Hacienda quiere investigar las operaciones intragrupo

Las empresas no se librarán de las exigencias de documentación de la Agencia Tributaria en las operaciones intragrupo, ya que la Inspección podrá pedir los documentos que justifiquen las transacciones previas al 19 de febrero de 2009 -momento a partir del cual se introdujeron legalmente las obligaciones de documentación del Real Decreto 1.793/2008-, pero que se renuevan de forma automática.

Así se desprende de una consulta de la Dirección General de Tributos (DGT), a la que ha tenido acceso EXPANSIÓN.

El responsable de la Agencia Tributaria (AEAT), Luis Pedroche

La DGT ha resuelto una consulta (V-1567-09, de 30 de junio) que preguntaba qué sucederá en el caso de transacciones iniciadas antes del 19 de febrero "pero que se continúan realizando con posterioridad a dicha fecha, teniendo en cuenta que las obligaciones de documentación se refieren a todas las operaciones producidas en cada periodo impositivo". El consultante planteaba "si existe documentación desde su origen o sólo a partir del 19 de febrero de 2009".
Según Tributos, las obligaciones de documentación alcanzan a fechas anteriores al 19 de febrero de 2009, ya que "todas aquellas operaciones que se realicen a partir de la citada fecha deberán documentarse en los términos señalados en el RD 1.793/2008, ya sean operaciones puntuales u operaciones continuadas o de tracto sucesivo".
Los expertos explican que se trata de una consulta "aclaratoria" que implica que la Inspección "puede solicitar la documentación de los precios de transferencia incluso en periodos anteriores a febrero de 2009, por lo que se diluye este límite". En esta línea, se apunta que "la Inspección está dando por hecho que desde 2007 la carga de la prueba es del contribuyente, por lo que hay que documentar aunque se trate de operaciones de tracto sucesivo".
Lo que está sucediendo ahora es que los inspectores "piden la documentación "la que haya" de las operaciones como si existiera la obligación, incluso en inspecciones sobre 2006". De esta forma, aunque la consulta especifique que las obligaciones documentales se inician el 19 de febrero, la Inspección podrá argumentar que las operaciones continuadas se iniciaron antes. No obstante, "no se impondrán sanciones por falta de documentación".
Se mantiene el papeleo que puso en pie de guerra a las empresas
- Las exigencias de documentación en vinculadas levantaron críticas entre las empresas al introducir una carga excesiva. En un primer momento se conoció un borrador que exigía la documentación sin límite de tiempo y luego Hacienda rectificó y estableció como límite el 19 de febrero. Con esta consulta, este tope también queda difuminado.
- El alcance de las obligaciones de documentación ha suscitado dudas desde que se publicó el Real Decreto 1.793/2008. La Inspección pide pruebas de años anteriores.
- Las sanciones por omitir datos en la documentación o por no disponer de ésta son relevantes. Las empresas están expectantes para conocer cómo se aplicarán.
- No puede haber sanciones por falta de documentación de operaciones anteriores a la entrada en vigor del Real Decreto porque no existía un tipo documentación concreto, que es lo que introduce el RD 1.793/2008, pero la Inspección sí que puede pedir los contratos.

Fuente: expansion.com

COMENTARIO:
"Las exigencias de papeleo" a las empresas por las operaciones vinculadas son fundamentales para reducir la enorme bolsa de fraude existente en los grupos empresariales:
- Los pequeños grupos de mpresas (incluidas empresas familiares) usan y abusan de los precios de transferencia en operaciones vinculadas para "planificaciones fiscales" burdas, basadas en la falsedad de precios entre empresas del grupo y con los accionistas.
- Las grandes empresas y multinacionales usan y abusan de los precios de transferencia para deslocalizar los beneficios generados en España hacia paraisos fiscales.
En ambos casos hay un único perjudicado: el contribuyente que paga honestamente sus impuestos.
No olvidemos que los Presupuestos Generales del Estado son inelásticos en cuanto a gasto (al menos con el actual Gobierno): los gastos no bajan y los impuestos se determinan conforme a las necesidades de gastos --> lo que no paguen unos lo pagarán otros.

El presidente mexicano quiere que las empresas contribuyan más a los ingresos públicos

Mexican President Felipe Calderón, struggling to push through a tax plan to shore up government revenue as the country's oil industry wanes, on October 29 took aim at Mexican corporations that he claims are not paying their fair share of taxes, according to media reports.
As a means of pushing Mexican corporations to pay a higher share of tax revenue, Calderón has reportedly proposed that corporate tax deferments be limited to a maximum of five years. Secretary of Finance Agustin Carstens on October 29 said the government has proposed that tax deferments traditionally granted for losses, investments, or other reasons would be limited to five years, a change from current law, which sets no limit.
The current Mexican tax load on corporations is only about half that asked of U.S. corporations, Carstens said, according to media reports."I'm not asking companies in Mexico to pay more than a dentist, an employee, pays. I am asking them to put in what they need to, to observe the law," Calderón said October 29 in a Mexico City speech to business leaders.
He added that currently Mexican businesses, through a variety of tax loopholes, pay only about 1.7 percent of revenue in taxes, a level he called "unacceptable" and a situation he stressed "cannot go on," according to media reports. But business leaders have taken umbrage at Calderón's proposal, claiming that it will affect their bottom line to the tune of billions of dollars. The business community has similarly opposed the president's bid to increase Mexico's consumption taxes.
Ricardo Salinas, billionaire owner of retail and financial services firm Grupo Elektra SA, broadcaster TV Azteca SA, and wireless carrier Grupo Iusacell SA, said that rather than imposing new taxes, Mexico City should cut costs, noting that an 8 percent cut in government expenses could free up enough revenue to help poor Mexicans, although he did not specify how, or how many, people could be helped. "The government spends a lot and spends badly," he said, according to an October 29 Bloomberg.com report.
Corporate leaders have also pointed to the extensive charity activities large companies undertake to give back to the community. But Calderón dismissed those activities, saying it is "not enough" to carry out grandiose charity functions while at the same time shirking fiscal responsibilities, according to an October 30 Reuters report.
"It is OK that they have philanthropic activities, that they sponsor sports and cultural events, that they donate medical equipment, but they need to pay [taxes] too," he said.
Calderón is pushing to get his overall tax plan through the Mexican Congress, with the chief opposition party, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), stalling and voicing concern that a tax increase during a recession will hurt the poor. Other opposition parties have joined the PRI in asking Calderón to focus more on companies as a potential source for new tax revenue.
Despite the difficulty, a version of the president's proposal on consumption taxes passed the relevant Senate committees on October 30 (the bill passed the lower house on October 21) and will now go to the Senate floor, where the PRI has threatened to abstain. The watered-down version includes the elimination of Calderón's original plan to include food and medicine, currently exempt, within the new VAT regime. The bill would increase the VAT on all other items from 15 percent to 16 percent.
Gabriel Casillas, chief economist at JPMorgan Chase & Co. in Mexico City, predicted that even with the PRI abstention, the bill in its new version would pass. "I don't think they have many alternatives," he was quoted as saying in a separate October 29 Bloomberg.com report.
Furthermore, because Calderón's National Action Party has the most seats in the Senate, the bill should be able to pass even without PRI support, Casillas added. In an added twist, an unnamed Finance Ministry official who was involved in negotiations with lawmakers reportedly hinted that the VAT increase might initially be issued for only one year rather than the indefinite span approved by the lower house.
The Senate must vote on the legislation and send it back to the lower house, where final approval will be issued. This process must be completed by October 31, and any spending portions of the bill must be approved by November 15. Currently, Mexico's tax revenue is about 10 percent of GDP. This is a much lower level than most industrial countries and puts Mexico on a par with Haiti, the Western hemisphere's poorest country.
Fuente: Tax Analysts

