14 Jan 2009

España: se permite la libre amortizacion a todas las empresas de un Grupo


"Tributos permitirá a todas las empresas de un mismo grupo la libre amortización", articulo publicado por Jaume Viñas el 15/01/2009 en www.cincodias.com:

Podrán aplicarse el incentivo fiscal aunque la matriz destruya empleo.

El Gobierno aprobó en la recta final del año anterior permitir que las empresas que mantengan su plantilla durante dos años gocen de libertad de amortización para los activos nuevos que se adquieran en 2009 y 2010. La Dirección General de Tributos aclaró a este periódico que este incentivo se aplicará incluso cuando la entidad que realiza la inversión forma parte de un grupo empresarial que, en su conjunto, reduce el número de trabajadores.

Tributos reconoce que el texto de la ley es algo ambiguo en este sentido y manifiesta que hará una interpretación lo menos restrictiva posible. 'Este incentivo fiscal es aplicado por las sociedades que realizan la inversión, con independencia de que estas sociedades formen o no parte de un grupo'. Y añaden: 'Aun en el caso de que el grupo al que pertenezca la sociedad tribute en régimen de consolidación fiscal, el requisito de mantenimiento de la plantilla se aplica a nivel de la propia sociedad que ha realizado la inversión y no a nivel de grupo'. Ello es así porque Tributos entiende que este incentivo 'gira sobre la base imponible individual'. El régimen de consolidación fiscal supone que las sociedades de un grupo empresarial tributan como un sola compañía.

La libertad de amortización, que se limita a los elementos nuevos del 'inmovilizado material y a las inversiones inmobiliarias', supone una oportunidad para reducir la factura fiscal del impuesto de sociedades. Las compañías podrán imputar, si así lo desean, el 100% de su inversión en su balance anual y, por lo tanto, reducir la base imponible del impuesto que grava los beneficios empresariales. En suma, supone un incentivo a la inversión.

Permitir la libre amortización es una de las múltiples novedades que se incluyeron en la ley que suprimió el impuesto sobre el patrimonio y que se aprobó en diciembre. En una jornada reciente organizada por Asociación para el Progreso de la Dirección (APD), el socio de Deloitte, Ricardo Gómez Acebo, constató las múltiples dudas interpretativas entre empresarios y fiscalistas que está provocando esta ley, ya que modifica grandes impuestos como el IRPF, el IVA o el impuesto de sociedades.

Una normativa para aumentar la liquidez

La Ley 4/2008 que suprime el impuesto sobre el patrimonio se convertirá este año en una de las más citadas en los despachos de los fiscalistas. Esta normativa incluye medidas como la devolución mensual del IVA o la reducción de 24 meses a un año del plazo para pedir la devolución del IVA repercutido pero no cobrado, entre otras muchas.

El director general de Tributos, Jesús Gascón, reconoce que durante los próximos meses afrontará el reto de dar respuesta a las múltiples dudas interpretativas que empresarios y abogados dirigen a la Administración. En cualquier caso, la mayoría de medidas incluidas en esta ley persiguen el mismo fin: mejorar la liquidez de empresarios y familias ante una situación económica caracterizada por el endurecimiento del acceso al crédito.

US: General Rules on Foreign Housing Exclusion or Deduction



CCH (cch.taxgroup.com) reports:

The IRS released information highlighting the general rules for claiming the foreign housing cost exclusion or deduction. An individual may elect to exclude or deduct a foreign housing cost amount if the taxpayer:

(1) is a U.S. citizen or resident alien for federal tax purposes;

(2) has received income for working in a foreign country;

(3) has a tax home in a foreign country;

(4) meets either the bona fide residence test or the physical presence test; and

(5) has paid or incurred foreign housing expenses.

The foreign housing costs that may be excluded or deducted are the total of foreign housing expenses less the base housing amount. Foreign housing expenses include reasonable expenses paid or incurred in the tax year for housing in a foreign country, such as rent, the fair rental value of housing provided in kind by the employer, utilities (other than telephone charges), real and personal property insurance, rental of furniture and accessories, repairs, and residential parking. The amount of foreign housing expenses is subject to limitation and varies depending on the location of the foreign tax home. The base housing amount for 2008 is $14,016, or $38.30 per day.

The foreign housing exclusion applies only to amounts considered paid for with employer-provided amounts while the foreign housing deduction applies only to amounts paid for with self-employment earnings. If the taxpayer is both an employee and self-employed during the year, he or she can deduct part of his or her housing amount and exclude part of it, subject to the limitation. The foreign housing exclusion and deduction are claimed and figured using Form 2555, Foreign Earned Income, which is then attached to Form 1040. Form 2555-EZ cannot be used to claim the foreign housing exclusion or deduction.

Foreign Housing Exclusion or Deduction, International Tax Gap Series

Other References:


Code Sec. 911

CCH Reference - 2009FED ¶28,049.01

Tax Research Consultant

CCH Reference - TRC EXPAT: 12,150

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: Hacienda no puede vetar los negocios con ventajas fiscales


"Hacienda no puede vetar los negocios con ventajas fiscales", articulo publicado el 20-10-2008 , por José Mª López Agúndez en Expansion.com:

Dos resoluciones del Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central –TEAC– establecen que sólo se pueden regularizar las operaciones que se califiquen como fraude o simulación. Apunta que buscar el ahorro fiscal en sí no es relevante. Sí lo es la legalidad del negocio realizado.


El Tribunal Económico–Administrativo Central –TEAC– ha establecido en dos resoluciones un criterio relevante para las empresas que se acogen al régimen especial recogido en la normativa del Impuesto de Sociedades para encontrar beneficios fiscales en las operaciones de reestructuración. Lo importante para conseguirlo no es que este tipo de negocios busque el ahorro fiscal en sí, sino que se trate de contratos lícitos, sin fraude, ya que de las operaciones fraudulentas se puede presumir el propósito de evasión fiscal.

El TEAC aclara, de esta forma, cómo se aplica el artículo 110.2 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades: “El régimen no se aplicará cuando la operación no se efectúe por motivos económicos válidos, tales como la reestructuración o la racionalización de las actividades de las entidades que participan en la operación, sino con la mera finalidad de conseguir una ventaja fiscal”.

Según precisa ahora el TEAC, “la concurrencia de motivo económico válido, diferente por supuesto del ahorro fiscal implicado en el régimen especial, es exigible no ya desde la promulgación de la Ley del Impuesto de Sociedades, sino desde la entrada en vigor de la Ley 29/1991 que acogió en nuestro sistema la Directiva 90/434”.

