complicada situación que se está generando», aclaran.

Se trata de la segunda fuente de ayuda al colectivo de empresas con fuerte presencia en el exterior que pactan los grupos socialistas y CiU. El anterior (ver EXPANSIÓN del pasado miércoles) supondrá que las empresas podrán deducirse en España gran parte de las pérdidas de sus filiales en el exterior cosechadas a partir del 1 de enero de 2009.

La ayuda se traducirá en un mecanismo de incentivo fiscal que beneficiará más a quien mayor exposición de riesgo haya asumido en el extranjero, un perfil que corresponde mucho más al de las mayores compañías españolas que a las de tipo medio. La pérdida de valor, de hecho, será deducible «en proporción a la participación».

El cambio permitirá modificar el texto refundido de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades, de forma que el actual artículo 12.3 permita que sean deducibles las pérdidas por depreciación de las entidades, siempre que no coticen en un mercado regulado. La deducción, además, no exigirá su reflejo contable en la cuenta de pérdidas y ganancias, puesto que la nueva normativa en materia de contabilidad impide la aparición de este tipo de conceptos como provisión por depreciación de cartera.

El alivio a las empresas con filiales en el extranjero tiene aún más importancia en la débil coyuntura actual, dado que España será el país más dañado por el impacto de la crisis, según el FMI. Las cifras del Banco de España también apuntan en esta dirección: el resultado ordinario neto de las compañías nacionales dentro del país cae a tasas del 3,6%, mientras que los dividendos recibidos de filiales, principalmente extranjeras, explican aproximadamente la mitad del incremento de los ingresos financieros en los últimos dos años.

Las multinacionales españolas están, así, logrando compensar el descenso de su negocio interno dentro del país con un aumento de la actividad exterior, con lo que eliminar el pago de impuestos de buena parte de sus beneficios es un balón de oxígeno en tiempos de crisis. Un reciente estudio del Real Instituto El Cano explica, en concreto, que la facturación de las compañías del Ibex-35 en España creció un 14,4% en la primera mitad del año hasta alcanzar los 107.600 millones de euros, aumento que llegó al 20% en el exterior, hasta alcanzar los 103.100 millones.

De acuerdo con estas cifras, las previsiones apuntan que si se mantiene la tendencia, los ingresos internacionales de las empresas superarán pronto los ingresos en España, mostrando así la del alivio fiscal.

19 Dec 2008

Regimen fiscal de Gibraltar, ayudado por el Tribunal de la Union Europea


Articulo aparecido ayer en La Vanguardia (www.lavanguardia.es) titulado "La UE anula la decisión de la CE contra el régimen fiscal de Gibraltar".

Bruselas. (EFE).- El Tribunal de Primera Instancia de la UE ha anulado la decisión de la Comisión Europea de considerar el impuesto de sociedades de Gibraltar, más bajo que el vigente en el Reino Unido, una ayuda de Estado ilegal.

La corte europea considera que Bruselas cometió un error al comparar el sistema fiscal al que están sometidas las empresas del Peñón con el aplicado en el Reino Unido. Los jueces europeos también creen que la Comisión no evaluó adecuadamente la supuesta selectividad de las medidas tributarias. El caso se remonta a 2002, cuando el Reino Unido notificó a Bruselas la reforma prevista por el Gobierno de Gibraltar en relación con el impuesto de sociedades.

La reforma comprendía el establecimiento de tres impuestos aplicables a las sociedades establecidas en el Peñón: una tasa de registro, un impuesto sobre el número de empleados y un impuesto por superficie ocupada; además, la carga por estos dos últimos tributos no podía ser superior al 15 por ciento de los beneficios.

La Comisión dictaminó en 2004 que el sistema constituía un sistema de ayuda estatal incompatible con el mercado común, pues era selectivo desde el punto de vista regional (gravaba a las sociedades gibraltareñas con un tipo inferior al del Reino Unido) y material (pues se favorecía a unas empresas sobre otras y en especial a las que no tenían presencia real en Gibraltar).

El Gobierno de Gibraltar y el Reino Unido interpusieron sendos recursos ante el Tribunal de Primera Instancia solicitando la anulación de la decisión. En su fallo de hoy, la corte señala que la Comisión no debía comparar el sistema tributario de Gibraltar con el británico, ya que el Peñón tiene fiscalidad propia y, por tanto, la posible selectividad de las ayudas (y la posible ventaja injustificada a algunas empresas) ha de determinarse en relación al régimen general gibraltareño.

Los jueces llegaron a esta conclusión tras comprobar que Gibraltar reúne los requisitos establecidos en una sentencia sobre la fiscalidad de las Azores -que clarificó cuando un ente regional puede contar con fiscalidad propia- para dictar sus propias normas tributarias.

En concreto, el Tribunal asegura que Gibraltar goza de autonomía institucional (pues sus autoridades cuentan, desde el punto de vista constitucional, con un estatuto político y administrativo distinto a del Gobierno central del Reino Unido) y de procedimiento (ya que Londres no tiene capacidad de intervención directa en las decisiones adoptadas por el Gobierno del Peñón).

Gibraltar también tiene, según la corte, autonomía económica y financiera, ya que asume las eventuales consecuencias presupuestarias de la reforma fiscal, es decir, que no recibe ayudas o subvenciones procedentes de otras regiones o del Gobierno central para compensar posibles caídas de ingresos.

En cuanto a la selectiva material, los jueces recuerdan que para comprobarla, ha de efectuarse un análisis en tres fases, identificando en primer lugar el régimen común o "normal" aplicable en la zona geográfica pertinente, para después demostrar que la medida en cuestión supone una excepción a ese régimen.

Además, aunque se demuestre la existencia de excepciones al régimen común que tengan como consecuencia una diferenciación entre empresas, puede ser que esa diferenciación no sea selectiva si se deriva de la naturaleza o la estructura del sistema de cargas dentro del que se enmarca.

En ese caso, corresponde al Estado miembro demostrar que las diferenciaciones están justificadas por la naturaleza y la estructura de su sistema fiscal, lo que la Comisión debe, por su parte, verificar.

En el caso de Gibraltar, el Tribunal señala que el ejecutivo de la UE ni identificó previamente ni cuestionó la calificación del régimen común o "normal" del sistema fiscal gibraltareño, por lo que le resultaba imposible demostrar si había elementos de excepcionalidad, si éstos eran selectivos y si estaban justificados.

La sentencia puede ser recurrida ante el Tribunal de Justicia, sólo por cuestiones de derecho, en el plazo de dos meses.

18 Dec 2008

Eliminar el IVA


Energetico articulo escrito por Xavier Sala i Martín ayer en las páginas de Economía de La Vanguardia, titulado "Eliminar el IVA":

Una de las consecuencias trágicas de la presente crisis financiera es que se ha tirado por la borda todo lo que los economistas han (¡hemos!) estudiado y predicado durante décadas. Parece que ahora vale todo: cualquier político que desee aumentar el gasto, sólo tiene que explicar que la crisis actual se parece a la del 1929, pronunciar la frase mágica "como dijo Keynes" y ¡zas!, ya tiene carta blanca para dilapidar dinero.

¡Sí! Ya sé que los libros de macroeconomía dicen que, durante las recesiones económicas, el déficit fiscal debe aumentar. Y también sé que se asocia esa expansión fiscal a los postulados keynesianos (aunque, en realidad, todos los macroeconomistas, incluso los clásicos, promulgan la contraciclicalidad del déficit público). Lo que los textos no dicen, sin embargo, es que una crisis abre la puerta al dispendio ilimitado e indiscriminado por parte de la clase política. Y es que hay dos maneras de incrementar el déficit: una, aumentar el gasto público y dos, reducir impuestos para que quien amplíe el gasto sea el ciudadano.

¿Cuál de las dos opciones es preferible para luchar contra la crisis? Hay quien dice que la mejor política será la que tenga un mayor "multiplicador" y ejerza un impacto mayor sobre el PIB. Es decir, si aumentar el gasto en 10.000 millones genera un aumento del PIB de 20 y, en cambio, reducir los impuestos en 10 genera un aumento del PIB de 10, entonces dicen que el aumento del gasto es mejor que la rebaja de impuestos. Aunque este razonamiento es común, es incorrecto porque si lo que queremos es generar un aumento del PIB de 20, no hay nada que impida al Gobierno reducir impuestos en 40 para conseguirlo.

Para evaluar qué política fiscal es mejor, hay que analizar dos aspectos clave. Por un lado, la eficiencia: incluso en épocas de crisis, los contribuyentes debemos asegurarnos de nuestro dinero no es derrochado. En este sentido, cuando se le da al Gobierno la posibilidad de gastar, en seguida surgen ministros, diputados, presidentes de comunidad, alcaldes, y todo tipo de malgastadores patológicos que van a encontrar las maneras más pintorescas de despilfarrar nuestro dinero y que van a tomar decisiones, no con criterios de eficiencia económica, sino con criterios políticos y electoralistas (para no ser acusados, por ejemplo, de hacer poco o nada). Eso hace que acaben adquiriendo cosas que no interesan a la gente sino a ellos mismos. Por el contrario, cuando se rebajan los impuestos son los propios ciudadanos los que deciden adónde va a parar el dinero porque ellos son los que lo van a gastar. Según el primer criterio, pues, el recorte impositivo es superior al aumento del gasto público.

