28 May 2008

Book Review of 'Havens in a Storm: The Struggle for Global Tax Regulation'

Book Review of 'Havens in a Storm: The Struggle for Global Tax Regulation'

Anthony C. Infanti (University of Pittsburgh) posted this essay at U. of Pittsburgh Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2008-16


Here is the Abstract:

This short essay is a review of J.C. Sharman's book Havens in a Storm: The Struggle for Global Tax Regulation. In the essay, I first provide a brief overview of Sharman's book, which approaches the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's struggle with tax havens over harmful tax competition from a political science perspective. I then describe how the book (and, by extension, this review) will be of interest not only to those in the fields of international tax and international relations, but also to those concerned more generally with the dynamics of struggles between the powerful and the weak. I conclude by offering a constructive critique of one aspect of the book.

Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1118979



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.

27 May 2008

The New Global Hunt for International Tax Cheats


The New Global Hunt for Tax Cheats
Article published by by Keith Epstein and Mark Scott in Business Week (http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/may2008/gb20080523_754004_page_2.htm).

By forming multinational investigative teams, the IRS and other tax collectors are cracking down on evaders and giving new meaning to globalization

Government authorities from Australia to the U.S. are hunting big game together. Their prey? Wealthy tax evaders—as well as the asset managers, banks, and accountants who help prosperous people conceal cash in offshore bank accounts. For decades, globalization has afforded an edge to tax cheats. Now it's working for the tax cops, too.

Buoyed by new multinational investigative teams, agreements with banks to open once-secret records, tougher penalties for cheats and third parties, and a thirst for billions of dollars in recoverable revenue, the new globe-spanning tax man has got the world's mega-rich worried they could run afoul of the mounting crackdown.

With so much money at stake, it's no wonder the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, Germany's Bundesministerium der Finanzen, Britain's Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs, and other international colleagues are eager to nab wealthy tax evaders. Almost $6 trillion is estimated to be hidden from tax authorities across the globe—Germany's central bank suggests $775 billion in German assets alone have been secreted out of the country. In the U.S., the IRS reckons $295 billion of potential tax revenue goes uncollected—much of it because of underreported income. With governmental budgets strained everywhere, leaders are eager to mop up those missing payments.

A Collaborative Effort
To close this "tax gap," U.S. investigators and their comrades overseas are cooperating as never before. Since the September 11 terrorist attacks, tracking money movements has become a priority. In response, law enforcement and banks have started to share more information about possible tax evaders. Governments also realize they have a lot to gain from stiffer penalties that return more money to underfilled coffers.

"There's a lot of offshore tax evasion, so governments are trying to find tools to combat that," says Grace Perez-Navarro, deputy director of tax policy and administration at the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development (OECD). "Governments realized there was greater value in working multilaterally."

Cross-border collaboration has become a buzzword in global law enforcement circles. Under an OECD-negotiated treaty, 19 countries, including states as diverse as the U.S., Italy, and Azerbaijan now can prosecute tax evaders within their jurisdictions on behalf of other signatory countries. The European Union passed a similar law in 2000, while Brazil, India, and South Africa began cooperating with each other to identify suspect transactions in 2006. Their targets typically conceal assets in the roughly 40 nations generally seen as tax havens, which are analyzed routinely by international organizations such as the OECD and the International Monetary Fund.

The IRS Joins Forces
These days, an investigator following a lead need not even cross a border for help from his international colleagues: He or she merely has to walk down the hallway. Since 2004 tax shelter sleuths from five countries—the U.S., Britain, Australia, Japan, and Canada—have shared work space, tactics, and information in a joint office at IRS headquarters in Washington. The success of the operation led to its expansion last year, including the opening of a London-based outpost at Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs.

The physical setup of this so-called Joint International Tax Shelter Information Centre reflects the sensitivity of the work. Each member of the unit—which is physically separated from the rest of the IRS—has a separate, closed office, allowing for confidential communication with counterparts back home, as well as discreet one-on-one conversations with local colleagues and the IRS. "The office space is configured in a manner that reflects the critical need to protect the privacy of taxpayer information," according to an IRS spokesman.