En una de las resoluciones, el Tribunal analiza una operación de escisión de una sociedad encubierta a través de sucesivas transmisiones de cada una de las partes del negocio, por lo que la Inspección giró la liquidación complementaria correspondiente a la aplicación general del Impuesto de Sociedades a tal operación de escisión sin la posibilidad de conservar los beneficios fiscales que se había autoaplicado la sociedad.

La resolución apuntaba que, con tal operación, se había producido “un vaciamiento diferido del deudor” y que “tanto el resultado de la operación como los medios a través de los cuales ésta se instrumenta, cabe concluir que ha sido llevada a término con una intencionalidad exclusivamente fraudulenta”. Por ello, confirma una liquidación de 2 millones de euros.

Un caso opuesto es el que analiza la otra resolución, en la que se estudia el beneficio fiscal obtenido por la adquisición de un inmueble por una empresa a una sociedad vinculada donde los socios de ambas eran los mismos. Para el TEAC, “cuando la normativa alude a reinversión no se establece exigencia alguna de no vinculación entre las entidades, ni se excluye el beneficio en los casos en que las entidades intervinientes en la compra pertenezcan al mismo grupo”. El TEAC anula una liquidación de 340.000 euros.

España: ventajas fiscales para abogados y otros profesionales


"Solbes resucita el privilegio fiscal de los despachos profesionales en plena crisis", articulo publicado el 01-12-2008 , por C. Cuesta / E. S. Mazo en Expansion (www.expansion.com):

Solbes eliminó en 2006 un beneficio fiscal de los profesionales introducido por el PP. Ahora lo recupera y limita así la posibilidad de que los inspectores cuestionen los ingresos de abogados, economistas u otras actividades liberales.


Mediados de 2006: El proyecto de reforma fiscal lanzado por el vicepresidente Solbes hace desaparecer una medida, introducida por el PP en 2003, que protegía a los socios frente a la Inspección. Este blindaje ante el Fisco se traducía en un límite al control de sus remuneraciones. El cambio afectaba a abogados, economistas, arquitectos, ingenieros y demás actividades liberales, que perdieron el blindaje frente a la Inspección fiscal.

Noviembre de 2008: El mismo vicepresidente recupera el denostado –dos años antes– privilegio fiscal, haciendo que los ingresos obtenidos por los profesionales de las sociedades resulten más difícilmente cuestionables por los inspectores fiscales.

Estos polémicos cambios afectan a una ventaja fiscal más que relevante: se trata de una regla especial por la que la contraprestación que recibe un socio por un servicio o trabajo realizado para su despacho -consultora, bufete, auditora, firma de ingenieros, etc.- se considera oficialmente que, a efectos fiscales "coincide con el valor normal de mercado [criterio que exige Hacienda para considerar que no se ha cometido fraude]". O, lo que es lo mismo, que se generaba un mecanismo de blindaje frente a la Inspección: se impedía a la Agencia Tributaria la posibilidad de cuestionar las remuneraciones de los profesionales bajo el argumento de que estaban falseados para reflejar cuantías inferiores a las realmente recibidas, con el consiguiente alivio fiscal para el profesional (ver EXPANSIÓN del 10 de abril de 2006).

Pedro Solbes decidió acabar con ello con la convicción de que este beneficio podía estar escondiendo un mecanismo de privilegio fiscal injustificado. El 1 de enero de 2007 entró en vigor, así, la erradicación de ese beneficio fiscal.

Requisitos

El nuevo redactado introducido por el Gobierno vuelve a generar el privilegio fiscal de los profesionales, según el texto: "[…] El obligado tributario podrá considerar que el valor convenido coincide con el valor normal de mercado cuando se trate de una prestación de servicios por un socio profesional, persona física, a una entidad vinculada". Para ello se imponen, eso sí, una serie de requisitos: "Que la entidad sea una de las previstas en el artículo 108 de la ley del impuesto [donde se recogen las sociedades profesionales con cifra de negocios neta inferior a 8 millones de euros], que más del 75% de sus ingresos del ejercicio procedan del desarrollo de actividades profesionales, cuente con los medios materiales y humanos adecuados y el resultado del ejercicio previo a la deducción de las retribuciones correspondientes a la totalidad de los socios-profesionales por la prestación de sus servicios sea positivo".

Además, se exige que "la cuantía de las retribuciones correspondientes a la totalidad de los socios-profesionales por la prestación de sus servicios a la entidad no sea inferior al 85% del resultado previo a que se refiere la letra A [que es el primer requisito enumerado]".

Y, por último, que "la cuantía de las retribuciones correspondientes a cada uno de los socios-profesionales cumpla los siguientes requisitos:

1-Se determine en función de la contribución efectuada por estos a la buena marcha de la sociedad, siendo necesario que consten por escrito los criterios cualitativos y/o cuantitativos aplicables.

2- No sea inferior a dos veces el salario medio de los asalariados de la sociedad que cumplan funciones análogas a las de los socios profesionales de la entidad. En ausencia de estos últimos, la cuantía de las citadas retribuciones no podrá ser inferior a dos veces el salario medio anual del conjunto de contribuyentes […]".

Los inspectores y expertos consultados por EXPANSIÓN aseguran que los requisitos no impiden la recuperación del beneficio fiscal para los profesionales de firmas de tamaño considerable –que suelen ser las que más retribuciones distribuyen– aunque puede quedar ajeno a firmas más pequeñas, donde no se retribuye en esa proporción.

Las claves del 'blindaje':

- ¿Cuál es el régimen fiscal de los despachos de profesionales? Se rigen por una regla especial que establece que la contraprestación que recibe un socio por un servicio realizado para su despacho “coincide con el valor normal de mercado”. Esto supone blindar a estos profesionales frente a la Inspección fiscal, ya que se cierra la posibilidad de que esas remuneraciones sean revisadas por Hacienda.

- ¿Desde cuándo está vigente? Este beneficio fiscal a las sociedades de profesionales fue aprobado en la segunda reforma fiscal del PP (en 2003). El Gobierno socialista lo eliminó en 2006, pero lo recupera ahora.

- ¿A qué sociedades afecta? A aquellos despachos de profesionales formados por abogados, economistas, arquitectos, ingenieros o cualquier tipo de actividad liberal.

- ¿Por qué se aprueba este sistema especial? El objetivo fue dar cierta seguridad a los despachos de profesionales tras la eliminación del régimen de transparencia fiscal. Se entendió que determinar el valor verdadero de mercado de los servicios de estas sociedades sería demasiado complicado y fuente de litigios.