El segundo criterio que tener en cuenta es la inmediatez: ¿qué política tendrá un efecto más rápido sobre la economía? La inmediatez es importante porque las recesiones tienen una duración corta y una política fiscal anticrisis que surta efecto después de la crisis es inútil. En este sentido, el aumento del gasto público en infraestructuras (como los 33.000 millones de inversión en transportes y medio ambiente propuesto por el Gobierno español) requiere concursos públicos, adjudicación de obras, escrituras de contratos, negociación de comisiones (legales y de las otras), etcétera. Un proceso largo que fácilmente puede retrasar el gasto en años. Y puede que entonces sea demasiado tarde... a no ser que el Gobierno lleve a cabo precisamente ese plan anticrisis porque piensa que la recesión en España durará... pues eso, ¡años!

Algo parecido pasa con la reducción del IRPF: cuando los ciudadanos se den cuenta de que el Gobierno les va a quitar menos dinero (y probablemente eso no pase hasta junio, cuando hagan la declaración), la crisis ya puede haber terminado.

En cambio, una reducción del IVA no tiene el mismo problema: si mañana a las diez de la mañana se eliminara el IVA, a las diez y un minuto la gente vería que lo que antes le costaba 100 ahora le cuesta 90, por lo que los 10 restantes podrían ser utilizados para comprar otras cosas. Del mismo modo, las empresas que tienen que guardar dinero para pagar el IVA, de repente tendrían recursos para gastar. Una eliminación del IVA, pues, sería una transfusión directa e instantánea de dinero a las venas de la economía. La pregunta es: ¿cómo sabemos que los ciudadanos gastarían los euros resultantes de la rebaja impositiva en lugar de ahorrarlos? Pues la verdad es que no lo sabemos. Por esto mi propuesta de política fiscal sería la eliminación del IVA, pero no la eliminación permanente, sino temporal.

Es decir, se debería anunciar la desaparición del IVA durante el 2009 (o hasta que se acabe la crisis) y su reaparición en el futuro. De ese modo, los precios serán más bajos si y sólo si se gasta en los próximos meses.

Eso induciría a los ciudadanos a gastar ahora, que es cuando se necesita. Resumiendo, tanto el argumento de la eficiencia como el de la inmediatez sugieren que la mejor política fiscal para luchar contra la crisis es la reducción o eliminación temporal del IVA.

El problema práctico que comporta eso es que la Unión Europea obliga a sus miembros a mantener un IVA mínimo del 15%, por lo que la decisión se tiene que tomar en Bruselas. Pero bueno, quizá ha llegado el momento de que todos los mandarines europeos demuestren que no sólo son chupópteros del dinero ajeno que viven en el cementerio de elefantes políticos y tomen, por fin, una decisión útil y valiente que puede contribuir a amortiguar la crisis: eliminar temporalmente el IVA.

15 Dec 2008

Nonresident real estate investors in the US

This is a very interesting post, named "Inbound (investments in the US), Nonresident real estate investors", from http://www.hodgen.com/phil/

"I got an inquiry today from my FIRPTA.com website that I figured would be worth answering here, because it is a topic of general application. The question is whether using a foreign corporation works to protect against U.S. estate tax.

Foreign corporations to hold U.S. real estate

Nonresident investors frequently hold U.S. real estate using foreign corporation structures. (A “foreign corporation” for our purposes is a corporation formed in a country other than the United States.) There are two common variations of this theme:
• Nonresident owns all the shares of stock of a foreign corporation. The foreign corporation owns the U.S. real estate.
• Nonresident owns all of the shares of stock of a foreign corporation. The foreign corporation owns all of the shares of stock of a U.S. corporation. The U.S. corporation owns the U.S. real estate.
This is done primarily for estate tax protection.

Why it works

The United States will impose an estate tax (for our purposes let’s say it is 45% of the fair market value of the property) on U.S. real estate owned directly by a nonresident. That is because estate tax is imposed only on a nonresident’s property that is “located” in the United States. And nothing screams “I am located in the United States” quite as much as real estate within the national boundaries of the USA. :-)
The United States will NOT impose an estate tax on shares of stock of a foreign corporation which are owned by a nonresident deceased individual.
That is because a foreign corporation is treated as being “located” in the country under whose laws the corporation was formed. Thus, because the corporation is “located” outside the United States under the estate tax definitions, there is nothing to be taxed because if you look at what the nonresident individual actually owns, which is stock, not real estate.
“But . . . .”
“Well,” you say. “The foreign corporation owns U.S. real estate. Shouldn’t you look through the foreign corporation at the assets owned by the corporation?” And the answer is . . . no, we don’t do that.
Yes, we (meaning the U.S. tax authorities) could do that. And maybe they will some day. But at the moment it doesn’t work that way.

Summary of where we are now

For now the conventional wisdom is that indirect ownership of U.S. real estate by a nonresident — using the foreign corporation as described — will isolate the nonresident individual from U.S. estate taxation when he or she dies. Well, it won’t isolate that individual, because after death he/she doesn’t really care all that much, right? It’s the heirs that care.

Storm clouds over the horizon–family limited partnership analogy

The Internal Revenue Service has been attacking family limited partnerships — as an estate tax planning device — for several years. I won’t go into the details of the technical and metaphysical arguments on this.

But many people feel that the same theories used by the IRS to attack family limited partnerships could be used to attack the foreign corporation ownership structures used by nonresidents to hold U.S. real estate.

Storm clouds over the horizon–personal use of corporate asset

There’s a second thing. Let’s say you are a U.S. resident and you own a business. The business buys a yacht as a corporate asset and you happily sail it up and down the coast and have fun on it. Will the Internal Revenue Service have a cow? You bet. Individual use of corporate assets by shareholders and officers triggers all sorts of imputed income attacks by the government.

So now take a look at this holding structure used by nonresidents. They buy a house or a ski condominium or a beach house, and hold title in the name of a foreign corporation. Then they proceed to use the house. Personal use. And they are the shareholders of the foreign corporation.

I can see this as a potential reason to either disregard the foreign corporation or to cause the shareholders to have some kind of imputed income from the trust. U.S. source imputed income. Probably FDAP. On which 30% withholding should be imposed, ‘n other bad stuff.

Fashion-forward Canada

A few years ago the Canadian tax authorities changed the tax rules for Canadian resident taxpayers, essentially saying that if a Canadian had a personal use residence inside a corporation like this, there would be an imputed dividend to the shareholder based on the fair market rental value of the house. So imagine having taxable income and paying tax just for the privilege of living in your own house.
Suddenly, corporate structures became much less appealing to Canadian residents.
I take that as an early warning sign. The Canadians had an exit tax far before we in the United States acquired the entirely execrable, useless, and utterly counter-productive Section 877A. (Ah, but I am a fairminded man. I do not judge.)
So I think it reasonable to assume that at some point the Internal Revenue Service will wake up and announce that they have an entirely original idea and while it won’t be an exact copy of the Canadian method, at least it will rhyme with what the Canadians suffer under.

Bottom line

Foreign corporations probably work for estate tax protection. For now. Might not later...."

Tax Reforms during 2008 (3)



In East Asia and Pacific, five economies reformed. Aside from Malaysia, China made notable reforms, reducing the corporate income tax from 33.3 percent to 25 percent, and unifying accounting methods and criteria for tax deductions and exemptions. Meanwhile, online filing became more prevalent. Thailand introduced corporate income tax exemptions for small companies, reduced the corporate income tax rate to
25 percent for newly‑listed companies, and reduced several property taxes by sizeable rates. It also made online filing and payments easier. Samoa lowered its
corporate income tax from 29 percent to 27 percent.

Mongolia reduced social security contributions paid by employers from 19 percent to 11 percent of gross salaries.

In the Middle East and North Africa, only two economies reformed. Morocco lowered the standard corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 30 percent. Tunisia made filing and paying taxes easier by expanding electronic options. Although companies
have been able to file and pay taxes online since 2005, many have been reluctant to pay their taxes this way. To address their concerns, while easing the administrative burden, Tunisian authorities introduced an option for filing tax returns online while paying the taxes in person at a tax office. This is a practical intermediate step toward a full online system. South Asia recorded no significant reforms.

From doingbusiness.org/taxes.

This Blog/Web Site ("Blog") does not to provide specific legal advice, it is for educational purposes only. This Blog is made available by the international adviser, lawyer or law firm for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice.

The Blog does not constitute legal advice and is not a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Any comment posted on the Blog can be read by any Blog visitor; do not post confidential or sensitive information. Any links from another site to the Blog are beyond the control of us.

By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog.

The Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional adviser or lawyer in your country.

Our firm and do not convey their approval, support or any relationship to any site or organization. The use of this Blog does not implicitly or explicitly convey any warranties or representations as to the accuracy of the information contained herein.

This Blog has created this privacy statement in order to demonstrate our firm commitment to privacy. The following discloses the information gathering and dissemination practices for this Blog.

This Blog takes your privacy very seriously. Our customers told us they want to see clear, easy-to-read information about our privacy commitments and policies. We have made our privacy policies easier to find and easier to read. And we're listening. We welcome your questions and feedback on our privacy policies, and invite you to contact us with your thoughts.

Customer Privacy Controls and Choices:
• You can review and correct your Personal Information collected by us.
• You can limit certain types of solicitation communications from AT&T, including marketing contacts made via telephone, e-mail and text messaging.
• We will provide you with notice of changes to this policy.

Our privacy commitments are fundamental to the way we do business every day. These apply to everyone who has a relationship with this Blog and visitors.
• We will protect your privacy and keep your personal information safe. We use powerful encryption and other security safeguards to protect customer data, when available.
• We will not sell your personal information to anyone, for any purpose. Period.
• We will fully disclose our privacy policies in plain language, and make our policies easily accessible to you.
• We will notify you of any revisions to our privacy policy, in advance. No surprises.
• You have choices about how this Blog uses your information for marketing purposes. Customers are in control.


