La CE engage une procédure contre la Bulgarie, l'Espagne, le Portugal et la Roumanie sur la impositon des dividendes

La Commission européenne a adressé à l'Espagne et au Portugal un avis motivé (deuxième étape de la procédure d’infraction prévue à l’article 226 du traité CE) au sujet de leur réglementation selon laquelle les dividendes versés aux fonds de pension étrangers sont plus lourdement imposés que les dividendes versés aux fonds de pension nationaux. Elle a également adressé une demande d'informations sous forme de lettre de mise en demeure (première étape de la procédure d'infraction) à la Bulgarie au sujet de sa réglementation selon laquelle les dividendes entrants versés aux entreprises peuvent être plus lourdement imposés que les dividendes domestiques, et à la Roumanie et à la Bulgarie au sujet de leur réglementation selon laquelle les dividendes sortants versés aux entreprises peuvent être plus lourdement imposés que les dividendes domestiques. Les quatre États membres sont invités à y répondre dans les deux mois. Parallèlement, la Commission a clos la procédure contre le Luxembourg concernant l'imposition plus élevée des dividendes sortants versés aux entreprises, ce pays ayant supprimé cette mesure discriminatoire.

Les dividendes sortants sont les dividendes payés par les entreprises d’un État aux actionnaires établis dans d’autres États. Les dividendes domestiques sont, quant à eux, les dividendes payés par les entreprises d’un État à des actionnaires de cet État. Les dividendes entrants sont les dividendes payés aux actionnaires d'un État par des entreprises établies dans d'autres États.

Dividendes sortants versés aux fonds de pension
Les fonds de pension sont généralement soumis à des règles fiscales différentes de celles appliquées aux entreprises. C'est pourquoi les règles fiscales applicables aux dividendes payés aux fonds de pension et celles applicables aux dividendes versés aux entreprises font l'objet d'une évaluation séparée.

L'Espagne exonère de l'imposition le revenu des fonds de pension et ils peuvent demander le remboursement de toute retenue à la source dans ce pays sur les dividendes versés. Les dividendes domestiques qu'ils perçoivent sont donc dans la pratique non imposés. En revanche, l'Espagne effectue une retenue à la source de 18 % sur les dividendes payés aux fonds de pension établis dans d'autres pays de l'UE ou les pays de l'EEE/AELE (Islande, Norvège et Liechtenstein). Cela aboutit à une imposition plus lourde des dividendes versés aux fonds de pension étrangers. Un taux de retenue à la source moins élevé peut être prévu dans le cadre de conventions fiscales bilatérales.

De la même manière, le Portugal exonère les dividendes perçus par les fonds de pension domestiques et effectue une retenue à la source de 25 % sur les dividendes payés aux fonds de pension établis dans d'autres pays de l'UE ou les pays de l'EEE/AELE.

L'imposition plus lourde des dividendes payés aux fonds de pension étrangers risque de dissuader ces fonds d'investir dans l'État membre pratiquant cette imposition. De la même façon, il pourrait être difficile pour les entreprises établies dans cet État membre d'attirer les capitaux des fonds de pension étrangers. L'imposition plus élevée des fonds de pension étrangers peut donc entraîner une restriction de la libre circulation des capitaux garantie par l'article 56 du traité CE et par l'article 40 de l'accord EEE. En cas de participation majoritaire des fonds de pension étrangers, cela peut également être à l'origine d'une restriction de la liberté d'établissement garantie par l'article 43 du traité CE et par l'article 34 de l'accord EEE. La Commission n’a connaissance d’aucun élément pouvant justifier de telles restrictions.
En ce qui concerne l'imposition plus lourde des dividendes payés aux fonds de pension étrangers, la Commission a déjà adressé des lettres de mise en demeure à la République tchèque, au Danemark, à l'Espagne, à la Lituanie, aux Pays-Bas, à la Pologne, au Portugal, à la Slovénie et à la Suède, et outres.

Faisant suite aux plaintes qui lui ont été transmises, la Commission examine la situation dans d’autres États membres. Cet examen pourrait déboucher sur l’ouverture de nouvelles procédures d’infraction.

Dividendes sortants versés aux entreprises
La lettre de mise en demeure adressée à la Roumanie porte sur l'imposition des dividendes versés à des entreprises établies dans d'autres pays de l'UE ou les pays de l'EEE/AELE.
Les dividendes domestiques sur les participations représentant jusqu'à 15 % des actions font l'objet d'une retenue à la source finale de 10 %. La Roumanie applique une retenue à la source de 16 % sur les dividendes sortants analogues. Ce taux peut être réduit dans le cadre de conventions fiscales bilatérales.