- ¿A qué tipo de remuneración afecta? A las contraprestaciones que reciben los profesionales de un despacho al que pertenecen de manera habitual por un servicio o trabajo. La práctica habitual es que un profesional que alcance la categoría de socio haga una aportación de capital dentro de su despacho, cuyo beneficio es el que genera el propio trabajo de los socios. A ese beneficio total se le descuentan los salarios de los empleados, gastos de administración y, a grandes rasgos, todos los costes generales. El montante restante se reparte entre esos socios, pues se supone que es lo que han generado con su actividad. Así, ese reparto se entiende como la contraprestación que los profesionales facturan por su trabajo al despacho.

- ¿Hay alguna otra forma de regularlo? Sí, como quería hacer el Gobierno en 2006. En vez del régimen especial (que equipara la contraprestación que recibe el socio al valor normal de mercado) , se pueden aplicar las regalas generales para las operaciones vinculadas, afectando a la relación entre la sociedad y los socios. Con esta regulación, la Inspección podía sancionar a la sociedad si entiende que la valoración de las contraprestaciones realizadas a los profesionales no es la que atestigua la firma.

Paraisos Fiscales en la Cumbre de Washington

"Paraísos fiscales", mini-articulo publicado el 08-12-2008 , por Expansión:

Una de las principales conclusiones de la cumbre del G-20 de Washington fue la propuesta para combatir los paraísos fiscales. Los cientos de pequeños estados e islas que acumulan unos 4,7 billones de euros en activos de todo el mundo están ahora en el punto de mira por su efecto desestabilizador sobre el sistema. Los recientes escándalos por la existencia de cuentas secretas en países como Liechtenstein han vuelto a sacarlos a la palestra. Convertidos en santuarios para la evasión de impuestos y el blanqueo de fondos vinculados con el narcotráfico, el terrorismo o el tráfico de armas, hasta ahora se habían beneficiado de la falta de voluntad política para abordar una regulación a nivel mundial.

La inquietud generada en estos territorios hace vislumbrar una propuesta con visos de prosperar para poner coto a sus actividades, más allá de la mera cooperación exigida hasta ahora por los gobiernos occidentales. El hecho de que los paraísos fiscales hayan vuelto a la agenda en un momento en que la fuga de capitales compromete la estabilidad financiera coincide, además, con la llegada a la presidencia de EEUU de Barack Obama, que se ha distinguido por intentar combatirlos. Será una reforma cuyos efectos se verán lentamente, pero cualquier avance es una buena noticia.

Cambio de residencia de Italia a Londres


Interesante noticia aparecida en La Vanguardia (www.lavanguardia.es): "Valentino multado con 33 millones por evasión fiscal en Italia".

También otros 'personajes famosos' como Umberto Tozzi, fabio Capello o Ornela Muti fueron multados por fijar su residencia en otro país y seguir viviendo en Italia sin pagar impuestos

El diseñador italiano Valentino, creador de la exclusiva firma de moda que lleva su nombre, deberá pagar al fisco de Italia una multa de 33 millones de euros, impuesta por las autoridades de su país por evasión fiscal, informan hoy los medios de comunicación locales.

El modisto, así como su socio Giancarlo Giammetti, multado con 22 millones de euros, son algunos de los nombres conocidos que el fisco italiano incluye dentro de una campaña de investigación a personajes populares de Italia, en la que también figura el nombre del cantante Umberto Tozzi.

Según los investigadores fiscales, Valentino y su socio han evadido el pago de varios impuestos a Italia gracias a haber fijado una residencia "ficticia" en Londres.

Precisamente desde la capital británica, Valentino y Giammetti han emitido un comunicado de prensa, que recoge hoy el diario italiano "La Stampa", en el que confirman la noticia de la multa, aunque aseguran que su residencia e intereses económicos están ahora en Londres.

"Valentino Garavani y Giancarlo Giammetti han transferido su residencia y todos sus intereses a Londres. Ya con anterioridad, su posición a ese respecto había sido objeto de verificaciones y había sido juzgada, en cualquier aspecto, legítima y regular", reza la nota. "Si hoy se quiere, con una iniciativa inesperada y sorprendente, retomar el caso, Valentino Garavani y Giancarlo Giammetti estarán como siempre dispuestos a ofrecer todas las aclaraciones que puedan ser requeridas por parte de los órganos competentes", concluye.

Por su parte, Tozzi ha sido multado, según los medios de comunicación locales, con 3,4 millones de euros, también por tener fijada su residencia fuera del país, en este caso en Montecarlo, y seguir viviendo, según los investigadores, en Italia sin pagar algunos impuestos.

El fisco italiano continúa así su dura persecución a los personajes célebres del país que deciden trasladar su residencia fuera de Italia pero que siguen viviendo en el país sin pagar impuestos.

Tal fue el caso del motociclista Valentino Rossi, quien en 2000 llevó su residencia oficial a Londres y llegó un acuerdo con las autoridades italianas para pagar los impuestos que evadió desde ese año y hasta 2004.

También ocurrió con el piloto de Fórmula Uno Giancarlo Fisichella, el actual seleccionador de fútbol de Inglaterra, Fabio Capello, o la actriz Ornella Muti. "La maniobra ha relanzado la actividad de control de la administración fiscal sobre las residencias extranjeras ficticias de los contribuyentes. En 2008 han sido recuperados 140 millones de euros", dice un comunicado de la Hacienda de Italia que recoge hoy el diario local "La Repubblica".

13 Jan 2009

Estudios en España por no residente



Generalmente, no tiene que tributar un estudiante en España por las cantidades que perciba para continuar sus estudios o formación procedentes de algún Estado con el que España tiene suscrito Convenio y del que es o era inmediatamente antes de venir a España residente. Si el estudiante antes de venir a España era residente en otro Estado y está en España con el único objeto de continuar sus estudios o formación, no tendrá que tributaria en España por las cantidades que reciba para cubrir sus gastos de mantenimiento o estudios, siempre que procedan de fuentes de fuera de España, sea o no la del país del estudiante.

Los pagos que percibe el estudiante deben tener el propósito exclusivo de cubrir gastos de mantenimiento, estudios y formación. Cualquier pago que perciba con otra finalidad (de dificil prueba, y además que parece dificil encontrar otras finalidades en un estudiante a tiempo completo) se debe someter a tributación en función del tipo de renta percibida.