This Privacy Policy identifies and describes the way This Blog uses and protects the information we collect about visitors. All use of this Blog is subject to this Privacy Policy.

Use of Location Information
• When your wireless device is on, it sends periodic signals to the nearest cell site. We use that information to provide your wireless services;
• You can use your wireless device to obtain a wide array of services based on the approximate location of the device, referred to as Location Based Services, or LBS. The information you receive in connection with your use of LBS may include advertisements related to your request and your location;

Online Activity Tracking and Advertising
• We collect information about your activity on this Blog for a number of purposes using technologies such as cookies, Web beacons, widgets and server log files.
• We and our advertising partners use that information, as well as other information they have or we may have, to help tailor the ads you see on our sites and to help make decisions about ads you see on other sites.

The Information We Collect, How We Collect It, And How We Use It

We collect different types of personal and other information based on your use of our products and services and our business relationship with you. Some examples include:
• Contact Information that allows us to communicate with you -- including your name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address;
• Equipment, Performance, Site Usage, Viewing and other Technical Information about your use of our network, services, products or Web sites.

We collect information in 2 primary ways:
• You give it to us when you register to provide comments;
• We collect it automatically when you visit our Blog.

We use the information we collect in a variety of ways, including to:
• Provide you with the best visitor experience possible;
• Deliver customized content that may be of interest to you;
• Address network integrity and security issues;
• Investigate, prevent or take action regarding illegal activities, violations of our Terms of Service or Acceptable Use Policies; and
• For local directory and directory assistance purposes.

Aggregate or Anonymous Information:

We may share aggregate or anonymous information in various formats with trusted entities’ only for purposes such as:
• Our knowledge, and offer of information that may be of interest to you;
• Universities, laboratories and other entities that conduct scientific research; and
• Media research companies for general information only.

14 Dec 2008

Tax Reforms during 2008 (2)



In Latin America and the Caribbean, besides the reforms in the Dominican Republic, Antigua and Barbuda reduced the corporate income tax rate from 30 percent to 25 percent. St. Vincent and the Grenadines introduced a new value added tax that
replaced several existing taxes, including the hotel tax, entertainment tax, consumption duty, stamp duty on receipts and domestic and international
telecommunications surcharge. Uruguay abolished a tax on consumption. Mexico abolished its asset tax.

Colombia and Honduras made paying taxes easier by implementing and improving online filing and payment systems. That cut the time spent filing and paying taxes, especially in Honduras.

In Africa six economies reformed. Three reduced their corporate income tax rate. Burkina Faso reduced its corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 30 percent, its dividend tax rate from 15 percent to 12.5 percent and its property transfer
tax rate from 10 percent to 8 percent. Côte d’Ivoire reduced the corporate income tax rate from 27 percent to 25 percent. Madagascar reduced that rate from
30 percent to 25 percent and abolished nine taxes, including the stamp duty and dividend tax. In Africa, taxes other than the profit tax – such as stamp duties,
property taxes and labour taxes – account for the largest share of the total tax rate. This is reflected in the large number of tax payments African businesses
must make each year.

Mozambique eased the filing and paying of taxes by introducing electronic systems. It also revised its tax code to make necessary updates, remove ambiguities
and strengthen tax compliance and collection. Zambia did the same. These changes should increase the effectiveness of tax administration.

This Blog/Web Site ("Blog") does not to provide specific legal advice, it is for educational purposes only. This Blog is made available by the international adviser, lawyer or law firm for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice.

The Blog does not constitute legal advice and is not a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Any comment posted on the Blog can be read by any Blog visitor; do not post confidential or sensitive information. Any links from another site to the Blog are beyond the control of us.

By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog.

The Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional adviser or lawyer in your country.

Our firm and do not convey their approval, support or any relationship to any site or organization. The use of this Blog does not implicitly or explicitly convey any warranties or representations as to the accuracy of the information contained herein.

This Blog has created this privacy statement in order to demonstrate our firm commitment to privacy. The following discloses the information gathering and dissemination practices for this Blog.

This Blog takes your privacy very seriously. Our customers told us they want to see clear, easy-to-read information about our privacy commitments and policies. We have made our privacy policies easier to find and easier to read. And we're listening. We welcome your questions and feedback on our privacy policies, and invite you to contact us with your thoughts.

Customer Privacy Controls and Choices:
• You can review and correct your Personal Information collected by us.
• You can limit certain types of solicitation communications from AT&T, including marketing contacts made via telephone, e-mail and text messaging.
• We will provide you with notice of changes to this policy.

Our privacy commitments are fundamental to the way we do business every day. These apply to everyone who has a relationship with this Blog and visitors.
• We will protect your privacy and keep your personal information safe. We use powerful encryption and other security safeguards to protect customer data, when available.
• We will not sell your personal information to anyone, for any purpose. Period.
• We will fully disclose our privacy policies in plain language, and make our policies easily accessible to you.
• We will notify you of any revisions to our privacy policy, in advance. No surprises.
• You have choices about how this Blog uses your information for marketing purposes. Customers are in control.


This Privacy Policy identifies and describes the way This Blog uses and protects the information we collect about visitors. All use of this Blog is subject to this Privacy Policy.

Use of Location Information
• When your wireless device is on, it sends periodic signals to the nearest cell site. We use that information to provide your wireless services;
• You can use your wireless device to obtain a wide array of services based on the approximate location of the device, referred to as Location Based Services, or LBS. The information you receive in connection with your use of LBS may include advertisements related to your request and your location;

Online Activity Tracking and Advertising
• We collect information about your activity on this Blog for a number of purposes using technologies such as cookies, Web beacons, widgets and server log files.
• We and our advertising partners use that information, as well as other information they have or we may have, to help tailor the ads you see on our sites and to help make decisions about ads you see on other sites.

The Information We Collect, How We Collect It, And How We Use It

We collect different types of personal and other information based on your use of our products and services and our business relationship with you. Some examples include:
• Contact Information that allows us to communicate with you -- including your name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address;
• Equipment, Performance, Site Usage, Viewing and other Technical Information about your use of our network, services, products or Web sites.

We collect information in 2 primary ways:
• You give it to us when you register to provide comments;
• We collect it automatically when you visit our Blog.

We use the information we collect in a variety of ways, including to:
• Provide you with the best visitor experience possible;
• Deliver customized content that may be of interest to you;
• Address network integrity and security issues;
• Investigate, prevent or take action regarding illegal activities, violations of our Terms of Service or Acceptable Use Policies; and
• For local directory and directory assistance purposes.

Aggregate or Anonymous Information:

We may share aggregate or anonymous information in various formats with trusted entities’ only for purposes such as:
• Our knowledge, and offer of information that may be of interest to you;
• Universities, laboratories and other entities that conduct scientific research; and
• Media research companies for general information only.

Tax Reforms during 2008 (1)

Two economies introduced new taxes: Botswana and Venezuela. That increases not only the costs but also the administrative burden for businesses.

The Dominican Republic including the stamp duty, was the top reformer in 2007/08. It lowered the corporate income tax from 30 percent to 25 percent, abolished several taxes (including the stamp duty) and reduced the property transfer tax. In addition, in 2007, it fully implemented online filing and payment, piloted in 2006.

Malaysia was the runner‑up reformer. It reduced the corporate income tax for 2009 to 25 percent – part of a gradual reduction that has seen the rate decline to 27 percent in 2007 and 26 percent in 2008. The reform also introduced a single‑tier tax system, in which profits are taxed only after dividend payments are exempted. The capital gains tax was abolished in 2007 to spur investment in the real property and financial market sectors. And electronic payment systems were improved, increasing online filing and payments.

Among regions, Eastern Europe and Central Asia had the most reforms in 2007/08. Nine economies reformed, mainly continuing the trend of reducing the profit tax rate, already among the lowest in the world (Figure 1.3). Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia all reduced their profit tax to 10 percent. Georgia reduced the corporate income tax from 20 percent to 15 percent
and abolished the social tax. The Czech Republic reduced its corporate income tax rate to 21 percent.

Azerbaijan and Ukraine made it simpler to file and pay taxes by introducing electronic systems and online payment capabilities. That significantly reduced the
time spent preparing, filing and paying taxes in the region. Belarus reduced the tax and administrative burden on businesses by abolishing some taxes and reducing the frequency of payments. Bulgaria reduced labour taxes and contributions.

Following closely, with seven reforms each, are the OECD high‑income economies and Latin America and the Caribbean.

Five OECD high‑income economies reduced corporate income tax rates. Canada is gradually reducing the corporate income tax to 15 percent by 2012, as part
of ambitious reforms in its tax system. The reforms also include abolishing the 1.12 percent surtax and introducing accelerated depreciation for buildings (10 percent) and computers (50 percent). Also reducing the corporate tax rate were Denmark (from 28 percent to 25 percent), Germany (from 25 percent to 15 percent), Italy (from 33 percent to 27.5 percent) and New Zealand (from 33 percent to 30 percent). France
and Greece made filing and paying taxes faster by implementing mandatory electronic filing for labour taxes and contributions.

From doingbusiness.org/taxes.

This Blog/Web Site ("Blog") does not to provide specific legal advice, it is for educational purposes only. This Blog is made available by the international adviser, lawyer or law firm for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice.