Les dividendes domestiques sur les participations de 15 % ou davantage ne sont pas imposés. En revanche, la Roumanie effectue une retenue à la source finale de 10 % sur les dividendes versés à des entreprises établies en Norvège et de 16 % sur des dividendes sortants analogues versés à des entreprises établies dans les autres pays de l'EEE/AELE.

La première lettre de mise en demeure adressée à la Bulgarie porte également sur l'imposition de dividendes versés à des entreprises établies dans d'autres pays de l'UE ou dans les pays de l'EEE/AELE. La Bulgarie exonère les dividendes domestiques de la retenue à la source ou de l'impôt sur les sociétés. Toutefois, les dividendes sortants versés aux entreprises établies dans l'UE avec une participation inférieure à 15 % sont soumis à une retenue à la source de 5 % (si la participation est égale ou supérieure à 15 %, la retenue n'est pas appliquée). Les dividendes sortants payés aux entreprises dans les autres pays de l'EEE/AELE font également l'objet d'une retenue à la source de 5 % quel que soit leur taux de participation.

L'imposition plus élevée des dividendes sortants versés aux entreprises peut donc entraîner une restriction de la libre circulation des capitaux garantie par l'article 56 du traité CE et par l'article 40 de l'accord EEE. De la même manière, dans les cas de participation majoritaire des entreprises étrangères, cela peut entraîner une restriction de la liberté d'établissement garantie par l'article 43 du traité CE et par l'article 34 de l'accord EEE. La Commission n’a connaissance d’aucun élément pouvant justifier de telles restrictions.

Concernant l'imposition plus lourde des dividendes versés aux entreprises, la Commission a déjà décidé de traduire la Belgique, l'Espagne, l'Italie, les Pays-Bas et le Portugal devant la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes le 22 janvier 2007. La Commission clôt maintenant la procédure engagée contre le Luxembourg (qui concernait uniquement les trois pays de l'EEE/AELE), ce pays ayant mis un terme à la discrimination moyennant sa loi du 27 décembre 2007.

Dividendes entrants versés aux entreprises
La seconde lettre de mise en demeure adressée à la Bulgarie porte sur l'imposition de dividendes versés par des entreprises établies dans d'autres pays de l'UE ou dans les pays de l'EEE/AELE à des entreprises établies en Bulgarie. Les dividendes domestiques perçus par les entreprises établies en Bulgarie ne sont pas imposables. Les dividendes entrants sur les participations inférieures à 15 % dans les entreprises d'autres États membres de l'UE sont imposés à hauteur de 10 % au même titre que tous les dividendes reçus des entreprises des pays de l'EEE/AELE. L'imposition plus élevée des dividendes entrants par rapport aux dividendes domestiques risque d'entraîner une restriction de la libre circulation des capitaux garantie par l'article 56 du traité CE et par l'article 40 de l'accord EEE. La Commission n’a connaissance d’aucun élément pouvant justifier de telles restrictions.

La CE envia dictámenes motivados contra España y otros países en relación a la fiscalidad de los dividendos

La Comisión Europea ha enviado dictámenes motivados (el segundo paso del procedimiento de infracción previsto en el artículo 226 del Tratado CE) a España y Portugal en relación con sus normas, en virtud de las cuales los dividendos abonados a los fondos de pensiones extranjeros están gravados con más impuestos que los abonados a los fondos de pensiones nacionales. Ha enviado también solicitudes de información en forma de cartas de emplazamiento (el primer paso del procedimiento de infracción) a Bulgaria, en relación con sus normas, en virtud de las cuales pueden aplicarse impuestos más altos a los dividendos entrantes pagados a las empresas que a los dividendos nacionales, así como a Rumanía y Bulgaria, en relación con sus normas en virtud de las cuales los dividendos salientes pagados a las empresas pueden estar gravados con más impuestos que los dividendos nacionales. Se pide a los cuatro Estados miembros que respondan en el plazo de dos meses. Al mismo tiempo, la Comisión ha archivado el procedimiento contra Luxemburgo por aplicar impuestos más altos a los dividendos salientes pagados a las empresas, ya que Luxemburgo ha eliminado esta imposición discriminatoria.