España: Inseguridad juridica del IVA


"Inseguridad jurídica para el IVA", articulo publicado el 12-01-2009 , por Luis de Ulíbarri, abogado de Hammonds, en Expansion (www.expansion.com):

No deja de ser sorprendente la postura de la Administración Tributaria respecto a los criterios “temporales” de valoración en las permutas de terrenos por edificaciones futuras.


Fue en en el mes de abril de 2008 cuando la Comisión Europea solicitó de manera formal a España que adaptase sus prácticas administrativas en lo que respecta a la determinación de la base imponible de este tipo de operaciones.

La Comisión Europea entendía que el valor de mercado debe ser considerado exclusivamente en el momento de la entrega del solar, siendo contraria a la Sexta Directiva la modificación de la base imponible del Impuesto sobre el Valor Añadido a posteriori, en el momento de la recepción de las construcciones, sobre la base de que la forma de pago (dineraria o en especie) no debe llevar a un resultado distinto en el ámbito del impuesto.

La Dirección General de Tributos, lejos de asimilar esta interpretación de la norma, ha venido justificando su doctrina en repetidas ocasiones, la última en Consulta Vinculante nº V2036-08, de 4 de noviembre.

Sus explicaciones resultan complejas, muy complejas, rozando el límite de lo ininteligible. Pero si dan respuesta a los sencillos planteamientos de la Comisión, es cuanto menos dudoso. “Excusatio non petita...” Esperemos que en algún momento el Tribunal de Justicia de las Comunidades Europeas (TJCE).

Por el momento, el panorama que se abría con la mencionada solicitud de Bruselas, con el criterio seguido actualmente en lo que respecta al Impuesto sobre Sociedades (ver Consulta V1225-08), y algunos comentarios vertidos en este sentido desde la Inspección, si bien de manera más oficiosa que oficial, se han visto truncados en la segunda mitad año.

Una vez más las directrices que gobiernan los distintos tributos en España resultan dispares ante los mismos hechos, y las demandas de Europa desoídas.
Cabría reflexionar si esta actitud, que no parece la mejor de cara a la seguridad jurídica del contribuyente, es un lujo que nos podemos permitir en un momento en que la inversión se hace más necesaria que nunca.
Confiemos que 2009 reconduzca la situación, y si no, que “al menos” nos saque de la crisis.

12 Jan 2009

Rentas exentas sin establecimiento permanente en España




La normativa española señala una serie de rentas obtenidas por los no residentes sin establecimiento permanente (E.P.) en España están exentas de tributación en el Impuesto sobre la Renta de no Residentes (IRNR). Estas son:

1. Las rentas que, de acuerdo con la normativa del I.R.P.F. estén exentas y sean percibidas por personas físicas, como por ejemplo, la lotería, las pensiones por incapacidad permanente absoluta o gran invalidez o las becas públicas. Se exceptúa la contenida en la letra y) del artículo 7 de la Ley IRPF.

2. Los intereses y ganancias patrimoniales derivadas de bienes muebles obtenidos por residentes en otro Estado miembro de la Unión Europea (U.E.) con tres excepciones:

a) Cuando los intereses y/o ganancias se obtengan a través de un paraíso fiscal.

b) Cuando se trate de ganancias derivadas de la transmisión de acciones, participaciones u otros derechos en una entidad cuyo activo consista principalmente en bienes inmuebles situados en España.

c) Cuando se trate de ganancias derivadas de la transmisión de acciones, participaciones u otros derechos en una entidad y el contribuyente, en algún momento durante el período de 12 meses precedentes a la transmisión, haya participado directa o indirectamente en al menos el 25 por 100 del capital o patrimonio de dicha entidad.

3. Los rendimientos derivados de la Deuda Pública.

4. Los rendimientos derivados de valores emitidos en España por no residentes.

5. Los rendimientos de cuentas de no residentes.

6. Las rentas procedentes del arrendamiento, cesión o transmisión de contenedores o de buques y aeronaves a casco desnudo, utilizados en la navegación marítima o aérea internacional.

7. Los beneficios distribuidos por las sociedades filiales residentes en España a sus sociedades matrices residentes en otro Estado miembro de la U.E. o a los establecimientos permanentes de estos últimos situados en otros Estados miembros, siempre que cumplan determinadas condiciones.

8. Sociedad matriz es aquella que posea en el capital de otra sociedad una participación directa de al menos el 15% a partir del 1 de enero de 2007 y el 10% a partir del 1 de enero de 2009. La sociedad participada será la sociedad filial. Para la aplicación de esta exención se exige que la sociedad matriz no tenga su residencia, o el establecimiento permanente no esté situado, en un país o territorio calificado como paraíso fiscal.

9. Las rentas derivadas de las transmisiones de valores o el reembolso de participaciones en fondos de inversión realizados en alguno de los mercados secundarios oficiales de valores españoles, obtenidas por personas o entidades residentes en un país con el que España tenga suscrito Convenio con cláusula de intercambio de información, salvo que se obtengan a través de un paraíso fiscal.

10. Pensiones asistenciales por ancianidad reconocidas al amparo del Real Decreto 728/1993, de 14 de mayo, por el que se establecen pensiones asistenciales por ancianidad en favor de los emigrantes españoles, (con efectos a partir de 1 de enero de 2001).

11. Becas y otras cantidades percibidas por personas físicas, satisfechas por las Administraciones públicas, en virtud de acuerdos y convenios internacionales de cooperación cultural, educativa y científica o en virtud del Plan anual de cooperación internacional aprobado en Consejo de Ministros.

12. Los dividendos y participaciones en beneficios obtenidos por personas físicas residentes en otro Estado miembro de la Unión Europea o en países o territorios con los que exista un efectivo intercambio de información tributaria, con el límite de 1500 euros, que será aplicable sobre la totalidad de los rendimientos obtenidos durante el año natural. Esta exención no se aplica si los dividendos se obtienen a través de paises o territorios calificados como paraísos fiscales.

9 Jan 2009

España: cambios en IVA y Patrimonio para 2009


"Novedades fiscales en 2009", articulo publicado el 08-01-09 , por Salvador Ruiz en Expansion (www.expansion.com):

En las postrimerías del año recién terminado se ha publicado la Ley 4/2008, por la que se suprime el gravamen del Impuesto sobre el Patrimonio, se generaliza el sistema de devolución mensual en el Impuesto sobre el Valor Añadido, y se introducen otras modificaciones en la normativa tributaria.


La nueva Ley introduce cambios muy destacables que afectan a la práctica totalidad de las figuras del sistema impositivo español, aunque se echan de menos algunas medidas de política fiscal de mayor calado, orientadas a la reactivación de la adversa situación económica.