The Blog does not constitute legal advice and is not a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Any comment posted on the Blog can be read by any Blog visitor; do not post confidential or sensitive information. Any links from another site to the Blog are beyond the control of us.

By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog.

The Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional adviser or lawyer in your country.

Our firm and do not convey their approval, support or any relationship to any site or organization. The use of this Blog does not implicitly or explicitly convey any warranties or representations as to the accuracy of the information contained herein.

This Blog has created this privacy statement in order to demonstrate our firm commitment to privacy. The following discloses the information gathering and dissemination practices for this Blog.

This Blog takes your privacy very seriously. Our customers told us they want to see clear, easy-to-read information about our privacy commitments and policies. We have made our privacy policies easier to find and easier to read. And we're listening. We welcome your questions and feedback on our privacy policies, and invite you to contact us with your thoughts.

Customer Privacy Controls and Choices:
• You can review and correct your Personal Information collected by us.
• You can limit certain types of solicitation communications from AT&T, including marketing contacts made via telephone, e-mail and text messaging.
• We will provide you with notice of changes to this policy.

Our privacy commitments are fundamental to the way we do business every day. These apply to everyone who has a relationship with this Blog and visitors.
• We will protect your privacy and keep your personal information safe. We use powerful encryption and other security safeguards to protect customer data, when available.
• We will not sell your personal information to anyone, for any purpose. Period.
• We will fully disclose our privacy policies in plain language, and make our policies easily accessible to you.
• We will notify you of any revisions to our privacy policy, in advance. No surprises.
• You have choices about how this Blog uses your information for marketing purposes. Customers are in control.


This Privacy Policy identifies and describes the way This Blog uses and protects the information we collect about visitors. All use of this Blog is subject to this Privacy Policy.

Use of Location Information
• When your wireless device is on, it sends periodic signals to the nearest cell site. We use that information to provide your wireless services;
• You can use your wireless device to obtain a wide array of services based on the approximate location of the device, referred to as Location Based Services, or LBS. The information you receive in connection with your use of LBS may include advertisements related to your request and your location;

Online Activity Tracking and Advertising
• We collect information about your activity on this Blog for a number of purposes using technologies such as cookies, Web beacons, widgets and server log files.
• We and our advertising partners use that information, as well as other information they have or we may have, to help tailor the ads you see on our sites and to help make decisions about ads you see on other sites.

The Information We Collect, How We Collect It, And How We Use It

We collect different types of personal and other information based on your use of our products and services and our business relationship with you. Some examples include:
• Contact Information that allows us to communicate with you -- including your name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address;
• Equipment, Performance, Site Usage, Viewing and other Technical Information about your use of our network, services, products or Web sites.

We collect information in 2 primary ways:
• You give it to us when you register to provide comments;
• We collect it automatically when you visit our Blog.

We use the information we collect in a variety of ways, including to:
• Provide you with the best visitor experience possible;
• Deliver customized content that may be of interest to you;
• Address network integrity and security issues;
• Investigate, prevent or take action regarding illegal activities, violations of our Terms of Service or Acceptable Use Policies; and
• For local directory and directory assistance purposes.

Aggregate or Anonymous Information:

We may share aggregate or anonymous information in various formats with trusted entities’ only for purposes such as:
• Our knowledge, and offer of information that may be of interest to you;
• Universities, laboratories and other entities that conduct scientific research; and
• Media research companies for general information only.

España: amnistia para los paraisos fiscales?


"Caldera pide amnistía para los paraísos fiscales", articulo publicado el 13-12-08 , por M. Tejo en Expansion (www.expansion.com):

"Excellent!". Con este énfasis relataba ayer el vicepresidente ejecutivo de la Fundación Ideas para el Progreso, Jesús Caldera, la reacción que tuvo el Premio Nobel Joseph Stigliz al leer una de las propuestas anticrisis que el núcleo intelectual del PSOE quiere agitar en España. Se trata de introducir un "proceso de regularización tributaria" para acabar con los paraísos fiscales en 2015. La propuesta pasa por despenalizar los capitales que abandonen estos edenes financieros, a la vez que se les permite tributar a un nivel inferior al legal.


Todo esto se justifica, según Caldera, por un fin altruista: los fondos aflorados se destinarán a reducir a la mitad la pobreza del mundo. En la práctica, el proyecto, que forma parte del informe Nuevas Ideas para Mejorar el Funcionamiento de los Mercados Financieros y la Economía Mundial, supone una suerte de amnistía, aunque a Caldera este término no le parece "adecuado". "No es una amnistía, porque [los inversores] seguirán pagando impuestos. Además, el fin último es bueno", explicó el ex ministro.

Zapatero acudió a la cumbre del G-20 con las propuestas económicas de la Fundación de Caldera
Según la OCDE, los paraísos fiscales acumulan un patrimonio privado de casi un trillón de dólares, cinco veces más al de hace dos décadas. Los Estados que los albergan tienen más de un millón de sociedades amparadas en el anonimato, lo que según el FMI ha permitido a estos territorios copar una cuarta parte de la riqueza mundial. Belice, Chipre, las isla Caimán y Gibraltar, por ejemplo, forman parte de la lista de paraísos elaborada por la OCDE.

El informe de la plataforma del PSOE, que ha contado con las aportaciones de dieciocho expertos y académicos "de todas las sensibilidades", da incluso un paso más allá.

Junto con la defensa de un gravamen especial para todo movimiento de fondos que tenga "como origen o destino" un paraíso fiscal, justifica que no se reconozca "personalidad jurídica" a las sociedades allí erradicadas para intervenir en el tráfico mercantil español.

Además, Ideas aboga por "prohibir que las entidades bancarias españolas tengan filiales o sucursales en dichos territorios". A nivel europeo, la reclamación se agudiza, pues busca suprimir del secreto bancario y establecer "medidas severas de aislamiento" financiero a los Estados que no quieran colaborar. Los bancos de Suiza, Uruguay o las islas Barbados están alineadas con esta regla, que impide revelar información privada sobre los clientes.

Ideas pretende crear agencias públicas de ráting que evalúen a todas las empresas privadas
El documento que, según Caldera, acompañó al presidente de Gobierno a la cumbre del G-20 en la que se le dejó estar presente a España bajo bandera francesa, el pasado noviembre, parte de que el mundo necesita un nuevo "paradigma", dado que "la ideología neoliberal" supuso, según los autores, que el principio de autorregulación mudara en "ausencia de regulación".

Desde esta óptica, apuesta por dar un mayor protagonismo al Estado, que podría dirigir sus tentáculos hacia las agencias de calificación.

Según los técnicos, éstas deberían ser más "independientes y objetivas". ¿Cómo? "Sometiéndose a supervisión, en incluso competencia, de las agencias públicas", señala el informe.

Caldera defiende que las actuales agencias de calificación estén "sometidas" a las públicas
Dos mandamientos financieros: prohibir las inversiones "distorsionadoras" en materias primas y limitar el apalancamiento de las entidades financieras
"Permitimos a las entidades financieras crecer demasiado (tanto que no podíamos permitir su colapso) lo que contribuyó a a la asunción excesiva de riesgos". Éstas son las únicas líneas que el informe económico de la Fundación Ideas, promovida por el PSOE, reserva para entonar el mea culpa de los gobiernos en la crisis financiera.

Al margen de este paréntesis, el equipo de técnicos pilotados por Caldera afirma que debe reconocerse la "legitimidad del Estado" para jugar un papel activo en la revisión y mejora de la regulación financiera.

Y de la teoría a la práctica. La Fundación defiende la necesidad de introducir límites al apalancamiento (financiación) de las entidades financieras para que los bancos no puedan endeudarse de forma "excesiva" poniendo en riesgo a toda la economía. Como guiño al sector, abogan por dar preferencia al acceso a "contratos y/o avales públicos" a las entidades financieras que hagan públicas sus políticas de buen gobierno corporativo.

Los técnicos piden una reforma del sistema retributivo de los directivos y limitar los blindajes
Otra de las propuestas pasa por "prohibir" las inversiones financieras "distorsionadoras en materias primas" que, en su opinión, han generado problemáticas burbujas de precios de los alimentos o del petróleo.

Otro de los puntos que más críticas centra es el apartado de remuneraciones de los directivos. En opinión de los expertos, deben estar "relacionadas con la creación de valor a medio plazo" y sus indemnizaciones ligadas a las causas del despido. Defienden aumentar las ventajas fiscales de las que gozan los planes generales de entrega de opciones sobre acciones o participaciones a los empleados o, en su caso, "dejar exentas de tributación las rentas producidas por estos títulos para el trabajador".

12 Dec 2008

España: ventajas para la internacionalizacion, pese a Hacienda


"Golpe al deseo de Hacienda de exigir 2.000 millones a grandes exportadoras", articulo publicado el 11-12-08 , por C. Cuesta / E. S. Mazo en Expansion (www.expansion.com):

La Agencia Tributaria contaba ya con obtener cerca de 2.000 millones de euros adicionales. Debían proceder de una gran actuación inspectora: la que anulaba en la práctica la gran mayoría de las deducciones por exportación aplicadas por las grandes empresas españolas.


Pero se ha encontrado con un serio obstáculo. Una resolución del Tribunal Económico Administrativo Central (TEAC), a la que ha tenido acceso EXPANSIÓN, acaba de asegurar que la Inspección «niega el derecho a la deducción por considerar que la inversión realizada en la constitución de filiales en el extranjero y adquisición de participaciones en sociedades extranjeras no está directamente relacionada con la actividad exportadora [...].