Los dividendos salientes son los dividendos que abonan las empresas nacionales a los accionistas residentes en otros Estados. Los dividendos nacionales son los pagados por las empresas nacionales a sus accionistas nacionales. Los dividendos entrantes son los pagados por empresas establecidas en otros Estados a accionistas nacionales.

Dividendos salientes pagados a fondos de pensiones
Los fondos de pensiones suelen estar sujetos a normas fiscales diferentes a las de las empresas. Por eso se evalúan por separado las normas fiscales sobre los dividendos pagados a los fondos de pensiones y las aplicables a los dividendos pagados a las empresas.
En España, las rentas de los fondos de pensiones están exentas y dichos fondos pueden solicitar la devolución de cualquier retención a cuenta que España aplique a los dividendos que reciben. Por lo tanto, en la práctica, los dividendos nacionales que reciben están exentos de impuestos. En cambio, España impone una retención a cuenta del 18 % a los dividendos pagados a los fondos de pensiones establecidos en otro lugar de la UE o en los países del EEE/AELC (Islandia, Noruega y Liechtenstein). El resultado es que los dividendos pagados a los fondos de pensiones extranjeros soportan más impuestos. El tipo de la retención a cuenta puede ser inferior en virtud de convenios fiscales bilaterales.

Asimismo, en Portugal están exentos los dividendos que reciben los fondos de pensiones nacionales y se gravan con una retención a cuenta del 25 % los dividendos pagados a los fondos de pensiones establecidos en otro lugar de la EU o en los países del EEE/AELC.
El mayor nivel de imposición aplicado a los dividendos que se pagan a los fondos de pensiones extranjeros puede disuadir a estos fondos de invertir en el Estado miembro que impone el gravamen más elevado. De igual modo, las empresas establecidas en ese Estado miembro pueden encontrar dificultades para atraer capital de fondos de pensiones extranjeros. Por lo tanto, gravar con más impuestos los fondos de pensiones extranjeros tiene como resultado una restricción de la libre circulación del capital garantizada por el artículo 56 del Tratado CE y el artículo 40 del Acuerdo EEE. En el caso de los fondos de pensiones extranjeros con participación de control puede también producirse una restricción de la libertad de establecimiento, garantizada por el artículo 43 del Tratado CE y por el artículo 34 del Acuerdo EEE. La Comisión no conoce ninguna justificación para estas restricciones.

En relación con el mayor nivel de imposición de los dividendos pagados a los fondos de pensiones extranjeros, la Comisión ha enviado ya cartas de emplazamiento a la República Checa, Dinamarca, España, Lituania, los Países Bajos, Polonia, Portugal, Eslovenia y Suecia ( el 7 de mayo de 2007), a Italia y Finlandia (el 23 de julio de 2007) a Alemania y Estonia (el 31 de enero de 2008) y a Austria (el 23 de noviembre de 2007).
Como seguimiento de las denuncias que ha recibido, la Comisión está examinando aún la situación en otros Estados miembros, lo cual podría dar lugar al inicio de otros procedimientos de infracción.

Dividendos salientes pagados a empresas
La carta de emplazamiento dirigida a Rumanía se refiere a la imposición de los dividendos que se pagan a las empresas establecidas en otro lugar de la UE o en los países del EEE o la AELC.
Los dividendos nacionales sobre participaciones de hasta el 15 % de las acciones están sujetos a un impuesto a cuenta final del 10 %. Rumanía grava dividendos salientes similares con una retención a cuenta del 16 %, porcentaje que puede reducirse en virtud de convenios fiscales bilaterales.

Los dividendos nacionales sobre participaciones de al menos el 15 % están exentos de impuestos. En cambio, Rumanía impone una retención a cuenta final del 10 % a los dividendos pagados a las empresas establecidas en Noruega y del 16 % a dividendos salientes similares abonados a las empresas establecidas en los demás países del EEE/AELC.

La primera carta de emplazamiento dirigida a Bulgaria se refiere también a la imposición de los dividendos pagados a empresas que están establecidas en otro lugar de la UE o en los países del EEE/AELC. En Bulgaria, los dividendos nacionales están exentos de retención a cuenta y del impuesto de sociedades. Sin embargo, los dividendos salientes pagados a las empresas establecidas en la UE con una participación en acciones inferior al 15 % están sujetos a una retención a cuenta del 5 % (si la participación en acciones es de al menos el 15 % están exentos de esta retención). Los dividendos salientes pagados a las empresas en los demás países del EEE/AELC están sujetos también a una retención a cuenta del 5 %, con independencia del tamaño de su participación en acciones.