La Ley anuncia desde su denominación dos de los cambios de mayor difusión mediática. En primer lugar, la supresión del Impuesto sobre el Patrimonio, plasmada en una bonificación del 100 por ciento de la cuota íntegra aplicable desde el 1 de enero de 2008, junto con la eliminación de la obligación de presentar declaración.

Con esta técnica se evita la modificación del sistema de financiación autonómica –se trata de un Impuesto cedido a las Comunidades Autónomas– y se conservan las referencias de otras normas tributarias hacia las disposiciones del Impuesto, si bien se mantiene un cierto riesgo de "reactivación" futura del gravamen. La medida evitará problemas de falta de equidad y de doble imposición sobre la renta ahorrada, atrayendo inversiones hacia nuestro país.

En virtud de un segundo cambio recogido expresamente en el nombre de la Ley, la práctica generalidad de las empresas, incluidas las pymes, podrán solicitar con carácter mensual la devolución del saldo a su favor en el IVA o en el Impuesto General Indirecto Canario (IGIC). Sin embargo, para ello se exigirán abundantes requisitos formales, como la presentación telemática mensual de las declaraciones y el suministro –también telemático y mensual– a la Administración Tributaria del contenido de los libros registro de la empresa.

Sorprende que se lastre al nuevo sistema con este incremento de la presión fiscal indirecta, que previsiblemente dificultará el éxito de su implantación.

Libertad de amortización
La Ley introduce un importante incentivo a la inversión en activos fijos, adecuado para tiempos de crisis, como es la libertad de amortización en el Impuesto sobre Sociedades para elementos nuevos del inmovilizado material y de las inversiones inmobiliarias.

La Ley exige la afectación de dichos elementos a actividades económicas, su puesta a disposición del sujeto pasivo en los períodos impositivos iniciados dentro de los años 2009 y 2010, y el mantenimiento durante dos años del nivel medio de empleo habido en la empresa en el año anterior. Tal libertad, que supone un diferimiento en el pago del Impuesto, no está condicionada a su imputación contable, y también puede aprovecharse en operaciones de arrendamiento financiero. De haberse extendido al inmovilizado intangible, la medida constituiría un incentivo añadido a las actividades de I+D, dado que los elementos libremente amortizados pueden ser creados por la propia empresa.

La Ley también mitiga la falta de neutralidad fiscal derivada de la implantación del nuevo Plan General de Contabilidad (PGC). Así, la primera aplicación del Plan puede suponer la práctica de abonos a cuentas de reservas con efecto en la base imponible del Impuesto sobre Sociedades, implicando un importante coste tributario.

La Ley abre una opción de periodificación de dicho coste en tres años, informando de ello en las cuentas anuales. Además, al relegar el PGC el principio de prudencia a un lugar secundario, las pérdidas por deterioro de acciones o participaciones en sociedades no cotizadas, producidas a raíz de resultados negativos en éstas, muchas veces no son contabilizables –ni por ello deducibles fiscalmente–.

El legislador ha decidido oportunamente mantener a futuro un reducto de deducción fiscal de dichas pérdidas, con plena autonomía respecto de su tratamiento contable. La misma estanqueidad se incorpora en el régimen transitorio de la Ley para las provisiones dotadas en el pasado.

Otros cambios de interés
Merece también un comentario positivo la medida que evita una patente discriminación de las sociedades residentes en España cuando adquieren grupos de sociedades en tributación consolidada.

La nueva Ley evita que en tales supuestos –incluso en adquisiciones por fusión, con arreglo al criterio de la inspección tributaria– se produzcan las gravosas consecuencias de la extinción del grupo fiscal, como la tributación de los beneficios obtenidos en el pasado por ventas intragrupo, neutralizados en su día gracias al régimen de consolidación. La medida evitará la penalización de las operaciones –españolas– de reestructuración, muchas veces necesarias para la supervivencia de la compañía y el mantenimiento del empleo.

La Ley introduce novedades importantes en nuestra normativa del IVA y del IGIC, para adaptarla a la jurisprudencia comunitaria. Así, en relación con la no sujeción de la transmisión del patrimonio empresarial o profesional, desaparecen los requisitos relativos a la continuidad del adquirente en las mismas actividades empresariales o profesionales del transmitente, o a que la transmisión inter vivos del patrimonio se realice a favor de un solo adquirente; la valoración debe ser positiva, al facilitarse dichas operaciones, sobre todo una vez eliminada en el trámite parlamentario la discriminación de las empresas adquirentes que desarrollan actividades exentas –financieras, de seguros, hospitales, centros de enseñanza–, para las que llegó a contemplarse la sujeción a aquellos impuestos.

Otra adaptación importante permite que las sociedades mercantiles no sean necesariamente sujetos pasivos del Impuesto, cuestión relevante en relación con las sociedades holding y las sociedades inactivas. La nueva Ley establece una presunción iuris tantum, y por ello admite prueba de lo contrario. La modificación resulta notoriamente insuficiente, en una materia con un importante grado de inseguridad jurídica para los operadores económicos.

Se minora, asimismo, el plazo que debe transcurrir para procederse a la reducción de la base imponible en el IVA y en el IGIC relativa a las operaciones total o parcialmente pendientes de cobro, pasando a ser de un año -en lugar de dos- desde el devengo del Impuesto repercutido. Esta flexibilización ha de valorarse positivamente.

Silencios de la Ley
Pero si son relevantes los cambios normativos introducidos, también son muy significativos los silencios de la Ley. Así, se ha dejado pasar la oportunidad de reducir los tipos impositivos en el Impuesto sobre Sociedades, al menos para las pymes, para relajar los costes fiscales de nuestras empresas y mejorar su competitividad en un entorno europeo de tipos más bajos.

También resulta sorprendente que no se haya reactivado la deducción por I+D+i, que con la normativa vigente desaparece a partir de 2012, lo que seguirá generando inseguridad jurídica y desincentivando la asunción de proyectos de investigación a medio y largo plazo. Por último, se echa de menos el refuerzo de los incentivos fiscales a la internacionalización de la empresa.

En resumen, la nueva Ley atiende con acierto las necesidades de mejora técnica de algunos ámbitos de nuestra fiscalidad, pero renuncia a aplicar una terapia más contundente con que tratar las enfermedades de nuestra economía.

Comentarios
carlos martin el 8 de Enero de 2009 a las 01:06 ( aviso al moderador )

tributos 2009

7 Jan 2009

FT: companies find routes to fiscal frugality


"Politicians fret as companies find routes to fiscal frugality"
An article published by Vanessa Houlder in Financial Times (www.ft.com) on July 28 2008.