La resolución del Tribunal abre una importante vía de defensa legal frente a Hacienda
Sin embargo, la Inspección [...] está manifestando una apreciación subjetiva, carente de sustento legal, pues la ley exige una relación causal entre inversión y exportación, pero no que la exportación constituya el fin principal de la misma».

Algunas de las mayores empresas con fuerte implantación en el exterior han recibido actas en 2008 por culpa de esta contienda fiscal. «Mientras el deterioro de las ventas al por menor, con caídas superiores al 7%, ha llevado a muchas de las compañías a confiar en el exterior como tabla de salvamento frente a la crisis, la Agencia Tributaria ha decidido apretar las tuercas», señala uno de los directivos de una de las compañías exportadoras.

La internacionalización de las compañías se ha convertido, de hecho, en uno de los mecanismos de diversificación de riesgos y beneficios de las mayores entidades nacionales (Telefónica, Repsol, Endesa o Fenosa entre otras).

El punto de pelea entre las empresas y el Fisco por las deducciones por actividades de exportación en el Impuesto sobre Sociedades (que llegaron a ser de un 25% de los gastos ocasionados) partió de una circular de la Agencia –ver EXPANSIÓN de 3 de julio de 2008–.

El organismo antifraude señalaba en ese documento que «la mera implantación de empresas españolas en el extranjero no supone necesariamente una actividad exportadora [...] la mera implantación de empresas españolas en el extranjero, sin que exista una vinculación a la actividad exportadora, no es merecedora de la deducción por actividades exportadoras».

La resolución actual del TEAC rechaza ese planteamiento. Fuentes jurídicas consultadas destacan que el criterio, aunque podría ser cambiado en posteriores resoluciones, abre una importante vía de defensa legal frente a Hacienda.

Pero, además, la resolución en favor de las empresas tiene otro punto de interés. Se trata de una de las últimas que se emitió estando aún en su cargo el anterior presidente del Tribunal Económico Administrativo Central, Eduardo Abril.

La fecha de debate («fecha de sala») de esta resolución es de abril de 2008, cuando el cese de Abril se publicó en el BOE del 23 de mayo. La salida de Abril, de hecho, fue acompañada de versiones que apuntaban a un incremento del poder de la Agencia en el Ministerio.

7 Dec 2008

España: La Agencia Tributaria entra 2 veces al dia en su vida


"La Agencia Tributaria entra en su vida dos veces al día", articulo muy interesante publicado el 06-12-08 , por J. J. Marcos en Expansion (www.expansion.com):

No descansa ningún día del año. No tiene ninguna hora libre. Todos los días procesa 80 millones de datos y transacciones económicos. Es el Gran Hermano fiscal, la red informática de la Agencia Tributaria (AEAT), un referente a nivel mundial en la lucha contra el fraude.


Dado que en España hay algo menos de 42 millones de contribuyentes (incluyendo grandes empresas y actividad aduanera), todos los días cualquiera de los pagadores a la Administración aparece dos veces en estos ingenios informáticos. No es de extrañar que a las máquinas y aplicaciones de Hacienda las bauticen con nombres de conquistadores.

Una de ellas, Orellana, aglutina en un solo punto todas las conexiones de Internet de la AEAT y hace que, hasta la fecha, sea una de las pocas administraciones que nunca ha sucumbido a un ataque hacker. No está muy claro lo que pensaría el aventurero extremeño de esta aplicación pero, gracias a su protección, Hacienda no descansa.

Es la primera administración del mundo que asume la información del IVA mensualmente
Durante la jornada laboral, las operaciones suelen ser las habituales: declaraciones de la renta, consultas, domiciliaciones fiscales... Después, la máquina realiza cruces de información en busca del fraude. No para. Realiza unas 12.000 de estas investigaciones al día. Cada vez más ajustadas.

Y es que el Gobierno ha adquirido ordenadores que dan titubeantes pasos en la inteligencia artificial. El sistema aprende, busca pautas de comportamiento en las personas que no declaran correctamente y afila sus inspecciones. Para ello, cuenta con datos de tarjetas de créditos, compras de activos, amarres de barcos, matriculaciones de coches y un interminable etcétera.

La AEAT también se ha pertrechado con una serie de robots que aceleran el tiempo de respuesta a tiempos que fraccionan en mucho el segundo.

La sede central de todo este entramado está ubicada en la calle Santa Magdalena de Madrid. Los 3.000 metros cuadrados de la tercera planta actúan como un cerebro de dimensiones titánicas desde donde se controla a unos 26.000 funcionarios de 500 oficinas distribuidas por toda España.

El edificio cuenta con protecciones sorprendentes. Recibe suministro de dos compañías eléctricas diferentes, con dos conexiones telefónicas separadas. "Hay que evitar el efecto excavadora", señala el subdirector de Explotación de la Agencia, José Luis Arufe, en referencia a accidentes y averías externos.

Además, la instalación tiene conexiones constantes y seguras con todas las entidades financieras, las administraciones con relación con los tributos y las aduanas, entre otros. Más aún, a 20 kilómetros, hay una réplica exacta de los ordenadores de la Agencia para que no se pierda información alguna.

En total, Hacienda acumula 3.500 millones de datos de sus contribuyentes. La información almacenada es la de unos 1.000 terabytes, una unidad de medida que viene del griego tera (monstruo) y que equivale a 10 elevado a la duodécima potencia. "Es como 400 millones de volúmenes de biblias que caben en menos de una habitación", estima Arufe.

Esta cantidad se va a ver exponencialmente aumentada. La caída en la recaudación que ha traído consigo la casi recesión española ha hecho que la inspección del fraude recobre importancia. El Fisco tendrá que controlar, por ejemplo, todos los depósitos en efectivo de cualquier entidad financiera a partir de 3.000 euros. La cantidad de información generada es imponente. Sin embargo, en la AEAT la desdeñan. "Lo que nos preocupa es la devolución mensual del IVA", añade el responsable informático de la Agencia.

Esta nueva operación, que aseguran que ningún país del mundo se ha atrevido a realizar, requerirá que se analicen un máximo de 17.000 millones de facturas al mes. Hacienda afirma que está preparada. "Es como en El Principito, somos una boa que se puede tragar un elefante", teorizó. A fin de cuentas, según las estimaciones de su personal, cada año la cantidad de información aumenta a un ritmo del 30%.


Desde la AEAT consideran que el grado de eficiencia alcanzado no es cuestión de la inversión de un año puntual, sino del acumulado desde finales de los años 70 en este sentido. De momento, se grata de la Agencia con mayor presupuesto del Gobierno. Para 2009 tiene dotados 1.208,98 millones. Eso sí, un 3% menos que en el presente ejercicio.

También tiene previsto el traslado de la sede a un edificio exclusivo, diseñado ex profeso para albergar este tipo de maquinaria pesada. La idea era que el traslado fuera en 2012, aunque "ahora, con la crisis, no se sabe", añade Arufe.

Menos personal, más recaudación

Los esfuerzos de la Agencia Tributaria contra el fraude se centran cada vez más en las grandes tramas, según destaca la última memoria del organismo, donde se detecta una reducción de la plantilla en 82 personas. La memoria constata que las inspecciones de contribuyentes investigados por los mecanismos selectivos tradicionales han pasado de 33.150 a 25.670. De este modo, las grandes tramas distraen el Gobierno del control de los asalariados (ver EXPANSIÓN del 13 de septiembre).

Al mismo tiempo, al defraudador detectado se le impone mayor cantidad de multas, al menos según los datos de la cantidad económica recaudada. Para 2009, la previsión que tiene la AEAT es la de recaudar 5.900 millones, un 3% más, aunque estas cifras se dieron antes de que el Gobierno aprobara las nuevas medidas antifraude.

5 Dec 2008

International Bank Secrecy and Tax Evasion

Very interesting article appearing in November 26, 2008 in International Tax Blog (http://intltax.typepad.com/intltax_blog/2008/11/foreign-bank-secrecy-tax-evasion.html) :

"Foreign Bank Secrecy & Tax Evasion

On July 17, 2008, in conjunction with a hearing regarding Tax Haven Banks and U.S. Tax Compliance, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the U.S. Senate released a report (the “Subcommittee Report”) that reads like a spy novel. The Subcommittee Report reviews the “global tax scandal” related to LGT Bank in Liechtenstein, and the “international tax scandal” related to UBS AG in Switzerland.

The LGT scandal erupted after a former employee of a Liechtenstein trust company provided tax authorities around the world with data on about 1,400 persons with accounts at LGT. The UBS AG scandal broke when the U.S. arrested a private banker formerly employed by UBS AG on charges of having conspired with a U.S. citizen and a business associate to defraud the IRS of $7.2 million in taxes owed on $200 million of assets hidden in offshore accounts in Switzerland and Liechtenstein.

LGT Bank in Liechtenstein
LGT Bank in Liechtenstein is owned and controlled by the royal family in Liechtenstein.

According to the Subcommittee Report:
LGT employed practices that could facilitate, and in some instances have resulted in, tax evasion by U.S. clients. These LGT practices have included maintaining U.S. client accounts which are not disclosed to U.S. tax authorities; advising U.S. clients to open accounts in the name of Liechtenstein foundations to hide their beneficial ownership of the account assets; advising clients on the use of complex offshore structures to hide ownership of assets outside of Liechtenstein; and establishing “transfer corporations” to disguise asset transfers to and from LGT accounts. It was also not unusual for LGT to assign its U.S. clients code words that they or LGT could invoke to confirm their respective identities. LGT also advised clients on how to structure their investments to avoid disclosure to the IRS . . . .