The IRS argues that such cooperation is essential in a world of globalized money flows. "Cross-border migration of capital and people has made this a more integrated world, and the IRS is working closely with other national tax administrators to ensure that we have a global view of our work," says the top tax official in the U.S., IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman. This close work with other tax authorities, he adds, has allowed the IRS and its equivalents in other nations to achieve "a new level of cooperation in identifying, developing, and sharing leads on abusive tax transactions and schemes."

Such cooperation will only increase as governments clamp down on tax evasion, says Daniel Feingold, senior partner at Britain-based global tax consultancy Strategic Tax Planning. "There's a definite push for this sort of thing," he says.

Squeezing Tax Havens
All of this has put the squeeze on tax havens such as Liechtenstein and Andorra that have long-held traditions and laws supporting no-questions-asked banking for wealthy clients. "The number of countries safe for this activity is dwindling," says Beverly Hills-based tax lawyer Edward Robbins Jr., a former assistant U.S. attorney who oversaw tax prosecutions in California. "There aren't that many left, frankly."

For decades, banks in places such as Switzerland have flourished by offering seemingly ideal havens from the tax man. Switzerland's code of silence, for instance, goes back at least 200 years. And during World War II, Nazis and Jews alike made use of Swiss bankers' discretion. Since then so have corporations and non-governmental organizations—as well as drug traffickers and corrupt dictators.

Yet even this Alpine paradise has conceded to mounting international pressure (BusinessWeek.com, 5/21/08). Most major Swiss banks have signed up with the U.S. to be "qualified intermediaries." The system gives the IRS access to any account containing U.S. securities and requires the filing of tax and other forms with the U.S. that identify clients and balances—not exactly the image of tight-lipped discretion portrayed in movies such as The Spanish Prisoner and The Bourne Identity. Even the Swiss government admits to a disconnect between tradition and current reality. "Swiss banking secrecy is in no way absolute," cautions the Swiss embassy's Web site.

Often under pressure, other tax havens have followed suit. Agreements with traditional ports-of-call for evaders like Malta and Bermuda have aided the IRS and its international counterparts. Now tax collectors don't even have to pick their way through complicated avoidance schemes: They can make a case against alleged tax cheats simply by catching missing or falsified paperwork.

Elaborate Web
Here's how it works. For years, a bank client with any kind of interest in an overseas account valued at more than $10,000 has had to file a special form with the IRS disclosing that fact. But to avoid taxation, he might not file the form, or might underreport the value of the account on his tax return. More deviously, he might conceal transactions in an elaborate web of trusts and holding companies. Now, thanks to more international sharing of data, the IRS may find out about the account anyway—from the bank itself.

The recent high-profile indictment of former UBS (UBS) banker Brad Birkenfeld shows just how tough the authorities are getting. Birkenfeld's wealthy client, Igor Olenicoff, has pleaded guilty to filing false tax returns and agreed to pay $52 million in back taxes. Both Olenicoff and Birkenfeld, who was born in Boston and lives in Switzerland, are believed to be cooperating in a continuing investigation that began with the discovery of $200 million allegedly concealed in European tax havens on behalf of Olenicoff, a Russian émigré-turned-California real estate developer.

As a result of that probe, the extended arm of U.S. law may reach not just other clients of Birkenfeld (and those of an alleged collaborator in Liechtenstein named Mario Staggl, who specializes in the intricacies of tax havens and trusts) but also other employees of UBS. "This is not an isolated incident," says David Schwedel, a Florida entrepreneur who is now an investment partner of Birkenfeld's. "He won't be the last banker called in for questioning. There will be a lot of bankers called into this. They're going after others at UBS and any U.S. individuals involved with the bank."

Alerted About the Risks
Kevin Packman, a Miami lawyer who represents taxpayers running afoul of the IRS, says he's amazed that even sophisticated CPAs with major corporate and individual clients seem unaware of the international push against money held offshore. Tax lawyers around the world tell of clients—often expatriates—who are becoming increasingly worried about being ensnared in the tightening net, thanks to publicity surrounding tax avoidance test cases in Europe and the U.S.