Last week, a gauntlet was thrown at the feet of business leaders who have fulminated about the complexity of Britain’s tax laws and the frequency with which they change. Lord Wallace, a Liberal Democrat peer, warned that corporate chiefs should offer a “constructive response to the erosion of the national tax base, before some populist politician or press campaigner seizes on the issue to use against them”.

The response from Martin Temple, director-general of EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation, was trenchant. He argued that the “most significant threat to the UK's tax base does not come from aggressive corporate tax avoidance but from the revenue lost owing to companies moving abroad in search of greater consistency and certainty from the tax system”.

In the exchange, on the Financial Times letters page, both men have a point. But the public overwhelmingly believes big companies and wealthy individuals dodge taxes too easily, according to Trades Union Congress research. Many people were shocked last year when official figures showed that almost one-third of the UK’s biggest companies paid no tax in 2005-06.

The US – which collects relatively little revenue in spite of having one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world – has a similar problem. That shows up in Americans’ attitudes to the way they as individuals are taxed. In the decades following the second world war, they considered income tax to be the fairest tax in the nation; since 1980, that opinion has been reversed.


But governments face risks in clamping down on multinationals. In the UK, two big groups moved their holding companies to Ireland earlier this year, amid complaints about Britain’s increasingly onerous restrictions on international tax planning. Michael Devereux, a leading economist, sums up the problem: “The more successful tax collectors are in preventing firms from shifting profit out of Britain, the more they are likely to encourage firms to leave the country.”

One, perhaps unpalatable, conclusion is that governments should learn to live with avoidance. Research by James Hines of the University of Michigan and Mihir Desai of Harvard suggests that companies’ use of tax havens “appears to facilitate economic activity” in neighbouring industrialised countries. Tax dodging by multinationals may let governments collect higher corporate taxes overall by allowing highly mobile companies – which might otherwise invest elsewhere – pay a lower rate of tax than domestic businesses.

But turning a blind eye to international tax avoidance is manifestly unfair. Jeffrey Owens, head of the tax policy group at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, argues that it is tantamount to stimulating growth at any price: “The same logic could be applied to business run by the Mafia or Colombian drug dealers.”

Yet tackling the issue is easier said than done. The nature of avoidance has changed over the last few years, in a way that has sent a chill through many fiscal authorities. Their focus is no longer on outrageously artificial schemes. Instead, companies are quietly restructuring in a way that is stripping the tax base of large countries.

Over the past decade, as they have become more global, large multinationals have centralised patents, intangibles and other services in low-tax countries. Mr Owens, who calculates that about 20 per cent of US intangibles are now held in Singapore, Switzerland and Ireland, says this sort of restructuring poses real difficulties for governments. “Services are where the potential corporate tax base is, so lose your services and you have lost a significant part of your tax base, and usually in a way where the existing international rules have been respected.”

The shifting of debt around multinational groups is another headache for fiscal authorities, particularly in the UK, which is relatively generous in the tax deductions it allows for interest costs. Over the course of this decade, companies have been engaged in a cat-and-mouse game with the revenue authorities about their use of tax havens as a base for their overseas businesses. This ruse allows them to load up their foreign operations – and sometimes their British activities – with debt via intra-group loans, while paying little tax on interest received.

Governments were slow to wake up to these problems but have recently mounted a rearguard action. At the start of this year, Germany appalled businesses by ratcheting up exit taxes for intellectual property. Britain has also taken a tough stance on transfers of intangibles. One tax director from a company that forms part of the FTSE 100 index compares the Revenue’s attitude to the line in “Hotel California”, a song by the Eagles: “You can check out any time you like. But you can never leave.” Tensions in Britain were exacerbated by a proposal to impose worldwide taxes on passive income – royalties, interest and dividends – which caused such an uproar that it was dropped last week.

The OECD is trying to thrash out a coherent set of rules for taxing business restructurings. But this is proving tricky, because the restructurings are primarily undertaken for business reasons. Pat Ellingsworth, who until this month was in charge of tax at Royal Dutch Shell, is closely involved in the OECD initiative. He says the attempt to define a tax-motivated restructuring proved “spectacularly unsuccessful”. Alternatives are being explored, including a greater emphasis on the location of workers in determining the tax base, though this may prove too radical for some.

Instead, some countries want a formula that will divide tax receipts across states that adopt a common tax base. The European Commission is enthusiastic but technical and political problems are immense. France, one of the strongest advocates, has decided not to push it during its current EU presidency following the Irish No vote on the Lisbon treaty. The idea, according to Christine Lagarde, French finance minister, “is alive, but not kicking very much”.

Meanwhile many businesses – led by the CBI, the UK employers’ group – say the solution is a sharp cut in tax rates. They suggest this would ultimately finance itself by reducing avoidance and boosting economic growth. But despite the success of small countries such as Ireland in going down that route, big nations are reluctant to gamble with corporate tax revenues.

All the while, multinationals are growing ever more restless. Last month, Joel Walters, tax director of Vodafone – a British company that now derives just 4 per cent of its profits from the UK – was blunt about the diminishing relevance of the concept of a “home country”. He recognised that governments were under pressure to raise revenues, he told a conference organised by Tax Journal. But international businesses had no choice but to manage their tax bills, he said.

“It can create an emotional reaction. But the fact of the matter is businesses are under enormous competitive pressure and tax is increasingly something boards are looking for us to manage.”

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 secrecy "should be vigorously addressed".

"Harbours of resentment", an article by Vanessa Houlder, published at Financial Timesfrom www.ft.com

Published: December 1 2008 02:00 | Last updated: December 1 2008 02:00

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

SwitzerlandForeign assets make up 35 per cent of bank balance sheets

LiechtensteinRocked 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

GuernseyEurope'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
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

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.
Europa y el IVA

Publicado el 06-01-2009 , por Expansión

El Tribunal de Justicia de las Comunidades Europeas ha regalado a las comunidades autónomas una rebaja por Navidad al entender que es posible cobrar por una misma operación el Impuesto sobre el Valor Añadido (IVA) y el Impuesto de Actos Jurídicos Documentados en su modalidad de Documentos Notariales (AJD-DN).


La duda la planteó en su día a Luxemburgo el Tribunal Superior de Cataluña porque consideraba que el impuesto sobre las escrituras era un “recargo” que se añadía al IVA.

Si el tribunal europeo le hubiera dado la razón, las autonomías tendrían que haber devuelto unos cien millones de euros que en concepto del impuesto de actos documentados las empresas han ido ingresando en los últimos cuatro años. Pero no ha sido así.