Un mayor gravamen de los dividendos salientes pagados a las empresas puede tener como resultado una restricción de la libre circulación de capitales garantizada por el artículo 56 del Tratado CE y por el artículo 40 del Acuerdo EEE. Asimismo, en el caso de los fondos de pensiones extranjeros con participaciones de control, puede producirse una restricción de la libertad de establecimiento garantizada por el artículo 43 del Tratado CE y el artículo 34 del Acuerdo del EEE. La Comisión no conoce ninguna justificación para estas restricciones.

En cuanto al mayor nivel de imposición de los dividendos pagados a las empresas, la Comisión decidió ya el 22 de enero de 2007 denunciar a Bélgica, España, Italia, los Países Bajos y Portugal ante el Tribunal de Justicia Europeo.

Dividendos entrantes pagados a empresas
La segunda carta de emplazamiento dirigida a Bulgaria se refería a la fiscalidad de los dividendos pagados por las empresas, establecidas en otro lugar de la UE o en los países del EEE/AELC a empresas con sede en Bulgaria. Los dividendos nacionales recibidos por las empresas con sede en Bulgaria están exentos de impuestos. Los dividendos entrantes sobre participaciones de menos del 15 % en empresas de otros Estados miembros de la UE están gravados al 10 %, al igual que todos los dividendos recibidos de empresas de los países de la AELC/EEE. Es probable que el mayor nivel de imposición de los dividendos entrantes que el de los dividendos nacionales restrinja la libre circulación de capitales garantizada por el artículo 56 del Tratado CE y el artículo 40 del Acuerdo EEE. La Comisión no conoce ninguna justificación para estas restricciones.

CE takes steps against Bulgaria, Spain, Portugal and Romania relating to taxation on dividends

The European Commission has sent reasoned opinions (the second step of the infringement procedure of Article 226 of the EC Treaty) to Spain and Portugal about their rules under which dividends paid to foreign pension funds are taxed more heavily than dividends paid to domestic pension funds. It has also sent requests for information in the form of letters of formal notice (the first step of the infringement procedure) to Bulgaria about its rules under which inbound dividends paid to companies may be taxed more heavily than domestic dividends and to Romania and Bulgaria about their rules under which outbound dividends paid to companies may be taxed more heavily than domestic dividends. The four Member States are asked to reply within two months. At the same time the Commission has closed the case against Luxembourg on the higher taxation of outbound dividends paid to companies, as Luxembourg has eliminated the discriminatory taxation.

Outbound dividends are dividends paid by domestic companies to shareholders resident in other States. Domestic dividends are dividends paid by domestic companies to domestic shareholders. Inbound dividends are dividends paid by companies resident in other States to domestic shareholders.

Outbound dividends to pension funds
Pension funds are usually subject to different tax rules than companies. The tax rules on dividends paid to pension funds and those for dividends paid to companies are therefore assessed separately.

Spain exempts pension funds from tax on their income, and they can claim back any Spanish withholding tax on the dividends that they receive. The domestic dividends that they receive are thus effectively tax free. In contrast, Spain levies a withholding tax of 18% on dividends paid to pension funds established elsewhere in the EU or in the EEA/EFTA countries (Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein). These result in the higher taxation of dividends paid to foreign pension funds. Bilateral tax treaties may provide for a lower withholding tax rate.
Similarly, Portugal exempts the dividends received by domestic pension funds and levies a withholding tax of 25% on dividends paid to pension funds established elsewhere in the EU or in the EEA/EFTA countries.

The higher tax on dividends paid to foreign pension funds may dissuade these funds from investing in the Member State levying the higher tax. Equally, companies established in that Member States may face difficulties in attracting capital from foreign pension funds. The higher taxation of foreign pension funds thus results in a restriction of the free movement of capital as protected by Article 56 EC and Article 40 EEA. In the case of controlling participation by the foreign pension funds, it may also result in a restriction of the freedom of establishment, protected by Article 43 EC and Article 34 EEA. The Commission is not aware of any justification for such restrictions.

Concerning the higher taxation of dividends paid to foreign pension funds, the Commission has already sent letters of formal notice to the Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Italy, Finland, Germany, Estonia and Austria.

Following up on the complaints it received, the Commission is still examining the situation in other Member States. This may result in the opening of further infringement procedures.