One lawyer tells of trying to alert a client in Argentina about the risks of failing to disclose information to authorities in the client's home country. Even so, the client persisted in wanting to keep income under wraps. But tax lawyers and wealth managers from Basel to Boston say the risks of doing so are rising. "It's obvious that there's a growing intolerance of tax avoidance in the Western world," says Ted Wilson, a senior consultant at Scorpio Partnership, a London-based strategic consultancy to those who advise wealthy clients.

Of course, when the cat is in Zurich or Malta, the mice will find other havens. Asset managers, tax lawyers, and investigators tell BusinessWeek that wealthy evaders are taking a closer look at new frontiers for concealment. One such nation is the Republic of Vanuatu, a tiny, tax-free South Pacific archipelago 1,000 miles from Australia. Local officials even promote their tax haven status to potential clients. "Attractions for the foreign investor" include "extensive secrecy protections," according to a Vanuatu business and taxation guide.

Wealthy individuals looking to evade taxes likely will always find ways to circumvent the law. Yet as enforcement finds new ways to share information, the number of prosecutions is expected to rise. That has put pressure on well-known tax havens, such as Liechtenstein, either to shape up or face the full brunt of global tax authorities. In fact, there are signs things are already changing. Says Strategic Tax Planning's Feingold: These days, "among experienced practitioners, no one would ever use Liechtenstein."

Epstein is a correspondent in BusinessWeek's Washington bureau. Scott is a reporter in BusinessWeek's London bureau.

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

12 May 2008

Is it safe to have an offshore account for UK residents?

The UK’s tax authorities, HM Revenue & Customs re-assure now investors that there is absolutely nothing wrong in having savings in an offshore account. Indeed if an individual is resident, but not domiciled, in the UK, he can, by keeping the interest abroad, increase the return on the investment because maybe will no pay taxes at all But still now it look the contrary.

It appears likely that the UK HM Revenue & Customs will be able to acquire the confidential offshore bank documents of many thousands of UK residents. The Special Commission in charge of the issue made 4 decisions. The first, decision came in December 2005 when the Special Commissioners authorized the issue of a notice to an un-named financial institution (now understood to be a High Street bank) requiring it to provide HMRC with documents detailing UK customers who held credit cards associated with offshore bank accounts. At the hearing held prior to the issue of the notice, HMRC estimated that the notice would affect 75,000 of the bank’s customers, approximately 15,000 of whom would be subject to tax investigations. The UK tax authorities adapted techniques first used by the US IRS, for example, demonstrating that information which would identify the “unknown cases” was in the ‘power or possession’ of the financial institution, and that it would not be too onerous for the institution to supply this information.

The Special Commission approved the issue of three notices to the same High Street bank and its private banking and trust subsidiaries. The notices seek copy bank statements and certain other documents containing details of the bank’s customers’ offshore bank accounts. The Special Commission held that as the UK bank held information from its offshore subsidiaries on computer systems in the UK, the information requested was in the UK bank’s “possession or power”. Importantly, the Special Commission considered that the bank’s duty of confidentiality to its customers did not alter its duty under the law to provide documents it possessed when requested under a notice. Given that HMRC estimated that the notice would give them access to information which would lead to tax investigations yielding a total of £1.5 billion, the notice will clearly affect many thousands of the bank’s customers.

Alongside the two bank decisions, HMRC have used the same method to counteract tax evasion via “offshore” share-trades. There were two Special Commission decisions involving two investment banks. A group of London share traders had made profits, which were taxable in the UK, on shares traded through a British Virgin Islands company, but had failed to make a full return of these profits to the Inland Revenue. The British Virgin Islands company’s share trades had been settled through one UK investment bank (which was acting as prime broker) with the deals being conducted through the other UK investment bank.