De esta forma, Luxemburgo ha liberado a España de una suerte de carga fiscal que las comunidades autónomas ya no tendrán que soportar. La clave de la discusión jurídica es sencilla, ya que se trataba de dilucidar si estos dos impuestos estaban relacionados entre sí o pueden explicarse de forma separada.

Y Europa ha optado por este segundo planteamiento, ya que el impuesto sobre las escrituras es diferente al del IVA, porque éste grava el volumen de negocio y el de actos jurídicos documentados el acceso a un registro público de las transacciones económicas.

5 Jan 2009

Why to blog "International Tax"?

This is something often colleagues asked me, since lawyers generally do not have enough time to write. This reminde me a very good article, from november 2004, entitled “What's the Use of this Weblog?” and posted by Evan Schaeffer (Legal Underground)

“….Why do I have a weblog—or more specifically, three weblogs? I’ve been thinking about that too, especially as I think about where Notes from the (Legal) Underground might be headed after almost a year of posting every day. Why keep it up? Generally speaking, lawyers don’t read weblogs. Though this seems to be changing as weblogs get more media attention, the reaction from lawyers who know both me and my weblogs is not always favorable. Some lawyers are openly hostile: Why am I wasting my time surfing the Internet? And why weblogs? They’re a fad. Few people read them, and those that do are mostly young girls. “

In his defense, the autor says that the weblogs have now generated a number of good clients; that the weblogs have given him a forum to state the case against tort "reform"; and other reasons.


And about the choosing of blogs against books, Evan Schaeffer write “It’s true that for me, a book will always be a more satisfying resume credit than a weblog. But weblogs do allow serious writers to try out new ideas, new styles, new methods for telling a story. This is one of the things I like about this weblog, and why I’ll probably keep it going, at least for a while, after I pass the one-year mark. But I must admit I’m a little ambivalent, at least from day to day.”

His partner in teaching bloggins for lawyers, Federalist No. 84, add that “it occurred to me that every legal blog I read is top quality. Hell, even the legal blogs I don't read are very good. Really, there's not a crappy one out there. We mused for a while before realizing that the reason is that a good lawyer (re: an attorney who has the personal motivation and professional accomplishment to walk his own path) will live and die on his reputation.

Generally, only good lawyers and law profs blog. And since they're so concerned about their reputations, they want to produce their best work. Thus, lawyer blogs are very good since a blogger, more so than any group other than professional scholars, put themselves out to the world for criticism and correction.

He also wrote one of the best tips for bloggers that I never read, about “Brand Your Blawg”: “You need a unique name for two reasons. First, you want something to stick in my mind. Second, you want me to be able to find you on Google. Thus, “lawyer blog” or “criminal law blog” would be a very bad idea for a name. For Ken Lammers, CrimLaw works well, but that’s only because of his terrific Google ranking (which resulted from all of blawggers linking to his first class blawg). A fledgling blogger needs something distinct. …Your unique name should be in the URL of your blawg. Lawdork used to known as Law, Politics, and Press with an according mismatch between name and URL. That’s a mouthful, and a mistake. Chris is a savvy guy, he fixed this problem, and we’re all better off.

Our good friend David from HaikuEsq is the worst culprit. I can’t remember his URL, so every time I want to read him, I need to Google him or click-through from my blogroll. However, if I’m were not a blogger, he might have lost me as a reader, since I would have forgotten the title of his blawg.

One of the most underrated blawgs, I’m A PD, has a weird Xanga URL. I know how to find the blawg, but imagine the hapless reader who wants to find her but can’t, because Googling “public defender blog” brings up a lot of results, but I’m A PD is not in the first 100. She has a catchy title, but a crappy URL. Accordingly, she has probably lost of a lot of readers. Worst of all, her blawg is among the best. Everyone loses when you don’t brand your blawg.

Thus, in branding your blawg, ask two questions: Will my readers remember me; and will they be able to find me on Google?”

4 Jan 2009

Privacy; a Necessity, not a Luxury



There is an interesting article named "Privacy; a Necessity not a Luxury" posted by Corbett & Kish at its blog.


"The year was 1917 and the location was Latvia. A poor and mostly agrarian country in Northern Europe’s Baltic region bordered to the north by Estonia and to the south by Lithuania. My grandparents were children at the time. As the saying goes, “timing is everything,” and theirs could not have been much worse. The Bolshevik Revolution began in October that year starting in Petrograd (now St. Petersburg). It was quickly followed by another civil war - later to be coined the Russian Revolution - and spread throughout the various countries doomed to become possessions of the Soviet Union. It would be bloody and last until 1922. My great-grandfather became a casualty when a local preacher turned him in as a dissident and he was shot. Having personally witnessed this event, my grandfather would flee to the United States, leaving behind a world and relatives he would never see again. He met a woman, also of Latvian heritage, and together they started a new life.


Vladimir Lenin got his wish and rose to prominence, becoming Russia’s most powerful figure. Although Lenin’s post-revolutionary Soviet Union would forge much advancement – most notably education and industrial development - the cost would be enormous. The State was to become godlike. Human rights and the individual spirit were quashed. Citizens feared to even whisper dissent for Siberia, or worse would be a likely sentence. The seeds of the KGB had been sown, and privacy was altogether nonexistent.


History teaches us many lessons if we are only willing to pay attention. Perhaps none as profound and recurring as the importance of protecting an individual’s right to privacy which equates to civil liberties. It is impossible to live in peace and obtain true prosperity without privacy. The tragic events of 9/11/01 changed the landscape of human rights in the United States and throughout the world. If the truth be told, however, personal privacy was under attack long before that day. And while the right to privacy is not completely lost, it should give one pause that history is full of examples wherein these privileges become reduced under the guise of “national security”.


In recent years the same holds true; the inception of the Patriot Act in 2001 gave law enforcement agencies more authority to search the phone, email and financial records of some citizens while wiretaps and searches of suspected homes and businesses were made more accessible. International security measures that have inhibited the civil liberties of citizens include hidden cameras & microphones in public transportation areas like taxis and subway stations as well as roving taps, illegal search & seizures and more.


As recently as 2006, USA Today reported that The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth. The database is currently the largest ever collected, and, while it focuses mostly on international calls, either those ending or originating outside the U.S., it does keep track of domestically placed calls as well.The struggle to preserve essential human rights is a theme most recently tapped by Hollywood. In 2009, it is paying tribute to those individuals who stood against tyranny with films such as Tom Cruise’s “Valkyrie” or Daniel Craig’s “Defiance”.