Outbound dividends to companies
The letter of formal notice to Romania concerns the taxation of dividends which are paid to companies, resident elsewhere in the EU or in the EEA/EFTA countries.
Domestic dividends on participations of up to 15% of the shares are subject to a final withholding tax of 10%. On similar outbound dividends, Romania levies a withholding tax of 16%. Bilateral tax treaties may reduce that rate.

Domestic dividends on participations of 15% or more are tax exempt. In contrast, Romania levies a final withholding tax of 10% on dividends paid to companies resident in Norway and of 16% on similar outbound dividends paid to companies resident in the other EEA/EFTA countries.

The first letter of formal notice to Bulgaria also concerns the taxation of dividends paid to companies which are resident elsewhere in the EU or in the EEA/EFTA countries. Bulgaria exempts domestic dividends from withholding tax or corporation tax. However, outbound dividends paid to companies resident in the EU with a shareholding of less than 15% are subject to a withholding tax of 5% (if shareholding is of 15% or more they are exempt from withholding tax.). Outbound dividends paid to companies in the other EEA/EFTA countries are also subject to a withholding tax of 5%, regardless of the size of their shareholding.

Higher taxation of outbound dividends paid to companies may result in a restriction of the free movement of capital as protected by Article 56 EC and Article 40 EEA. Similarly, in the case of controlling participations by the foreign companies, it may result in a restriction of the freedom of establishment, protected by Article 43 EC and Article 34 EEA. The Commission is not aware of any justification for such restrictions.

Concerning the higher taxation of dividends paid to companies the Commission has already decided to refer Belgium, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal to the European Court of Justice on 22 January 2007. The Commission is now closing the case against Luxembourg (which concerned only the three EEA/EFTA countries), since Luxembourg eliminated the discrimination through its law of 27 December 2007.

Inbound dividends to companies
The second letter of formal notice to Bulgaria concerns the taxation of dividends paid by companies, resident elsewhere in the EU or in the EEA/EFTA countries to companies resident in Bulgaria. Domestic dividends received by companies resident in Bulgaria are tax exempt. Inbound dividends on participations of less than 15% in companies of other EU Member States are taxed at 10%, just like all dividends received from companies of the EFTA/EEA countries.

The higher taxation of inbound dividends than of domestic dividends is likely to restrict the free movement of capital as protected by Article 56 EC and Article 40 EEA. The Commission is not aware of any justification for such restrictions.

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.

More information:

http://www.jpa-iac.com/en/
http://www.braxton-co.com/en/
http://www.tax-international.com
http://www.braxton-group.com

Beneficial owners on US companies

Obama Joins Levin and Coleman to Introduce Bill to Stop Misuse of U.S. Companies

WASHINGTON - Today Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Senator Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), and Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Chairman, Ranking Minority Member, and Member of the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, introduced the Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act to help law enforcement stop the misuse of U.S. corporations.

Currently, nearly two million corporations and limited liability companies (LLCs) are formed within the United States each year. The States generally form these corporations without asking for the identity of the corporation's beneficial owners, and numerous law enforcement problems have resulted when some of these corporations have become involved with money laundering, tax evasion, or other misconduct. The bill being introduced would require the States to obtain beneficial ownership information for the corporations formed under their laws and to provide access to this information to law enforcement upon receipt of a subpoena or summons.

"Criminals are hiding behind U.S. corporations while committing all sorts of crimes - from terrorism to money laundering, fraud, and tax evasion," said Levin. "Law enforcement has told us for years that they need the names of the true owners behind a corporation to find out who is responsible for the illicit activity, but they can't get it, because the States don't bother to ask. The bill we are introducing today will strike a blow against corporate secrecy, strengthen law enforcement, and curb the misuse of U.S. corporations."

"Criminal activities that exploit the lack of transparency in U.S. corporation registrations are more costly than ever," said Coleman. "As our work on the Subcommittee has shown again and again, law enforcement has been frustrated by the ability of money launderers and tax cheats to hide behind privately-held corporations and LLCs. This bill will shed light on these illegal activities, in a fair and reasonable manner that does not burden the states with an unfunded mandate and protects individual privacy."

"It is unacceptable for American companies to be used by criminals and terrorists as shields for tax evasion, terror financing, and financial crimes," said Obama. "We must ensure our law enforcement agencies have the ability to properly investigate any financial criminal wrongdoing. This important legislation promotes transparency, fairness, and public safety, and sheds light on the people behind corporate entities so that criminal and terrorist activities can be deterred or detected more effectively."