For many of its U.S. clients, LGT helped establish one or more Liechtenstein foundations. Under U.S. tax law, the IRS generally views Liechtenstein foundations as foreign trusts. U.S. persons with an interest in a foreign trust, including a Liechtenstein foundation, are required to disclose the existence of the trust to the IRS by filing Forms 3520 (Annual Return To Report Transactions With Foreign Trusts and Receipt of Certain Foreign Gifts) and 3520-A (Annual Information Return of Foreign Trust With a U.S. Owner). Financial penalties for failing to file these forms can be confiscatory.

The foundations provided strong secrecy protections and yet gave substantial control over the foundations to their beneficial owners. In one case, a U.S. citizen pretended to sell his home in New York to what appeared to be an unrelated party from Hong Kong. In fact, the buyer was a British Virgin Islands company with a Hong Kong address, and it was wholly owned by a Bahamian corporation which was, in turn, wholly owned by the U.S. citizen’s Liechtenstein foundation.

The foundations often would not name the grantor or his/her family members as beneficiaries. Instead, the foundation instruments would include a complex mechanism providing for the naming of beneficiaries. Despite these mechanisms, internal LGT documents were clear as to the the true beneficiaries of the foundation.

At times, LGT would set up for the foundation what LGT has sometimes referred to as a “transfer corporation” to help disguise asset flows into and out of a foundation’s accounts. This transfer corporation acts as a pass-through entity that breaks the direct link between the foundation and other persons with whom it is exchanging funds, making it harder to trace those funds.

A strategy employed by LGT to enhance secrecy and client anonymity was to limit the ability of outside parties to trace client communications back to Liechtenstein. To achieve this objective, LGT not only instituted a policy of retaining client mail at the bank in Liechtenstein, or sending mail to locations outside of a client’s home jurisdiction, but also undertook efforts to minimize the ability of outside parties to trace telephone calls back to the bank and even the country itself. One LGT document, for example, providing information on how to contact a client, instructed that calls should be made only from public phone booths outside of Liechtenstein.

The Subcommittee Report stated:
These LGT accounts together portray a bank whose personnel too often viewed LGT’s role as, not just a guardian of client assets or trusted financial advisor, but also a willing partner to clients wishing to hide their assets from tax authorities, creditors, and courts. In that context, bank secrecy laws have served as a cloak not only for client misconduct, but also for bank personnel colluding with clients to evade taxes, dodge creditors, and defy court orders.

UBS AG
UBS AG of Switzerland is one of the largest financial institutions in the world, and has one of the world’s largest private banks catering to wealthy individuals. From at least 2000 to 2007, UBS made a concerted effort to open accounts in Switzerland for wealthy U.S. clients, employing practices that could facilitate, and have resulted in, tax evasion by U.S. clients. These UBS practices included maintaining for an estimated 19,000 U.S. clients “undeclared” accounts in Switzerland with billions of dollars in assets that have not been disclosed to U.S. tax authorities, and assisting U.S. clients in structuring their accounts to avoid U.S. tax reporting requirements.
UBS assured its U.S. clients with undeclared accounts that U.S. authorities would not learn about them, because the bank is not required to disclose them; UBS procedures, practices and services protect against disclosure; and the account information is further shielded by Swiss bank secrecy laws. In November 2002, for example, senior officials in the UBS private banking operations in Switzerland sent a letter to U.S. clients about their Swiss accounts which states in part:
“[W]e should like to underscore that a Swiss bank which runs afoul of Swiss privacy laws will face sanctions by its Swiss regulator … [I]t must be clear that information relative to your Swiss banking relationship is as safe as ever and that the possibility of putting pressure on our U.S. units does not change anything. . . .

The Subcommittee Report indicated that UBS also provided training to its client advisors on how to detect -- and avoid – surveillance by U.S. customs agents and law enforcement officers. A UBS training document provides a series of scenarios designed to train its personnel. An excerpt from one of the scenarios is as follows:

After passing immigration desk during your trip to USA/Canada, you are intercepted by the authorities. By checking your Palm, they find all your client meetings. Fortunately you stored only very short remarks of the different meetings and no names.
As you spend around one week in the same hotel, the longer you stay there, the more you get the feeling of being observed. Sometimes you even doubt if all of the hotel employees are working for the hotel. A lot of client meetings are held in the suite of your hotel.
One morning you are intercepted by an FBI-agent. He looks for some information about one of your clients and explains to you, that your client is involved in illegal activities.

Question 1: What would you do in such a situation?

Question 2: What are the signs indicating that something is going on?

The document does not indicate UBS’ preferred responses to these questions.
The Subcommittee Report is 110 pages long and has many more details of the practices and procedures of LGT and UBS. UBS is currently under investigation by the SEC, IRS, and Department of Justice."

This Blog/Web Site ("Blog") does not to provide specific legal advice, it is for educational purposes only. This Blog is made available by the international adviser, lawyer or law firm for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice.

The Blog does not constitute legal advice and is not a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Any comment posted on the Blog can be read by any Blog visitor; do not post confidential or sensitive information. Any links from another site to the Blog are beyond the control of us.

By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog.

The Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional adviser or lawyer in your country.

Our firm and do not convey their approval, support or any relationship to any site or organization. The use of this Blog does not implicitly or explicitly convey any warranties or representations as to the accuracy of the information contained herein.

This Blog has created this privacy statement in order to demonstrate our firm commitment to privacy. The following discloses the information gathering and dissemination practices for this Blog.

This Blog takes your privacy very seriously. Our customers told us they want to see clear, easy-to-read information about our privacy commitments and policies. We have made our privacy policies easier to find and easier to read. And we're listening. We welcome your questions and feedback on our privacy policies, and invite you to contact us with your thoughts.

Customer Privacy Controls and Choices:
• You can review and correct your Personal Information collected by us.
• You can limit certain types of solicitation communications from AT&T, including marketing contacts made via telephone, e-mail and text messaging.
• We will provide you with notice of changes to this policy.

Our privacy commitments are fundamental to the way we do business every day. These apply to everyone who has a relationship with this Blog and visitors.
• We will protect your privacy and keep your personal information safe. We use powerful encryption and other security safeguards to protect customer data, when available.
• We will not sell your personal information to anyone, for any purpose. Period.
• We will fully disclose our privacy policies in plain language, and make our policies easily accessible to you.
• We will notify you of any revisions to our privacy policy, in advance. No surprises.
• You have choices about how this Blog uses your information for marketing purposes. Customers are in control.


This Privacy Policy identifies and describes the way This Blog uses and protects the information we collect about visitors. All use of this Blog is subject to this Privacy Policy.

Use of Location Information
• When your wireless device is on, it sends periodic signals to the nearest cell site. We use that information to provide your wireless services;
• You can use your wireless device to obtain a wide array of services based on the approximate location of the device, referred to as Location Based Services, or LBS. The information you receive in connection with your use of LBS may include advertisements related to your request and your location;

Online Activity Tracking and Advertising
• We collect information about your activity on this Blog for a number of purposes using technologies such as cookies, Web beacons, widgets and server log files.
• We and our advertising partners use that information, as well as other information they have or we may have, to help tailor the ads you see on our sites and to help make decisions about ads you see on other sites.

The Information We Collect, How We Collect It, And How We Use It

We collect different types of personal and other information based on your use of our products and services and our business relationship with you. Some examples include:
• Contact Information that allows us to communicate with you -- including your name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address;
• Equipment, Performance, Site Usage, Viewing and other Technical Information about your use of our network, services, products or Web sites.

We collect information in 2 primary ways:
• You give it to us when you register to provide comments;
• We collect it automatically when you visit our Blog.

We use the information we collect in a variety of ways, including to:
• Provide you with the best visitor experience possible;
• Deliver customized content that may be of interest to you;
• Address network integrity and security issues;
• Investigate, prevent or take action regarding illegal activities, violations of our Terms of Service or Acceptable Use Policies; and
• For local directory and directory assistance purposes.

Aggregate or Anonymous Information:

We may share aggregate or anonymous information in various formats with trusted entities’ only for purposes such as:
• Our knowledge, and offer of information that may be of interest to you;
• Universities, laboratories and other entities that conduct scientific research; and
• Media research companies for general information only.

Tributacion del Establecimiento Permanente



Tributación de los establecimientos permanentes

El E.P. tributa por la totalidad de las rentas obtenidas imputables a el, independientemente "que sea el lugar donde se hubiera obtenido". Incluyen tanto las que se deriven de la explotación económica como las que se deriven de plusvalias.

El régimen aplicable es diferente, en algunos aspectos, según se trate de personas físicas y de personas jurídicas.


Base imponible

Los no residentes que operan en España mediante establecimiento permanente tributan de forma semejante a los residentes. La base imponible se determinará de acuerdo con las disposiciones del régimen general del Impuesto sobre Sociedades pudiendo compensar las bases imponibles negativas de ejercicios anteriores. Pero debe tenerse en cuenta las siguientes especialidades:

a) No son deducibles con carácter general, los pagos efectuados a la casa central en concepto de cánones, intereses, comisiones, servicios asistencia técnica o por el uso o la cesión de bienes o derechos.

b) La deducción de los gastos de dirección y generales de administración están condicionados al cumplimiento de una serie de requisitos.

c) Se aplicarán las normas de las operaciones vinculadas establecidas en la Ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades a las operaciones realizadas con la casa central, con otro establecimiento permanente de la misma casa central o con otras personas o entidades vinculadas a la casa central o sus establecimientos permanentes, ya estén situados en territorio español o en el extranjero.

d) El tipo de gravamen a aplicar es el 32,5% para períodos iniciados a partir de 1 de enero de 2007 y 30% para los iniciados a partir de 1 de enero de 2008.