Portugal crea un atractivo régimen fiscal para los expatriados

The new Investment Tax Code (Código Fiscal do Investimento) was published on September 23 as Decree-Law 249/2009 and seeks to create an overall competitive tax strategy by granting Portuguese international tax policy instruments to enhance entrepreneurship and competitiveness.
The Investment Tax Code introduces a new nonhabitual resident personal income tax regime that aims to attract qualified expatriates engaged in high added value activities to Portugal and other high net worth individual investors by establishing a favorable tax regime to those who take up Portuguese tax residency. The regime is particularly favorable, even in comparison with similar regimes adopted in countries such as the United Kingdom, France, or Spain, and might prove to be a competitive advantage of the Portuguese tax system.
Summarized below are the main features of the nonhabitual resident tax regime, eligibility criteria, and its favorable tax features, as well as commentaries on possible solutions and issues this new regime might give rise to in the future.

Eligibility Criteria

An individual is eligible to register on a voluntary basis as a nonhabitual resident if:

• he qualifies as a Portuguese tax resident as provided by the Portuguese Personal Income Tax Code (CIRS), which establishes that an individual is resident:
  
  • if he has remained more than 183 days in Portugal; or
  • even if that period is not fulfilled, the individual on December 31 of the relevant fiscal year holds a dwelling under circumstances that one might presume his intention to hold and occupy it as his habitual residence or abode; and
  
  
• he has not been taxed as a resident in the Portuguese territory in the five years before his qualification as a Portuguese tax resident.

Individuals who fulfill these two requirements are eligible to register themselves as nonhabitual residents and be entitled to be taxed as such for a renewable 10-year consecutive period, provided fulfillment of both criteria is met every year throughout the applicable 10-year period. The regime appears to be quite flexible in the sense that it encompasses individuals who take up either a permanent or temporary residence in Portugal, if they qualify as residents for Portuguese tax purposes. Also, the regime's flexibility is highlighted by the fact that if the individual fails to qualify as a Portuguese resident in any of the years during the 10-year period, he will not lose entitlement to be taxed as a nonhabitual resident if he again qualifies to be considered a Portuguese resident for tax purposes in the following years until the 10-year period elapses. The individual might resume the application of the nonhabitual resident tax regime on any of the remaining years of the 10-year period if he once again meets the requirements to be eligible as a tax resident in Portugal.

Main Features

Individuals who qualify as nonhabitual residents benefit from a flat tax rate on Portuguese-source employment and business income derived from high added value activities and from the application of the exemption method (with progression) on foreign-source income, namely, passive income, capital gains, income from property, business profits, and pensions. Further, the individual might elect to switch over to the credit method where foreign-source income is concerned, which will be aggregated to his taxable income and subject to tax at progressive rates of up to 42 percent. Flat-Tax Rate

The main thrust of the nonhabitual resident regime is the schedular taxation of the Portuguese-source employment or business and professional income arising from high added value activities that are of a scientific, artistic, or technical nature (as defined by a specific order to be published by the Ministry of Finance) at a flat tax rate of 20 percent applicable on its net amount. Nonetheless, the taxpayer might still opt for the aggregation of that income to his taxable income and be subject to tax at progressive rates of up to 42 percent. Portuguese enterprises are thus able to offer an attractive salary and fringe benefits package to possible expatriates in Portugal.
Foreign-Source Income

As for foreign-source income, nonhabitual residents might benefit from the application of the exemption method to avoid double taxation, if some variable conditions according to the type of income are fulfilled, as follows.

Employment Income

The exemption method will be applicable to foreign-source employment income (rendimentos do trabalho dependente) if the income is subject to tax in the source state under a double taxation convention (DTC) entered into between Portugal and that state. Alternatively, if there is no DTC, the income is subject to tax in the source state and is not considered sourced in Portugal. Therefore, where employment income is concerned, effective taxation in the other state is required to benefit from the application of the exemption method in Portugal.

Profits, Passive/Immovable Property Income, Capital
Gains

As for the foreign-source business and professional income (rendimentos empresariais e profissionais) arising from high added value activities that are of a scientific, artistic, or technical nature (as defined by a specific order to be published by the Ministry of Finance), or from intellectual or industrial property, or yet from the provision of information relating to an experience gained in the industrial, commercial, or scientific areas, the exemption method will apply if the income may be subject to tax in the other state under a DTC entered into between Portugal and that state. Alternatively, if there is no DTC, the rules of the OECD model convention, interpreted in accordance to Portugal observations and reservations, do not restrict the other state to tax that income, and the income is sourced neither in blacklisted jurisdictions nor in Portugal. Although the previously mentioned requirements appear to have the intention of avoiding double nontaxation, no effective taxation seems required, and it is merely a condition for entitlement to the application of the domestic exemption method that the rules of the DTC or the OECD model convention, where applicable, do not restrict the taxing rights of the other state. The established conditions mentioned above are likewise applicable to foreign-source passive income (rendimentos de capitais), immovable property income (rendimentos prediais), and capital gains (incrementos patrimoniais).

Pensions

Foreign-source pension income (pensões) includes:

• benefits due to retirement pensions, old age, invalidity, survival, and maintenance;
• the benefits that are payable by insurance companies, pension funds, or other entities, under a supplementary social security system due to the employer's contributions and that are not considered as employment income;
• pensions and allowances that are not included in the previous description; and
• temporary or life annuities.

The exemption method will apply if foreign-source pension income is subject to tax in the source state under a DTC between Portugal and that state or if the income is not considered to be obtained in Portuguese territory. But, in both cases, if the income is based on contributions, the exemption will apply only to the portion of that income that has not led to a specific deduction in accordance to the CIRS.

Switchover

The nonhabitual resident may also switch over to the application of the credit method to his foreign-source income, if the income is aggregated to its taxable income and subject to progressive taxation at tax rates of up to 42 percent.