The Subcommittee has been pursuing this issue since 2000, when Levin requested the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct an investigation into an individual who set up over 2,000 Delaware shell companies and then established bank accounts for those companies, without revealing their identities, moving $1.4 billion dollars through the bank accounts. In April 2006, the GAO prepared another report in response to a Levin-Coleman request entitled, "Company Formations: Minimal Ownership Information Is Collected and Available." This GAO report reviewed the legal requirements in all 50 states to set up corporations and LLCs, found that most states failed to request beneficial ownership information, and reported that the absence of this ownership information impeded law enforcement investigations of suspect corporations.

In November 2006, the Subcommittee held a hearing in which the GAO report was released, and officials from the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) testified about an increase in the use of U.S. shell companies for illicit activities, and the problems caused by the lack of beneficial ownership information. The Subcommittee has collected numerous examples of these law enforcement problems, including the following.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reported that a Nevada-based corporation received more than 3,700 suspicious wire transfers totaling $81 million over 2 years. The case was not prosecuted, however, because ICE was unable to identify the corporation's owners.

FinCEN found that, between April 1996 and January 2004, financial institutions filed 397 suspicious activity reports, involving a total of almost $4 billion, U.S. shell companies, East European countries, and U.S. bank accounts.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reported that U.S. shell companies are being used to launder as much as $36 billion from the former Soviet Union. The FBI also reported that they have 103 open cases investigating market manipulation, most of which involve U.S. shell companies.

The IRS described a scheme involving three individuals who set up U.S. shell companies to conceal nearly $9 million in taxable income in secret accounts in the Turks and Caicos Islands and other foreign countries.

DOJ reported that Russian officials used shell companies in Pennsylvania and Delaware to unlawfully divert $15 million in international aid intended to upgrade the safety of former Soviet nuclear power plants.

On April 22, 2008, in response to a written question by Senator Levin, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff wrote: "In countless investigations, where the criminal targets utilize shell corporations, the lack of law enforcement's ability to gain access to true beneficial ownership information slows, confuses or impedes the efforts by investigators to follow criminal proceeds."

In July 2006, the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, which is the leading international organization combating money laundering, issued a report criticizing the United States for failing to comply with a FATF standard requiring beneficial ownership information to be obtained and urging the United States to correct this deficiency by July 2008. In response, the United States has repeatedly urged the States to strengthen their incorporation practices by obtaining beneficial ownership information for the corporations and LLCs formed under their laws. The States, however, have not changed their incorporation practices.

"U.S. corporations are getting a bad name, not only because they are being used to commit crimes, but because U.S. law enforcement can't find out who owns them," said Levin. "Right now, a person forming a U.S. corporation typically provides less information to a State than is needed to obtain a bank account or driver's license. That doesn't make sense, and it invites misuse of U.S. corporations. It's time for the United States to meet its international anti-money laundering commitments, and that means getting beneficial ownership information for U.S. corporations."

All 27 countries in the European Union are already required to obtain beneficial ownership information for the corporations they form.

http://obama.senate.gov/press/080501-obama_joins_lev/

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.

CE requests Hungary to end discriminative tax incentives for R&D

The European Commission has formally requested Hungary to change its tax law provisions which limit the granting of a tax incentive to taxpayers who engage in research or development activities performed on premises located in Hungary. The provisions are incompatible with the freedom to provide services as guaranteed by Article 49 of the EC Treaty and Article 36 of the EEA Agreement. The request takes the form of a reasoned opinion (second step of the infringement procedure provided for in Article 226 of the EC Treaty). If there is no satisfactory reaction to the Reasoned Opinion within two months, the Commission may decide to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice.

Under Hungarian Law, basic research, applied research or experimental development services performed on premises managed by a research institution (research facility) founded by a Hungarian institution of higher education or the Hungarian Academy of Sciences are treated more favourably than similar R&D activities performed on similar premises located in other EU Member States or EEA/EFTA countries.

As a result, these provisions discourage Hungarian companies and entrepreneurs from carrying out their R&D activities in other EU Member States or EEA/EFTA countries and therefore impede the free provision of services as guaranteed by Article 49 of the EC Treaty and Article 36 of the EEA Agreement.

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.

More information:

http://www.jpa-iac.com/en/
http://www.braxton-co.com/en/
http://www.tax-international.com
http://www.braxton-group.com