Both investment banks had, as part of their “Know-Your-Customer” procedures, kept a record of the UK individuals who were authorized to act on behalf of the British Virgin Islands company. HMRC had, through their investigations, established that, by obtaining these details, they could identify and therefore investigate those who had evaded UK taxation in this way. It is now standard, for example, for a bank’s internet banking customers to allow the bank, and its offshore subsidiaries, to access, store, or outsource data management to either the UK or overseas. Similarly, regulatory changes, such as the Anti Money Laundering directives have changed processes concerning information held by banks. HMRC discovered that more information is held, and is accessible in the UK, than ever before.

In an announcement re “Offshore Assets” on its website on 10 May, HMRC stated:“Following recent media publicity it is apparent that some customers or their representatives wish to contact HMRC to make disclosures in respect of assets held offshore, where there may be unpaid duties. HMRC is anxious to facilitate such approaches, and have set up a single point of contact to handle your queries.” Given the level of publicity, the UK HMRC announced the re-structuring of its investigation offices, in part to deal with the volume of cases it will be undertaking as a result of these notices. While HMRC are expected to settle the vast majority of these cases civilly, recovering the tax, interest, and penalties, the fact remains that some cases may be investigated with a view to criminal prosecution.

The success of the HMRC in these latest cases is part of the anti-money laundering drive inspired by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OCDE). This was given focus at the meeting of G7 Finance Ministers at Gleneagles in 1998 which led to moves to outlaw bank secrecy, to require financial institutions to be more deep in knowing the source, and the identity of the beneficial owners, of funds deposited with them and to encourage fiscal authorities to exchange information with each other. The fruition of these initiatives is very well known in the “know your client” requirements to which banks and other professionals must now adhere, the implementation on 1 July 2005 of the European Union Savings Tax Directive and the prohibition on the use of numbered bank accounts The fact that there is still some way to go in achieving universal compliance in implementing these measures is high-lighted in a recently published survey by the OECD entitled “Tax cooperation: towards a level playing field”.

A further step in the cementing of international co-operation in the drive against avoidance and evasion took place in April 2004 with the signature of a memorandum of understanding by Australia, Canada, the USA and the UK establishing the Joint International Tax Shelter Information Centre. The stated purpose of JITSIC is to:

· Provide support to the parties through the identification and understanding of abusive tax schemes and those who promote them.
· Share expertise, best practices and experience in tax administration to combat abusive schemes.
· Exchange information on abusive tax schemes, in general, and on specific schemes, their promoters, and investors consistent with the provisions of bilateral tax conventions.
· Enable the parties to better address abusive tax schemes promoted by firms and individuals who operate without regard to national borders.

The participating countries have each appointed trained and experienced personnel to the HQ in Washington DC and an Executive Steering group meets periodically to oversee and evaluate the work of JITSIC.

Another international initiative to combat avoidance is the Tax Haven Working Group comprising the JITSIC countries along with Japan, France and Germany. This forum aims to improve the capacity of each country to deal with the risks posed to their tax systems by tax havens. Members bilaterally exchange information, share research and information on schemes encountered and strategies adopted and conduct joint training sessions. The group also seeks to deal with offshore compliance issues arising from the use of tax havens and issues occasional international alerts on areas which might give rise to problems, such as:
- E-commerce;
- Credit and debit cards;
- Captive insurance;
- Offshore trusts and partnerships;
- Withholding tax.

Further evidence on the theme of international cooperation is the meeting of tax inspectors from around the globe in Auckland over three days in April 2004 to share strategies and experiences in tackling international tax evasion and avoidance schemes. The meeting was organized by the OECD , and more than 60 international tax specialists from 27 OECD and major non-OECD economies with expertise in the areas of international compliance, exchange of information and international tax audits, participated in the meeting. The increasing use of cross-border tax evasion and avoidance schemes was identified as a major challenge for all tax administrations.

Such practices, it is believed, can be detected and deterred through effective exchange of information between tax authorities. It would appear that offshore investors should anticipate a continuing tightening of the fiscal regime. And the recently reported spectacular success of the Irish Revenue Commissioners in tackling abuse through the use of single premium insurance policies almost certainly heralds similar action by HMRC. Although there are some indicatives to make the Irish islands a tax have, similar to Andorra. We do not think that the European Commission will allow this.

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.

9 May 2008

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.

7 May 2008

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.