Final Remarks

The new nonhabitual resident personal income tax regime will introduce in the Portuguese personal income tax system a similar regime to those established in other EU countries that pursue the same objectives (for example, the Spanish expatriate tax regime or the incentive regime for expatriates in France). However, the Portuguese system seems to have gone beyond these European examples, not only regarding its eligibility criteria and duration (a 10-year renewable period) but also regarding its scope. The Portuguese nonhabitual resident regime is not restricted to certain nonresidents (for example, experts or researchers), and there seems to be no condition that the employee must be recruited abroad or even that the work must be physically carried out in Portugal. Also, the existing rules do not require that a new contract is entered into with the Portuguese employer or that the employee must be free of any preexisting business or ownership link with the employer.
The Portuguese nonhabitual resident regime seems also particularly interesting for high net worth individuals who might benefit from it by establishing their tax residency in Portugal. The Portuguese system has an advantage over some similar regimes: If the taxpayer's income falls within one of the categories mentioned above and the exemption method is applicable, no tax will be levied in Portugal on the foreign-source income, regardless of whether the income is remitted to Portugal, and without any remittance basis charge.
Even though through this regime the taxpayer seems to be subject to worldwide income taxation, he is able to enjoy a fixed flat tax rate for his Portuguese-source employment and business income, most likely a lower rate than the one applicable to general residents. The taxpayer also benefits from the exemption method for his foreign income (including passive income), whereas the general rule for Portuguese residents is currently the credit method.
Also, the above-mentioned fact that the taxpayer seems to be subject to worldwide income taxation -- albeit effectively benefiting from the application of the exemption method to foreign-source income -- might further enable residents to properly claim the application of the Portuguese tax treaty network, consisting of more than 50 DTCs with the major European and Western countries, without the problems raised by regimes where residents are taxed on a source basis in their jurisdiction of residency. Hence, residence within the OECD model convention definition might be a moot point (for example, on the assessment of their "liability to tax").
Furthermore, from an EC law perspective, the fact that contrary to other regimes in which some features might be said to raise concerns about compatibility with the fundamental freedoms (for example, restriction where the employment is exercised for entitlement), the Portuguese nonhabitual resident regime does not seem to give rise to those issues. As for a possible incompatibility with state aid rules, prospective individuals must be aware that no prior notification was made to the European Commission, probably because Portugal relied on the European Commission's previous stand that those types of regime do not generally constitute incompatible state aid.
The new nonhabitual resident regime has entered into force with retroactive effect, and prospective qualifying individuals might already claim its application for fiscal 2009. Further, the newly introduced binding ruling regime will allow taxpayers to request from the tax authorities, within 60 days, confirmation of the tax consequences of taking up residency in Portugal. Failure to comply with that deadline will deem the requested confirmation of the tax treatment as presented by the taxpayer as tacitly sanctioned.
The new nonhabitual resident tax regime is indeed favorable to nonresident individuals willing to take up tax residency in Portugal, but it is nevertheless complex in legal and tax terms. Therefore, proper legal advice is recommended before any decision to become a Portuguese tax resident is taken on the assumption that the new nonhabitual resident tax regime is applicable.
Fuente: Tax Analysts

LA CE insta a España a eliminar el art. 12.5 TRLIS (fondo de comercio financiero)

The European Commission on October 28 asked Spain to abolish its tax incentive for the acquisition of shares in EU-resident companies, stating that the incentive violates EU law since it constitutes state aid. No decision has been made so far on the acquisition of shares in non-EU-resident companies.
The decision is the result of a formal investigation the European Commission opened in October 2007 after questions from members of the European Parliament and complaints from member states alleging that the Spanish incentive was unlawful. The questions involved Spanish companies' acquisition of foreign targets. These include the acquisitions of O2 by Telefónica, Iberdrola's purchase of Scottish Power, and bids by Scyr, Abertis and Cintra for highway concessions in France.
The tax incentive is regulated in article 12.5 of the Spanish Corporate Income Tax Act. It provides that a Spanish company may amortize the financial goodwill resulting from the acquisition of a significant shareholding (at least 5 percent) in a foreign company during the 20 years following the acquisition, regardless of the generally accepted accounting principles treatment. This means that the acquiring company may deduct from its tax base, by amortization, the difference between the acquisition cost of the shares and the market value of the assets acquired -- in other words, the goodwill paid by the acquirer in a share deal.
The commission has found that the tax incentive constitutes state aid, as it gives Spanish companies' shares in EU-resident targets advantages over those companies' shares in other Spanish firms. The commission also requested that Spain recover any unlawful aid granted under this provision relating to EU acquisitions since December 21, 2007. It has limited the scope of the recovery obligation to the date the decision to initiate the investigation was published in the EU Official Journal, even though Spain did not notify the commission of the incentive before implementing it in 2002.
Spanish companies affected by the commission's decision may have to amend the corporate tax returns they have already filed. Such companies will not be entitled to the deductibility of the financial goodwill pending amortization -- although it is not yet clear whether the Spanish tax authorities will issue specific guidance in this regard.
Spain has two months to comply with the European Commission's decision. It is expected that the Spanish government will soon modify (or abolish) article 12.5, at least regarding intra-EU acquisitions. The commission has said that discussions with Spain are already under way regarding the changes required.
The European Commission has announced that the investigation will continue regarding acquisitions in non-EU countries. The Spanish authorities argue that legal obstacles to mergers with non-EU companies persist that would effectively prevent a finding of selectivity, which is required for state aid to exist.
Fuente: Tax Analysts

Remitida a la Asamplea Nacional la Ley de Presupuestos francesa para 2010

The French National Assembly on October 20 began open-session discussion of the 2010 Finance Bill and the 2010 Social Security Financing Bill, which include a variety of tax proposals. The discussions will end in mid-November when the texts are submitted to the Senate. The government submitted the finance bill to the National Assembly on September 30, where it was referred to the Finance Committee.
During the discussion period, the Finance Committee and members of the National Assembly may propose several amendments to the bill. Additional amendments may be proposed after it is submitted to the Senate. So far, the main amendments under discussion concern a reform of the tax shield, stock options, and current tax breaks. This article highlights the key measures of the drafts.

Local Professional Tax

The elimination of the local professional tax on productive investments would affect both new investments and existing investments. It would be effective beginning 2010. The added value and land component of the current tax base would form the tax base for a territorial economic contribution (CET). The CET would comprise a local contribution on activity (CLA) based on the land components of companies and a supplementary contribution (CC) that would replace the current minimum contribution based on value added.
The rate of the CC would be determined at the national level (between 0 percent for companies whose turnover does not exceed €500,000 per year, and 1.5 percent for those whose turnover exceeds €50 million per year) and would not apply to those businesses that employ fewer than five employees and are subject to personal income tax.
The land component of the tax base for industrial plants would be reduced by 15 percent.

Research Credits

Beginning in 2010, companies could obtain a refund of the research tax credit for research expenses incurred between January 1 and December 31, 2009.

VAT

The drafts would implement three directives regarding the territoriality of VAT for services and the reimbursement of nonresident services providers. While the general principle of taxation at the place of the services provider would remain when the client is a nontaxable person -- for instance an individual -- the provision of services would be taxable at the place of the beneficiary of the services when the beneficiary is subject to VAT. For some services that are easily localized, an exception would allow taxation at the place of their actual consumption.
A reverse charge procedure would be implemented for the beneficiaries of services when the supplier is established in another member state. This procedure is accompanied by measures to fight against tax fraud.A Web portal would be established that would simplify the reimbursement terms for companies not established in the member state of refund.
These new provisions would come into force between January 1, 2010, and January 1, 2015.