Los establecimientos permanentes están obligados a llevar contabilidad separada así como el cumplimiento de las demás obligaciones de índole contable, registral o formal a que están obligados los sujetos pasivos del Impuesto sobre Sociedades.


Tipo de gravamen

Los diferentes tipos impositivos aplicables a las rentas obtenidas mediante establecimiento permanente por contribuyentes del Impuesto sobre la Renta de no Residentes son los siguientes:

a) Con carácter general se aplicará el tipo de gravamen del 30% para los iniciados a partir de 1 de enero de 2008.

b) Actividad de investigación y explotación de hidrocarburos. El tipo de gravamen será del 35% para períodos iniciados a partir de 1 de enero de 2008.

c) Imposición complementaria del 18% exigible a los establecimientos permanentes de entidades no residentes cuando transfieran rentas al extranjero. La imposición complementaria no será aplicable cuando se trate de rentas obtenidas en territorio español a través de establecimientos permanentes por entidades que tengan su residencia fiscal en otro Estado miembro de la Unidad Europea, salvo que se trate de un país o territorio considerado como paraiso fiscal, o en un Estado que haya suscrito con España un convenio para evitar la doble imposición, en el que no se establezca expresamente otra cosa, siempre que exista un tratamiento recíproco.

4 Dec 2008

España: hipocresia de los bancos en torno a los paraísos fiscales


"Anticorrupción denuncia la “hipocresía” de la banca en torno a los paraísos fiscales", articulo publicado el 03-12-08 , por María A. Caro / B. A. en Expansion (www.expansion.com):

La Fiscalía Anticorrupción ha centrado su atención sobre la posición de la banca en las operaciones de fraude fiscal. El titular de la Fiscalía Anticorrupción, Alejandro Luzón, afirmó ayer en el IV Foro Antifraude organizado por KPMG y celebrado en Madrid, que las entidades bancarias facilitan sus “clientes preferentes” el depósito de su dinero en paraísos fiscales y que existe una “hipocresía” en torno a los territorios exentos de impuestos.


El foro, denominado La Instrucción Judicial en Procedimientos por Delitos Complejos, reunió a varios expertos sobre la cuestión, que destacaron las carencias de nuestro sistema en la persecución del fraude.

Luzón reconoció que la lucha contra el crimen económico está “abocada al fracaso” y afirmó que la dificultad en la búsqueda de información de estos delitos es extrema. De igual forma destacó, dejando entrever el papel de los bancos en la ocultación del dinero, que la Ley de Prevención de Blanqueo de Capitales obliga a los bancos a mantener durante seis años toda la información y que aunque los bancos alegan que destruyen la información transcurrido ese tiempo, Anticorrupción ha comprobado que no es así.

Aumentar el control

El fiscal insistió en que es preciso que los organismos reguladores aumenten el control y que los territorios offshore “se conviertan en cooperantes y aporten información cuando se trata de un delito de gravedad”.

En cuanto a la evolución de los delitos económicos, destacó que ha sido tal que ahora habría que hablar de la existencia de “una economía del crimen”, fundida en la economía globalizada que unifica las prácticas legales e ilegales, estando la posibilidad de ocultar fondos al “alcance de cualquiera”.

En este mismo foro, el instructor del ‘caso Malaya’ y actual titular del Juzgado de lo Penal número 5 de Granada, Miguel Angel Torres, se mostró partidario de crear juzgados especializados en delitos económicos fuera de la Audiencia Nacional, con jueces, fiscales y funcionarios con una “cualificación específica”.

El juez Torres apuntó que anteponer el embargo de bienes frente a la privación de libertad sería “más provechoso” para la sociedad. Por otra parte, también aprovechó su turno para alertar de la “insuficiente” regulación existente en España del secreto de las actuaciones, así como del escaso desarrollo de instrumentos tan relevantes como la regulación de los arrepentidos, la protección de testigos y la “alarmante” normativa sobre intervenciones telefónicas.

Por otro lado, el socio director responsable de Forensic en Europa, Oriente Medio y África de KPMG, Pablo Bernad, resaltó la importancia de la prueba pericial en este tipo de delitos en apoyo a las tesis de la fiscalía o de los abogados defensores. El experto destacó la importancia en este ámbito de la tecnología forense.

En este sentido, Bernad también apuntó que muchas veces se observa que tanto jueces como fiscales carecen de los conocimientos técnicos y no están familiarizados con la tecnología financiera.

Las necesidades de nuestro sistema
- Según el fiscal Anticorrupción, Alejandro Luzón, los bancos no cumplen con la obligación de conservar la información de sus clientes y destruirla transcurridos seis años.

- El fiscal insistió en la necesidad de que los territorios offshore “se conviertan en cooperantes y aporten información cuando se trate de un delito de gravedad”.

- El juez Torres, instructor del ‘caso Malaya’, pide que haya juzgados especializados en delitos económicos fuera de la Audiencia Nacional.

- Es insuficiente la regulación española sobre el secreto de las actuaciones judiciales y hay un escaso desarrollo de instrumentos como la figura del arrepentido, la protección de testigos o la “alarmante” normativa de intervenciones telefónicas.

- Es más provechoso para luchar contra la corrupción la medida del embargo de bienes frente a la de privación de libertad.

- La prueba pericial es muy relevante en este tipo de delitos en apoyo a las tesis de la Fiscalía o de los abogados defensores.

3 Dec 2008

tax secrecy "should be vigorously addressed".

"Harbours of resentment", an article by Vanessa Houlder, published at Financial Times (www.ft.com) on December 1 2008

In the Victorian seaside town of Douglas, a new mood of uncertainty has punctured the customary ebullience of the Isle of Man's senior legal and financial officials as they fret about the loyalty of their most powerful neighbour. "If jettisoned by the UK, we will have to fight tooth and nail for our survival," says William Corlett, the island's attorney general.

In the 1960s, young Manx people began to leave the windswept island until politicians started creating jobs for them by scrapping taxes and luring financial institutions to do business in the self-governing Crown dependency. Finance, says Mr Corlett, is what has saved the Isle of Man, 60 miles off the western coast of Britain, from the fate suffered by other isolated outposts such as Scotland's Western Isles, which are plagued by depopulation.

Hence the sense of vulnerability as the island's close relationship with the City of London is called into question. Alistair Darling, the UK chancellor of the exchequer, launched a review last week into London's financial ties with what he has described as "a tax haven sitting in the Irish Sea". From next month, the White House will be occupied by an avowed enemy of tax havens who backed a bill targeting "offshore secrecy jurisdictions", including the Isle of Man.

This icy blast is a sign of the growing hostility to the tiny states and islands around the world that harbour an estimated $6,000bn (£3,895bn, €4,725bn) of offshore assets. After months of financial crisis and banking scandals that rocked Liechtenstein and Switzerland, the world's most powerful countries have lost patience.

In Washington last month, finance ministers from the Group of 20 leading industrial and developing nations concluded that tax secrecy "should be vigorously addressed". This weekend, it was the turn of the developing countries. At a United Nations meeting on development in Doha, tax havens came under fire for fuelling capital flight.

Tax havens are used to threatening language. Ever since they came into vogue after the second world war as places for individuals to shelter money and savvy international corporations to manage their tax affairs, havens have faced pressure from bigger countries. Will it be different this time? If it is, what future is there for the small island and mountain countries that turned the dusty notions of privacy and opaque corporate architecture into lucrative national industries?

"The political climate on the issue of tax havens has changed dramatically over the past three months," says Jeffrey Owens of the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. As the official who has driven the international crackdown on secrecy for more than a decade, he says the new climate could turn the reform promises extracted from many offshore centres into a reality. The financial crisis has intensified the attack on havens. The near-collapse of the west's banking industry has drastically increased governments' need to raise funds, brutally exposed the risks inherent in small countries with large financial sectors, and raised questions about the role of offshore centres in destabilising the system.

Some European finance ministers claim that the "opaque environment" of offshore finance - particularly hedge funds - contributed to reckless behaviour and, ultimately, the current crisis. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France is among those questioning whether, at a time of taxpayer-funded bail-outs, banks should even be allowed to operate in tax havens.

Onshore businesses in London and New York exploit the offshore benefits offered by the likes of Jersey and the Cayman Islands to optimise the tax efficiency of certain deals, such as the repackaging of debt and cross-border lending. The havens themselves reject claims that they fuelled the crisis. "It is like blaming a car manufacturer for road crashes," says an official in one of Britain's overseas territories.

The arrival of Barack Obama in the White House provokes even more anxiety for the havens. As well as launching last year's Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, the president-elect helped this year to launch the Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act. This aims to make it easier for investigators to "see through" opaque corporate ownership structures and stop the flow of offshore funds to the US from hedge funds and private equity that are "of unknown origin" but do not have to pass money-laundering checks.

On the campaign trail, Mr Obama also laid bare his hostility to the corporate use of offshore jurisdictions for international tax planning, which analysts estimate accounts for between one third and a half of the revenues that Washington loses through offshore evasion and avoidance. "There's a building in the Cayman Islands that houses supposedly 12,000 US-based corporations," he said. "That's either the biggest building in the world or the biggest tax scam in the world, and we know which one it is."

Turning tough talk into real action will require considerable political will. Any reform of US tax to stop offshore fiscal planning is sure to face fierce opposition from US multinationals worried about being put at a disadvantage to foreign competitors. Martin Sullivan of Tax Analysts, a non-profit US publication, says: "Nothing will sail through. It will be much diluted."