While it remains to be seen the acclaim these films receive, the mere fact that Hollywood producers have allotted their production dollars to bring these true stories to the big screen further affirms the emotional connection we feel towards human rights and those who guard them.


In no way are we promoting civil disobedience, nor are we attempting to draw a parallel between western society and tyrannical governments of long ago. Yet we do feel it is essential for individual citizens to take common sense steps to protect themselves from the prying eyes of individuals seeking monetary gain or the potential of a government becoming dysfunctional and over-stepping its bounds. The economic events of 2008 and collapse of some of the world’s largest banks re-emphasizes this need. Anyone of substantial wealth should be taking measures to diversify and protect their privacy. It is really not that difficult to find a safe haven from these turbulent times. One of our favorite strategies is to utilize Switzerland and have our clients “take matters into their own hands” through owning their own financial facility. This allows for effective planning and extensive control. There are, however, other locations and other strategies that can be implemented. The key is to be proactive.


The lessons to be learned from the past are not ivy tower philosophy or vague political rhetoric but real-world and relevant to current events. We live - as the ancient Chinese saying goes – in interesting times.



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.

1 Jan 2009

RESIDENCIA Y TRIBUTACIÓN DE NO RESIDENTES




1- PRESTBURY Ltd, empresa inglesa, está planteándose tener una filial o una sucursal (establecimiento permanente) en Alemania. Prevén que los primeros 3 años tendrán pérdidas en Alemania. ¿Qué le interesa más a PRESTBURY?.

2- La empresa española TOLEDANA DE VENTAS A DISTANCIA quiere expandirse al mercado francés. Su asesor jurídico se pregunta si tiene establecimiento permanente en Francia si:
a. Anuncia sus productos en “Le Figaro”, donde los lectores pueden rellenar el cupon de pedido y enviarlos a la empresa, que sirve los productos contra reembolso.
b. Tiene una oficina en París solo para recoger información del mercado
c. Tiene un local en Lyon sólo para exponer los productos a la venta
d. Tiene un apoderado en Francia que toma ciertas decisiones
e. Abre un almacén en Persignan para atender cambios de productos defectuosos.
f. Crean una página web en francés dedicada exclusivamente al mercado francés.
g. Coloca el servidor de los pedidos franceses en un Data Center de Marsella.

3- PRETSBURY Ltd. finalmente ha decidido invertir en Alemania a través de una filial. Le preocupan varias cosas:
a. Le interesa invertir mediante ampliación de capital o préstamo, tanto a nivel tributario como a nivel de imagen para conseguir financiación?
b. No le hubiera interesado más invertir mediante cuentas de participación con un socio local?
c. Cuando la filial alemana tenga beneficios, los dividendos procedentes de la matriz tributarán en Alemania si PRETSBURY tiene en el 2009 más del 10%, aplicando la Directiva Matriz-Filial, dando igual lo que diga la norma interna alemana?.
d. Dado que el IS de la filial alemana es mayor que el de la matriz inglesa (PRETSBURY), tiene esta un crédito fiscal y no pagará impuestos la matriz inglesa?.
e. La matriz de la inglesa es una sociedad de Panama, considerada por muchos países como paraíso fiscal. Habrá retención por los dividendos de PRETSBURY?.
f. Si entre la sociedad de Panama y PRETSBURY se interpone una ETVE española, es más beneficioso para el Grupo?.

4- Indira, residente en la India, ha leido sobre las ventajas de la Directiva Matriz-Filial para sus inversiones en Italia. Y sabe que uno de los requisitos es que el Grupo esté finalmente controlado por residentes en la Unión Europea, pues en caso contrario se aplicaría el Convenio, y desde Italia habría retención. Indira ha ideado lo siguiente, qué os parece la mejor solución?:
a. La accionista de sus sociedades activas italianas es una sociedad holding holandesa, cuyos derechos políticos los ostenta una Fundación privada holadesa y los económicos una sociedad de Andorra, país que no es miembro de la Unión Europea.
b. La accionista de sus sociedades activas italianas es una sociedad holding inglesa (con administrador fiduciario inglés o panameño), cuyos derechos políticos los detenta otra sociedad europea fiduciaria, y los económicos una sociedad de Belice.

5- MIKE está preocupado porque sus hijos son un poco irresponsables y cree que podrían dilapidar la fortuna que él ha ido amasando los últimos 40 años. Se esta planteando algunas soluciones, y precisa que le ayudéis en la búsqueda de la mejor:
a. Crear una Fundación de Interés Privado en Panama (la de Lichenstein tiene muy mala fama últimamente)
b. Crear un Trust en Jersey
c. Invertir a través de un Seguro de Vida de una compañía de seguros de Luxemburgo en acciones cotizadas
d. Constituir una LLC en Delaware con un pacto de accionistas pensando en su sucesión.


6- Jorge tiene un proyecto empresarial internacional muy ambicioso, y precisa capital, pero en un ambiente de “credit crunch” como el actual no consigue financiación bancaria. Hay posibles socios extranjeros interesados, pero él no quiere perder el control, por lo que se plantea las siguientes alternativas, y precisa de vuestro consejo para elegir la mejor:
a. Una Limited Partnership (LP) o Limited Liability Partership (LLP) inglesa
b. Una sociedad PLC inglesa que cotice en los mercados AIM o PLUS.
c. Una entidad de capital riesgo español
d. Independientemente de todo lo anterior, agrupar a los inversores en una LLC americana.

7- John es un cirujano independiente prestigioso en Estados Unidos. Cada año debe subir sus honorarios porque la compañía de Seguros que le cubre en caso de una sentencia por malpractica profesional le sube constantemente los precios de su poliza. Ahora le acaba de comunicar la Compañía que sólo le cubrirá 1 millón de dolares al año. John tiene 5 hijos, un apartamento en Manhattan y un rancho en Minesota. Necesita que le aconsejeis cómo proteger sus bienes.

8- La empresa NICOR, no residente en España, transmite su participación en una empresa española cuyo principal activo es un inmueble situado en España. Cuáles serían sus tributos directos e indirectos si la empresa NICOR es residente en Luxemburgo, Holanda o Mongolia, país este último sin convenio con España?.

9- Resulta que el dueño de más del 50% de NICOR es Luis y su familia, residente español. Luis ha oído decir que, al no tratarse de una actividad empresarial, sino pasiva, se le aplicaría la “transparencia fiscal internacional”, y por tanto tributaría por IRPF o IS. Es cierto?.