Carbon Tax

Beginning in 2010 a carbon tax would be introduced on energy products that are sold, used, or intended to be used as fuel.
The tax would apply to all taxpayers except to companies already subject to the trading system of CO₂ quotas. However, it is intended that the tax accommodate certain sensitive sectors to allow them time to make their production and transportation methods more carbon and energy efficient so as not to impair their competitiveness with foreign competitors that are not liable to an equivalent carbon tax.
The tax would also be applied gradually to farmers and fishers. Also, for the road transport of goods in vehicles of 7.5 tonnes and over, it is proposed that the price signal be moved further down the line to limit the risk of distortion between member states. Thus, a tax would be created and assessed on anyone who uses such road transport on the national territory as part of his business.
The carbon tax would be determined based on the carbon content of taxable goods. The rate would be fixed at €17 per tonne of carbon in 2010. This rate would be adjusted based on the advice of an advisory committee established upon introduction of the tax, with a possible goal target of €100 per tonne of CO₂ in 2030.
The proceeds from the carbon tax levied on households would be repaid to taxpayers at a flat rate.
Households
A tax credit for all households would take the form of a flat and lump sum that would cover the carbon tax paid and the related VAT. The tax credit would be set at €46 for a single person and at €92 for a couple. These amounts would be respectively increased to €61 and €122 for taxpayers domiciled in a municipality that is not integrated in an area serviced by public transportation. Moreover, the tax credit would be increased by €10 per dependent. Nontaxable households would benefit from a "green check" paid by the Treasury.
Farmers
It is proposed that farmers be reimbursed up to 75 percent of the carbon tax from their energy costs in 2010. This refund would take the form of a down payment paid at the beginning of 2010 to support cash flow statements of companies.

Scellier Scheme

To increase the proportion of energy-efficient housing and to accelerate the development of construction meeting the BBC standard (buildings with low energy consumption) before it becomes mandatory in 2013, it is proposed to grant the current tax benefit to such housing and to gradually decrease the benefits granted to housing that does not reach this level of energy performance.

Home Ownership

To increase the proportion of energy-efficient housing and to spur development of construction meeting the BBC standard before it becomes mandatory in 2013, it is proposed that the tax credit for loan interest for homes that do not meet this standard would be reduced gradually from 2010 to 2012. For these homes, the current applicable rates -- 40 percent for interest paid the first year and 20 percent for interest paid the four following years -- would be reduced, respectively, to:

• 30 percent and 15 percent for a house built or acquired in 2010;
• 25 percent and 10 percent for a house built or acquired in 2011; and
• 15 percent and 5 percent for a house built or acquired in 2012.

Dwelling houses built or acquired in 2009 would not be affected. Beginning in 2013, new housing that complies with the BBC standard would benefit from the tax credit at the ordinary rate (40 percent, then 20 percent tax credit over five installments) while the housing that does not meet this standard would be excluded from the benefit. BPOS housing -- buildings with positive energy -- would then benefit from an increased tax credit (40 percent tax credit over seven installments).
Other tax measures include the following:

• To enhance the effectiveness of this scheme, it is proposed that the tax scale originally planned to apply beginning 2012 will apply instead beginning 2011. Thus, from January 1, 2011, the tax threshold would be lowered to 151 g of CO₂ per km.
• To limit the use of air conditioning to a minimum and to promote alternative solutions, the reduced rate of VAT would be abolished. This measure would apply beginning January 1, 2010.
• Beginning in 2010, life insurance would become subject to social contributions of 12.1 percent when the contract is settled by the death of the insured.
• Social contributions of 12.1 percent would apply to capital gains on the sale of securities from the first euro from 2010 (currently they are exempt if the annual sales of securities are less than €25,730).
• The employer's contribution would be doubled from 2 percent to 4 percent for employee savings and for additional pensions.
• The employer social contributions would be doubled for real defined benefit pension funds (retraite chapeau, which are guaranteed supplementary pensions based on final salary reserved for senior executives). The rates would be increased from 6 percent to 12 percent for the sums feeding the collective fund company lodged within the insurer, from 12 percent to 24 percent for sums put in reserves within the company and that are not transferred to an insurance company, and from 8 percent to 16 percent for the annuities paid to retirees.

Fuente: Tax Analysts

Condenado por fraude fiscal un cliente de UBS

Jeffrey Chernick, a former UBS client and toy manufacturer representative from New York, has been sentenced to three months in prison and to six months of house arrest after pleading guilty to filing a false tax return.
Chernick is the second UBS client to be sentenced following the bank's disclosure of data on 250 individuals under the February 18 deferred prosecution agreement it entered into with U.S. authorities. Steven Michael Rubinstein was sentenced to one year of house arrest and three years of probation on October 28. (For prior coverage, see Doc 2009-23743 [PDF] or 2009 WTD 207-2 .)
U.S. District Judge James Cohn said that a sentence without prison time would send the wrong message in a high profile case. "If the court issues a slap on the wrist, to me the notoriety becomes negative," Cohn said, according to an October 30 Associated Press report. "It essentially informs the public that you can cheat on your income taxes and get away with probation."
In addition to his prison and house arrest terms, Chernick faces six months of probation. Cohn opted not to impose a fine. However, Chernick has agreed to pay back taxes and penalties, including a civil foreign bank account report penalty of 50 percent of the highest value of his undeclared offshore accounts.
Chernick pleaded guilty on July 28 to one count of filing a false tax return and acknowledged hiding $8 million through accounts with UBS and Neue Zuercher Bank (NZB). He implicated Hansruedi Schumacher, a Swiss banker who left UBS for NZB after the former entered the IRS's qualified intermediary program, and Matthias Rickenbach, a Swiss attorney, in schemes to help U.S. clients hide assets. Hansruedi and Rickenbach have since been indicted on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States.
In the statement of facts that accompanied his plea, Chernick asserted that he authorized the payment of $45,000 to reimburse Rickenbach for a bribe he paid a Swiss government official in return for information on whether Chernick's identity had been revealed to U.S. authorities.
Citing his cooperation with U.S. investigators, the Department of Justice requested a sentence reduction of 50 percent from the bottom of the sentencing guideline range of 18 to 24 months. In its request, the DOJ called Chernick's guilty plea "a significant and early step in furtherance" of the investigations into Hansruedi and Rickenbach.
According to a sentencing memorandum prepared by his attorneys, Chernick attempted to enter the IRS voluntary disclosure program in February 2009. Chernick's identity, however, had already been revealed to the U.S. government through the deferred prosecution agreement, making him ineligible for the program. The memorandum pleads for leniency based on his charitable activities.
.Fuente: Tax Analysts

FASB, IASB Announce Future Plans for Income Tax and Fair Value Projects

The Financial Accounting Standards Board on October 28 met with the International Accounting Standards Board to discuss how the boards will be moving forward with joint convergence projects on accounting for income tax and fair value measurement.
During their joint meeting in Norwalk, Conn., FASB and the IASB discussed the importance of the boards' efforts to achieve converged income tax guidance and emphasized that the project should not be forgotten while pursuing the current rulemaking agenda.
The boards, however, debated whether to continue addressing the income tax convergence with short-term revisions or to pursue a full-scale review that may take years to get off the ground.
The IASB previously proposed a replacement to International Accounting Standard No. 12, "Income Taxes." That proposal, issued March 31, was meant to reduce the differences between international and U.S. tax accounting rules. FASB had decided to postpone its own short-term tax accounting project until after it had considered the responses to the IASB proposal.
At the October 28 meeting, the staff presented to the boards some of the major issues identified during a review of the 168 public comment letters sent to the IASB, including concerns over the definition of tax basis, the recognition of deferred tax valuation allowances, and the treatment of uncertain tax positions.
According to the staff, there was general support among the respondents for the IASB's proposed objective to eliminate exceptions to the temporary difference approach in IAS 12, but there was also much opposition to the proposed elimination of initial recognition exception.