Havens hope the likely differences between the Obama administration and that of President George W. Bush have been exaggerated. "The Democrats are never as bad as their rhetoric; the Republicans never as good," says an official at a centre bruised by concessions on transparency that were extracted after the 2001 terror attacks.

But the prospect of a renewed crackdown on secrecy is jangling nerves. The more reputable offshore centres are fearful that the difference between co-operative and unco-operative jurisdictions will be lost. "Politicians like scapegoats. In a crusade, the details get swept away," says Allan Bell, the Isle of Man's treasury minister. He complains that the nuances of the debate - including offshore-style tax dodging in many large "onshore" countries - are being overlooked. In October, he won support from Angel Gurría, OECD secretary-general, who called for "clear political recognition" of the half-dozen jurisdictions, such as the Isle of Man, that had taken "high political risk" in their move to greater transparency.

But even the most co-operative havens are only partially transparent. Information about private companies or trusts is not on public record. At best they will surrender information only to foreign tax inspectors who already have a "smoking gun" demonstrating evidence of wrongdoing. In practice, information exchange is rare.

Yet moving too far, too fast, might put the more co-operative tax havens at a competitive disadvantage. Wealthy individuals can be highly sensitive about financial privacy. Advisers at leading banks report that clients are already moving their money to Singapore and Switzerland - widely perceived as the last hold-outs against the international drive for transparency.

The danger of focusing solely on small players while ignoring similar shortcomings in some industrialised countries was one lesson of an OECD crackdown on secrecy launched in 1996. Tax havens have exploited this evident hypocrisy to stall reforms pending the introduction of a "level playing field". The success of the latest crackdown is likely to depend on the attitude of relatively powerful countries such as Switzerland and Singapore.

Even if secrecy is eliminated, the leading offshore jurisdictions will survive, reckons Tax Analysts' Mr Sullivan. "Will there still be Switzerland, Jersey, the Cayman Islands and the Isle of Man in a world where there was no tax evasion? Absolutely." But for dozens of others, the outlook is bleak. "There is so much competition. Some would go out of business."

That message has yet to reach the many eager wannabes. Last month, Tax Justice Network, one of several campaign groups that have vigorously lobbied against havens, proclaimed the Indian Ocean island of Anjouan to be the "new kid on the block". But such newcomers may not have reckoned with the ever-mounting costs of new regulations designed to tackle terrorist financing and money laundering.

Smaller, less successful tax havens are caught in a pincer as competition and regulatory costs mount. As recession arrives, their fragile economies are also feeling the pain from declines in tourism and other industries. Construction companies are pulling out across the Caribbean. In the Turks and Caicos, a UK dependency in the region, unpaid workers stranded by the Lehman Brothers collapse prevented managers from leaving the premises.

Some locations have tried to diversify. Liechtenstein is the world's largest false-teeth exporter. Monaco has more jobs in manufacturing than in finance. The Isle of Man has a foothold in the space industry and a lively manufacturing sector. Bermuda wants to break into the gambling business.

Despite such efforts, the tax havens still fear a bleak future if the international firms of accountants, lawyers and bankers pull out. "They are birds of passage. If they up sticks and go somewhere else, unemployment would be dramatic," says one official.

The tiny states and protectorates that thrived in the free-wheeling second half of the 20th century are left struggling to shore up their defences against the coming storm. But as big countries try to block the leakage of much-needed tax revenues and stanch the flow of dirty money, sympathy for the tax havens is in short supply.

Additional reporting by Rachel Keeler

Delaware: America's own home to corporate anonymity

Joe Biden, the US vice-president-elect, has a distinction that went all but unnoticed during the election campaign: he is senior senator for a state prominent in the world of tax havens.

Delaware, represented by Mr Biden since 1972, is infamous for allowing corporate financial secrecy of the kind that president-elect Barack Obama and many others are seeking to shatter in offshore financial centres.

Arguments over Delaware - whose more than 600,000 registered companies compare with an estimated 865,000 inhabitants - are part of a broader fight over what many havens see as rich-country double standards in international action to tackle money laundering and tax evasion. "The reality of Delaware is not lost on anybody," says one official involved in efforts to improve financial transparency.

Delaware corporations are under no obligation to file names of shareholders or beneficial owners, according to a 2006 report by the intergovernmental Financial Action Task Force on money laundering. The state offers a structure known as a limited liability company, which can be registered with not much more than a name and address.

The report says Delaware company agents advertise the state as allowing even greater secrecy than offshore tax havens. "The Delaware LLC provides the anonymity that most international jurisdictions do not offer," claims one agent website quoted by the task force.

Carl Levin, the senator with whom Mr Obama has campaigned on tax haven reform, is critical of the US failure to heed the task force's calls to lift the confidentiality surrounding companies in Delaware and states such as Nevada and Wyoming. Before the election, a Levin aide told the FT the senator believed that the US "ought to meet its international commitments, especially when it is urging other countries to strengthen their anti-money-laundering controls".

The debate highlights the vulnerability of the global campaign on tax havens to accusations that leading economies fail to practise what they preach.

Offshore financial centres:

Cayman Islands. Home to most of the world's hedge funds

Bermuda. Leading insurance centre. Finance employs one in 16 of the population

Panama. Operates strict bank secrecy

British Virgin Islands. World capital for incorporating offshore companies

Turks and Caicos Islands. Hosting trusts is a feature

Switzerland. Foreign assets make up 35 per cent of bank balance sheets

Liechtenstein. Rocked by an evasion scandal at LGT, its biggest bank. Had announced concessions over secrecy

Monaco. Dubbed unco-operative by the OECD. Residents are mostly tax exiles

Guernsey. Europe's leading captive insurance domicile

Jersey. Fund management grown rapidly

Singapore. Leading world financial centre, employing 127,000. Foreign law enforcement authorities say it is unco-operative and slow in answering requests for help

Anjouan. Politically unstable part of the Comoros islands located in the Mozambique Channel. Launched an offshore centre in 2005 - one of a rash of newcomers

This Blog/Web Site ("Blog") does not to provide specific legal advice, it is for educational purposes only. This Blog is made available by the international adviser, lawyer or law firm for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice.

The Blog does not constitute legal advice and is not a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Any comment posted on the Blog can be read by any Blog visitor; do not post confidential or sensitive information. Any links from another site to the Blog are beyond the control of us.

By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog.

The Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional adviser or lawyer in your country.

Our firm and do not convey their approval, support or any relationship to any site or organization. The use of this Blog does not implicitly or explicitly convey any warranties or representations as to the accuracy of the information contained herein.

This Blog has created this privacy statement in order to demonstrate our firm commitment to privacy. The following discloses the information gathering and dissemination practices for this Blog.

This Blog takes your privacy very seriously. Our customers told us they want to see clear, easy-to-read information about our privacy commitments and policies. We have made our privacy policies easier to find and easier to read. And we're listening. We welcome your questions and feedback on our privacy policies, and invite you to contact us with your thoughts.

Customer Privacy Controls and Choices:
• You can review and correct your Personal Information collected by us.
• You can limit certain types of solicitation communications from AT&T, including marketing contacts made via telephone, e-mail and text messaging.
• We will provide you with notice of changes to this policy.

Our privacy commitments are fundamental to the way we do business every day. These apply to everyone who has a relationship with this Blog and visitors.
• We will protect your privacy and keep your personal information safe. We use powerful encryption and other security safeguards to protect customer data, when available.
• We will not sell your personal information to anyone, for any purpose. Period.
• We will fully disclose our privacy policies in plain language, and make our policies easily accessible to you.
• We will notify you of any revisions to our privacy policy, in advance. No surprises.
• You have choices about how this Blog uses your information for marketing purposes. Customers are in control.


This Privacy Policy identifies and describes the way This Blog uses and protects the information we collect about visitors. All use of this Blog is subject to this Privacy Policy.

Use of Location Information
• When your wireless device is on, it sends periodic signals to the nearest cell site. We use that information to provide your wireless services;
• You can use your wireless device to obtain a wide array of services based on the approximate location of the device, referred to as Location Based Services, or LBS. The information you receive in connection with your use of LBS may include advertisements related to your request and your location;

Online Activity Tracking and Advertising
• We collect information about your activity on this Blog for a number of purposes using technologies such as cookies, Web beacons, widgets and server log files.
• We and our advertising partners use that information, as well as other information they have or we may have, to help tailor the ads you see on our sites and to help make decisions about ads you see on other sites.

The Information We Collect, How We Collect It, And How We Use It

We collect different types of personal and other information based on your use of our products and services and our business relationship with you. Some examples include:
• Contact Information that allows us to communicate with you -- including your name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address;
• Equipment, Performance, Site Usage, Viewing and other Technical Information about your use of our network, services, products or Web sites.

We collect information in 2 primary ways:
• You give it to us when you register to provide comments;
• We collect it automatically when you visit our Blog.

We use the information we collect in a variety of ways, including to:
• Provide you with the best visitor experience possible;
• Deliver customized content that may be of interest to you;
• Address network integrity and security issues;
• Investigate, prevent or take action regarding illegal activities, violations of our Terms of Service or Acceptable Use Policies; and
• For local directory and directory assistance purposes.

Aggregate or Anonymous Information:

We may share aggregate or anonymous information in various formats with trusted entities’ only for purposes such as:
• Our knowledge, and offer of information that may be of interest to you;
• Universities, laboratories and other entities that conduct scientific research; and
• Media research companies for general information only.