Debating the Next Steps

IASB member James Leisenring said he wasn't surprised that respondents were upset with the IASB's removal of some of the exceptions in IAS 12, and he also agreed that the proposed rewrite of the income tax standard is not an improvement over existing rules. Leisenring added, however, that failing to properly amend IAS 12 would create a "huge stumbling block" for the possible U.S. adoption of international financial reporting standards.
IASB member Patricia McConnell suggested that the boards begin to repair some of the tax accounting items they understand to be basic problems. "We should fix what we can in the short term to help people who are applying the standard now instead of leaving them to wait for years until we come up with another answer," she said.
FASB member Leslie Seidman added that conducting a new major effort on income tax would not only be difficult for the boards to fit into their rulemaking agenda, but that doing so could put other projects at risk.
IASB member Robert Garnett noted that the IASB has yet to address some important scope questions, such as defining on an international basis whether an income tax is "something other than a tax on sales." He added that the boards should inform their constituents that these questions will eventually be addressed. "Rather than fixing it piecemeal, we should leave it to this fundamental review which admittedly we can't take on until early 2012 or later," he said.
The boards ultimately decided that they will pursue a larger project on improving the financial reporting of income tax sometime after an IASB meeting in November at which the staff will present an updated proposal developed from public feedback.

Fair Value Project

The boards also discussed the public reaction to the IASB exposure draft, "Fair Value Measurement," which was issued in May 2009. The comment period for the exposure draft ended September 28. Hilary Eastman, project manager of IASB's fair value project, said most respondents to the exposure draft have urged the IASB and FASB to establish fully converged guidance for fair value measurements.
Eastman explained that respondents were concerned that using different words in the IASB's exposure draft and FASB Accounting Standards Codification topic 820, "Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures," could lead to different approaches to fair value measurements or to different fair value conclusions.
The staff said the IASB made some scope decisions that were divergent from FASB's rulemaking, such as having the proposed IFRS apply to leasing arrangements. Other conceptual differences between the two sets of guidance involved so-called blockage factors in the price and reference market, day one gains and losses, and the measurement of liabilities and equity instruments, the staff said.
According to Eastman, the staff also found that some of the concepts in the proposed IASB guidance could be better understood if additional words were added to clarify the intent of situations involving highest and best use of an asset and in-use valuation premise and techniques.
The staff concluded that although FASB and the IASB have different writing styles, the differences should not result in different interpretations of the fair value measurement guidance in IFRS and U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.
The staff provided some approaches for moving forward on fair value measurement guidance:

• Approach one would eliminate all decision and wording differences between the boards' guidance and would call for both boards to redeliberate all issues in which differences have been identified.
• Approach two would only remove the wording differences and would allow the boards to use the same wording in their guidance except for when they have reached divergent decisions.
• Approach three would require the boards to continue with the approach that has already been taken in the project in which the IASB would publish an IFRS on fair value measurement guidance independently from FASB. The boards would then monitor each other's activities to minimize differences.

The boards agreed to pursue the first approach. FASB Chair Robert Herz said FASB's Valuation Resource Group was not comfortable with some of the changes proposed in the IASB's exposure draft. He added that the boards should devise a process to efficiently arrive at common conclusions on eliminating some of the conceptual and wording differences between the two models.
Herz said a major issue is determining the most expedient way to go about reducing those differences while not resorting to a "ping-pong match" between the two boards. "That's not fair to our constituents . . . because you can debate these issues forever," he added.
IASB Chair Sir David Tweedie suggested that each board form a small team to assist Eastman in developing a set of rulemaking recommendations to be heard at a future joint meeting.
Fuente: Tax Analysts

Italia pone en el punto de mira a los bancos suizos

Italian tax authorities on October 27 raided Italian branches of Swiss banks, raising tensions between the two countries.

About 100 officers of Italy's Guardia di Finanza, a military-status police force of the Ministry of Economy and Finance, and tax inspectors from the Agenzia delle Entrate (Italian IRS) raided a total of 76 Italian branches of Swiss banks and Italian banks with Swiss links on October 27 as part of a growing attack on tax evasion, according to media reports. The raids were reportedly conducted across the northern and central regions of the country and also included some banks linked to San Marino.
The Italian agencies asserted that the raids, which have caused friction between Bern and Rome, were undertaken to make sure that the Swiss branches were providing "correct and timely information" to Italian tax authorities, according to an October 29 Financial Times report.
"These banks operate in Italy and are under Italian supervision. We have nothing to say about it," said a Swiss Finance Ministry statement issued on October 27 following the raids.
But despite the Finance Ministry's statement, Swiss reaction to the raids was strong and immediate, with government spokesman Andre Simonazzi calling the actions "discriminatory" against banks with Swiss interests.
Following an October 28 Swiss Cabinet meeting to address the situation, Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey summoned the Italian ambassador to express Bern's surprise at the raids and to ask Rome to explain its actions, according to an October 28 report in The Boston Globe.
"Switzerland has cooperated to a great extent with the international community, with European Union countries as well as with Italy in particular in tax matters," the Foreign Ministry said in an October 28 statement describing comments made to Giuseppe Deodato, Italian ambassador to Switzerland, according to an October 28 report on www.swissinfo.ch.
But Deodato countered in an October 28 interview on Swiss public radio RSR that the actions were not intended to be "unfriendly toward Switzerland" and that the matter was an internal Italian affair in which the tax authorities needed to "check up on Italian citizens, not Swiss banks."
But that explanation did little to calm those upset with the raids. "It strikes me as being rather infantile," James Nason, spokesman for the Swiss Bankers Association, told Swiss radio WRS in an October 27 report. "Established procedures exist to exchange information in criminal cases. There isn't any need for this sort of dramatic action and this sort of Keystone Cops drama," he said.
"My own personal hunch is that the Italian authorities are straining to make some sort of symbolic political statement. At the same time, we should not forget that Italians love drama," Nason added.
Swiss media also reacted strongly to the Italian actions, asserting that the raids prove that Switzerland remains under extreme foreign pressure regarding taxation, and that its elation over being moved from the OECD's gray list to its white list was premature.
"Yesterday the tone between [Italy] and the confederation reached a new low that was hard to imagine just a few months ago. We thought we had seen everything in Italian assaults on the Swiss financial centre. Wrong," wrote the Fribourg newspaper La Liberté on October 28.
"What started as saber-rattling and has come to raids on Swiss banks is proof that Switzerland remains under extreme pressure on the tax front. Let's be honest, the Italians are right. Switzerland should sympathize with Italy's decision to track down tax evaders -- even if it is damaging to Ticino," added Blick, a Swiss daily newspaper.
"The problem with Italy is that it seems to have teetered into hostility towards Switzerland that is irrational and unparalleled. That is demonstrated by bilateral relations that are harsher than ever, but also in Brussels where Rome is engaged in one-upmanship against Switzerland in the dispute we are facing in the European Union over business taxes," added Le Temps, a French-language newspaper based in Geneva.
The move is the latest initiative to emerge from Rome aimed at enticing, or forcing, Italian taxpayers to bring money home, particularly from Switzerland. On September 30 Rome passed its third amnesty since 2002. The new amnesty controversially was expanded to include those taxpayers who had committed fraudulent tax-related accounting acts. (For prior coverage, see Doc 2009-21751 [PDF] or 2009 WTD 189-2 .)
The Italian government also announced in August that it was investigating 170,000 Italian taxpayers suspected of stashing assets in secret Swiss accounts. Bankers in Milan estimate that as much as €600 billion may be hidden in Switzerland through decades of accumulation, according to the Financial Times report.
Among those being investigated is the estate of Gianni Agnelli, the late Fiat chair, whose public family squabble led to tax authorities learning of a potential €1 billion (about $1.48 billion) of undeclared assets outside Italy, with a large percentage possibly hidden in Switzerland. (For prior coverage, see Doc 2009-18346 [PDF] or 2009 WTD 155-3 .)
But the amnesty has led to increased irritation in Switzerland, with Swiss officials complaining that Italian officials are "spying" at the Swiss-Italian border where travelers are much more frequently stopped and subjected to inspections. Italy, in turn, claims that the stepped-up activities are necessary because Switzerland continues to encourage Italians to evade Italian taxes.
The Swiss canton of Ticino, Switzerland's only canton where Italian is the sole official language, has been particularly affected by the Italian actions. About 70,000 Italian citizens live in Ticino, and the Italian enclave of Campione d'Italia is situated within it.
Italian Finance Minister Giulio Tremonti has talked of "bleeding Lugano's banking sector dry," according to a separate October 28 report on www.swissinfo.ch, and two Ticinese parliamentarians have called the actions "nothing short of war-mongering." Lugano is Ticino's largest city and financial center.
"While Switzerland offered Italy an olive branch, Italy has carried out new aggressive tactics that are hard to understand," said Giovanni Merlini, head of the Ticino branch of Switzerland's Radical Free Democratic Party, as quoted in the La Liberté report. "It is a genuine war," added Fulvio Pelli, the party's president.
Fearing that the amnesty and other Italian actions such as the October 27 raids could gut the canton's banking industry by draining it of billions of euros, Bellinzona authorities have contacted Bern telling Swiss President and Finance Minister Hans-Rudolf Merz that they are "very worried" about the impact of the amnesty and the crackdown and asking him to intervene with Rome.
Merz has reportedly promised undisclosed actions to protect the Ticinese financial sector.
Fuente: Tax Analysts

Bruselas exige a España que suprima las ayudas fiscales a las fusiones

La Comisión Europea ha exigido a España que suprima el régimen fiscal que favorece la compra de empresas extranjeras por parte de compañías españolas. Bruselas pide la supresión de una disposición del impuesto de sociedades que permite amortizar durante cierto tiempo el sobreprecio pagado en la adquisición de una compañía extranjera respecto a su precio de mercado. El fundamento de esta decisión es que Bruselas estima que la norma fiscal da una ventaja competitiva a las empresas españolas.

Tras la investigación iniciada en octubre de 2007, la Comisión llegó a la conclusión de que el régimen fiscal español "falseaba la competencia en el mercado único, ya que otorgaba una ventaja injustificada a las empresas españolas especialmente en las ofertas públicas de adquisición". La comisaria de Competencia, Neelie Kroes, precisó que "para preservar unas condiciones competitivas equitativas en el mercado único, España debe poner fin a esta medida y recuperar la ayuda legal concedida desde diciembre de 2007".
La circunstancia de que la obligación de recuperar estas ayudas ilegales sea sólo efectiva a partir de diciembre de 2007, implica que las cantidades que deberán devolver las empresas serán muy reducidas debido a que las grandes operaciones afectadas se hicieron antes de esta fecha.
El portavoz de Competencia, Jonathan Todd, precisó que ni Iberdrola ni Telefónica deberán devolver las deducciones que se aplicaron por sus adquisiciones de la compañía energética Scottish Power y la operadora O2, respectivamente. La explicación es que estas compañías "tenían razones para considerar que el régimen no era ilegal, antes de que la Comisión abriera la investigación". El Banco Santander, sin embargo, deberá devolver las deducciones que se aplicó en la compra de Alliance & Leicester en 2008.

Información adicional

Kroes precisó, por otra parte, que "la Comisión sigue esperando que España le envíe información adicional sobre las adquisiciones fuera de la Unión Europea, donde podrían estar justificados tratamientos diferentes".
Por lo que respecta a las adquisiciones en países que no pertenecen a la Unión Europea, las autoridades españolas aducen que persisten obstáculos específicos y que en un futuro próximo presentarán a la Comisión Europea elementos adicionales a este respecto, según fuentes comunitarias. Lo que implica que continúa la investigación sobre esta parte de la medida.
Un portavoz del Ministerio de Economía y Hacienda -cuya titular es Elena Salgado, que se entrevistó con Kroes a mediados de mes-, manifestó estar "muy satisfecho" con la decisión de Competencia y consideró que la cuantía a devolver por las empresas será "mínima".

Fuente: Tax Analysts

Novedad normativa

Ley 11/2009, de 26 de octubre, por la que se regulan las Sociedades Anónimas Cotizadas de Inversión en el Mercado Inmobiliario.

Francia da marcha atrás en el impuesto extraordinario sobre los bancos para pagar el coste del rescate bancario

On October 26 the lower house of the French Parliament reversed a vote passed on October 23 to impose a 10 percent surtax on the profits of French banks, the French National Assembly's press office said on October 27.
The tax was aimed at helping France to pay down its large debt and defray some of the costs incurred when Paris bailed out France's banks in 2008.
French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde, who strongly opposed the tax, said that the initial October 23 passage was the result of a "technical error," according to an October 27 Dow Jones report.
Two members of Parliament from President Nicolas Sarkozy's center-right UMP (Union pour un Mouvement Populaire) Party reportedly voted for the tax by accident during the October 23 tally, while others within his party voted yes intentionally. According to French media reports, had the two MPs who voted in error voted against the tax, the outcome would have been a deadlock and the tax would not have passed.
Fuente: Tax Analysts

Berlusconi será juzgado por fraude fiscal

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who recently described himself as the most persecuted man in history, will stand trial for tax fraud on November 16, according to media reports.
The trial reportedly was facilitated by an October 7 decision by the Constitutional Court to strip Berlusconi of immunity despite his position as prime minister. He would have had to face the charges at some point, but the lifting of immunity brings his day of reckoning forward.
The tax fraud charges are linked to TV and film rights purchased by Mediaset, his family company. He is also charged with the bribery of British tax lawyer David Mills in a separate case, according to an October 26 BBC report.
Mills was convicted in February and sentenced to 4-1/2 years in prison, an outcome he plans to appeal, according to an October 8 report on guardian.co.uk.
Berlusconi could remain in his position even if convicted, according to political analysts, and he will also be able to take advantage of a long appeals process and possible statute of limitations issues, according to the BBC report. But a conviction could take a toll politically, particularly when coupled with other political and personal scandals he has endured.
But Berlusconi said he felt "invigorated" by the upcoming trial, adding, "I will defend myself . . . and show what stuff I'm made of," according to an October 7 BBC report.
That optimism is a change from his initial reaction to the October 7 decision of the Constitutional Court. After hearing that the court had stripped him of his immunity, Berlusconi insulted the court, questioned the impartiality of President Giorgio Napolitano, and ridiculed former member of Parliament Rosy Bindi on television, saying she is "more beautiful than intelligent," according to the guardian.co.uk report.
Supporters cringed at his outburst. Gianfranco Fini, right-wing speaker of the Chamber of Deputies and a staunch Berlusconi ally, said the prime minister's "indisputable political right, conferred on him by the voters to govern and reform the country, does not relieve him of his precise constitutional duties to respect the constitutional court and head of state," according to the guardian.co.uk report.
Fuente: Tax Analysts

Estados Unidos pone coto a los paraisos fiscales

The top two congressional taxwriters on October 27 introduced a new version of legislation that incorporates past proposals to crack down on individuals and corporations that shelter income and assets overseas, while omitting several other components included in previous bills.
The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act of 2009 (H.R. 3933, S. 1934), introduced in the House by Ways and Means Committee Chair Charles B. Rangel, D-N.Y., and in the Senate by Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus, D-Mont., would impose significant tax withholding penalties on foreign financial institutions that do not disclose holdings by U.S. individuals or firms and would create several new information-reporting requirements. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the legislation would raise $8.5 billion over 10 years.
Both Baucus and Ways and Means Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee Chair Richard E. Neal, D-Mass., a cosponsor of the House bill, told reporters the legislation could help pay for a package of so-called tax extenders that both tax committees are in the early stages of developing.
Lawmakers and aides said there was no set timeline for marking up the bill or for bringing it to the floor in either chamber.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner endorsed the measure, saying in a release that it "fits well into the Administration's dual-track strategy of improving our domestic tax laws while increasing global cooperation on tax information exchange."
But some lawmakers suggested that the bill as written would not go far enough in curbing abusive offshore shelters.
According to a summary released by the Ways and Means and Finance committees, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act would:

• require foreign financial institutions to provide the identity of any U.S. individual or foreign entity with substantial U.S. owners, and relevant account information, to Treasury, or face a 30 percent withholding tax on income from the bank's U.S. assets;
• mandate that foreign corporations provide withholding agents with the name, address, and tax identification number of any U.S. individual with at least 10 percent ownership in the firm, or face a 30 percent withholding tax;
• extend bearer-bond tax penalties to such bonds marketed to offshore investors, and prevent the U.S. government from offering any bearer bonds;
• impose penalties as high as $50,000 on U.S. taxpayers who own at least $50,000 in offshore accounts or assets but fail to report the accounts on their annual income tax return;
• levy a 40 percent penalty on the amount of any understatement attributed to undisclosed foreign assets;
• extend to six years the statute of limitations for "substantial" omissions (exceeding $5,000 and 25 percent of reported income) derived from offshore assets;
• require tax or investment advisers to disclose the identities of any clients they assist in buying offshore assets, as well as the assets purchased;
• require shareholders in passive foreign investment companies to file annual returns, and also give Treasury authority to mandate that financial firms file returns dealing with withholding taxes, even if they file fewer than 250 returns annually;
• make it easier for Treasury to presume that foreign trusts have U.S. beneficiaries, and establish a $10,000 minimum failure-to-file penalty for certain foreign-trust-related information returns; and
• subject dividend equivalent payments included in notional principal contracts and paid to overseas corporations to the same 30 percent withholding tax levied on dividends paid to foreign investors.

The bill builds on an earlier draft bill circulated by Baucus in March, but it leaves out provisions in the original draft requiring that all entities transferring funds offshore report the amount and destination of the transfer, and that taxpayers filing foreign bank account reports submit them with their annual tax returns.
The bill also incorporates some provisions from the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act (H.R. 1265, S. 506), introduced in March by Ways and Means member Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. Those provisions include the six-year statute of limitations, the language targeting offshore dividend equivalent payments, and the disclosure rules for tax and investment advisers.
But the new bill leaves out several key components of the Doggett-Levin legislation, which a preliminary JCT analysis suggested would raise $29.8 billion over 10 years. In particular, the Rangel-Baucus bill includes no language dealing with offshore secrecy jurisdictions or "blacklist" countries, nor would it treat foreign companies as domestic firms if they are actively managed from the United States.
The Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act would also codify the economic substance doctrine, which would contribute an estimated $7 billion over 10 years to the bill's revenue score. That provision was left out of the new Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.
Levin, asked about the differences between his bill and Rangel-Baucus, told Tax Analysts that he could support the new legislation, but added that he hopes to amend it on the floor.
Levin pointed out that his bill would have let the government blacklist tax haven countries and effectively bar their financial firms from interacting with U.S. banks. "That's a very strong power that we [could] have, and we ought to use it to end this situation where tens of billions of dollars a year are lost to the treasury because of Americans that are hiding their assets or their income in these tax havens," he said.
President Obama released a statement praising the Rangel-Baucus bill. "Shortly after taking office, I laid out a set of proposals to crack down on illegal overseas tax evasion," he said. "The legislation introduced today would fulfill that promise, putting a stop to billions of dollars worth of abuses. I look forward to working with Congress to turn these proposals into law so that honest Americans no longer shoulder the burden of the few individuals and businesses that put profit before responsibility."
Robert McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice, in an interview with Tax Analysts called the bill "a good job," but said lawmakers missed an opportunity to bolster U.S. international credibility on tax enforcement. Domestic financial firms often help foreign investors evade taxes in their home countries, McIntyre said, but neither the Rangel-Baucus nor Doggett-Levin bills would require those firms to disclose relevant tax information to foreign governments.
Fuente: Tax Analysts

El nuevo Gobierno alemán pone las rebajas fiscales en su agenda política

The new German conservative-liberal coalition on October 26 signed a draft coalition agreement outlining planned tax changes, including modifications to the change-in-ownership rule and the interest deduction limitation rule.

Following the September 27 federal elections, the new German conservative-liberal coalition on October 26 signed a draft coalition agreement outlining planned tax changes, including modifications to the change-in-ownership rule and the interest deduction limitation rule.
The agreement is a policy document rather than draft law, meaning that taxpayers cannot rely on statements in the agreement. However, the announcements should be taken into account for planning purposes -- for example, when deciding whether to implement a particular structure in 2009 or in 2010.
According to the draft, the government intends to introduce legislation that would make the following changes effective January 1, 2010.

Change-in-Ownership Rule

The recently introduced temporary exemption from the change-in-ownership rule for share transfers related to a qualifying financial restructuring (Sanierung), which had been limited to restructurings taking place in 2008 and 2009, would be extended beyond 2009 for an indefinite period of time.
Exceptions to the change-in-ownership rule would apply for intragroup restructurings so that loss and interest carryforwards would not be forfeited in those transactions.
Loss carryforwards would continue to be available after a share transfer to a third party to the extent of built-in gains in the transferred business.

Interest Deduction Limitation Rule (30 Percent EBITDA Limitation)

The recently introduced temporary increase of the de minimis threshold to €3 million of net interest expense for 2008 and 2009 would be extended beyond 2009 for an indefinite period of time.Retroactively from 2007, a five-year earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) carryforward may be introduced. It is believed that if a taxpayer in year 1 had net interest expense of less than 30 percent of tax EBITDA, the excess EBITDA could be used in later years when the net interest expenses exceeded 30 percent of current EBITDA.
The equity ratio comparison test -- that is, the escape clause that allows companies to not apply the interest deduction limitation rule in certain situations -- would be amended and made applicable to German multinational companies (presumably by facilitating the equity ratio comparison test for holding companies).

Real Estate Transfer Tax

An exception from real estate transfer tax for intragroup restructurings would be introduced.

Transfer of Functions

The existing rules concerning a transfer of functions out of Germany (triggering full exit taxation) would be relaxed (although no details are provided on changes to the exit taxation rules).

Trade Tax Addbacks

The current trade tax addback of 16.25 percent of rental payments for immovable property would be reduced to 12.5 percent. Other trade tax addbacks would be reviewed by a working group on local taxes.

Amortization for Low-Value Assets

For low-value assets, a choice between an immediate amortization for assets up to €410 or amortization on a pool basis for all assets with a value between €150 and €1,000 would be introduced.

Other Planned Changes

Several other modifications also are planned, such as changes to the administrative fees imposed to obtain a binding ruling (fees would be triggered only in complex and time-consuming cases), the introduction of a rule requiring tax audits to be completed within five years of the date they commence, and changes to the inheritance and gift tax rules and to some VAT rules. In addition to these immediate action points, the new government has included the following in its midterm agenda to be reviewed over the next four years:

• the introduction of a new system dealing with the use of loss carryforwards;
• the rules on the cross-border taxation of earnings within multinational companies (that is, cross-border transfer of profits and losses);
• the introduction of a new group taxation system to replace the current Organschaft regime;
• tax incentives for research and development activities (likely focusing on small and medium-size entities); and
• possibilities for replacing the trade tax on income with alternative financing sources for the municipalities.

Conclusion

While the coalition government remains committed to combating tax evasion through tax haven jurisdictions, the agreement states that there are no plans to change the current exemption system for profits generated outside Germany when Germany's double tax treaties are negotiated. As noted above, the draft coalition agreement is not legally binding on the parties but rather illustrates the political objectives of the new government. It remains to be seen how and when these political objectives will be introduced in the legislative process.
Fuente: Tax Analysts

Las ventas de carteras de reaseguro están sujetas a IVA

Las ventas de carteras de reaseguro están sujetas a IVA 

   

   La venta de carteras de reaseguro están sujetas al Impuesto sobre el Valor Añadido (IVA). Una sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de las Comunidades Europeas, con sede en Luxemburgo, ha rechazado que este tipo de operaciones disfruten de las exenciones de la Sexta Directiva que regula el IVA en el ámbito comunitario.

De esta forma, el fallo introduce una relevante novedad fiscal para las empresas de seguros.

El caso que ha estudiado el tribunal europeo se planteó con motivo de una cuestión prejudicial del Tribunal Supremo de los impuestos federales y de aduanas de Alemania en la que se preguntaba si la cesión de una cartera de contratos de reaseguro de vida podía disfrutar de las exenciones contempladas en la Sexta Directiva.

En concreto, una sociedad establecida en Alemania vendió una cartera de 195 contratos de reaseguro de vida a una compañía de seguros establecida en Suiza. La Administración fiscal de Alemania exigió el pago anticipado del IVA y la compañía suiza inició una cadena de recursos. El tribunal alemán entendía que la operación estaba sujeta, pero planteó la cuestión prejudicial.

El Tribunal de Luxemburgo también ha entendido que sí hay sujeción, porque este tipo de operaciones no disfrutan de las exenciones previstas en la normativa comunitaria del IVA, la Sexta Directiva. Por tanto, hay que repercutir este impuesto.

Según explica la sentencia, del artículo 6 de la Sexta Directiva se desprende que ‘la cesión a título oneroso de una cartera de contratos de reaseguro de vida constituye una prestación de servicios’. El motivo principal es que no se trata de una operación de seguro –que sí disfruta de exención, prevista en el artículo 13 de la Sexta Directiva– porque ‘el concepto de operaciones de seguro se caracteriza por el hecho de que el asegurador se obliga, previo pago de una prima, a proporcionar al asegurado, en caso de que se produzca el riesgo cubierto, las prestación convenida al celebrar el contrato’.

La venta de la cartera de contratos de reaseguro tampoco se trata, a juicio del Tribunal, de la prestación de una fianza, que también goza de exención. Igualmente, la operación de venta tampoco es ‘una operación financiera a efectos del artículo 13’, ya que, explica el fallo, ‘la finalidad de las exenciones previstas en dicha disposición es evitar un aumento del coste del crédito al consumo y dado que la operación controvertida no tiene relación alguna con esa finalidad, no puede beneficiarse de las mencionadas exenciones’.

Por otro lado, la sentencia recuerda que ‘los términos empleados para designar las exenciones previstas en el artículo 13 de la Sexta Directiva han de interpretarse restrictivamente.

En la misma línea, también puntualiza que ‘las operaciones exentas se definen en función de la naturaleza de las prestaciones de servicios efectuadas y no en función del prestador del servicio o del destinatario de éste’. Esta última observación tiene que ver con el hecho de que el adquirente de la cartera se encontraba en un tercer Estado (Suiza).

Expansión, 27-10-2009

Ayudas estatales: La Comisión insta a España a suprimir el régimen fiscal que favorece las adquisiciones de otras empresas europeas

La Comisión Europea ha pedido a España, con arreglo a las normas sobre ayudas estatales del Tratado CE, que suprima una disposición del impuesto de sociedades español que permite a las empresas españolas amortizar el fondo de comercio (es decir, amortizar durante cierto tiempo el sobreprecio pagado por la adquisición de un negocio respecto al valor de mercado por los activos que lo componen) derivado de la adquisición de una participación en empresas no españolas. Tras una profunda investigación, iniciada en octubre de 2007 (véase IP/07/1469 ), la Comisión llegó a la conclusión de que el régimen falseaba la competencia en el mercado único ya que otorgaba una ventaja injustificada a las empresas españolas, especialmente en el contexto de las ofertas públicas de adquisición competitivas. En consecuencia, la Comisión ha ordenado a España que recupere toda la ayuda ilegal concedida en virtud de dicha disposición respecto a las adquisiciones europeas a partir del 17 de diciembre de 2007. Por lo que respecta a la aplicación de dicha disposición fuera de la UE, la Comisión proseguirá su investigación.

La Comisaria de Competencia, Neelie Kroes, ha declarado: «Esta disposición fiscal otorga una ventaja discriminatoria a las empresas españolas a la hora de adquirir acciones en otras empresas europeas. Para preservar unas condiciones competitivas equitativas en el mercado único, España debe poner fin a esta medida y recuperar la ayuda ilegal concedida desde diciembre de 2007. La Comisión sigue esperando que España le envíe información adicional sobre las adquisiciones fuera de la UE, donde podrían estar justificados tratamientos diferentes.»

En octubre de 2007, la Comisión abrió una investigación formal sobre la medida fiscal de que se trata (véase IP/07/1469 ), tras una serie de preguntas de diputados del Parlamento Europeo y denuncias que sostenían que el régimen español era ilegal y tenía efectos perjudiciales en algunas ofertas públicas de adquisición en las que habían participado empresas españolas: Telefónica en O2, Iberdrola en Scottish Power, y licitaciones en las que habían participado Sacyr, Albertis y Cintra para la concesión de autopistas en Francia.

El artículo 12, apartado 5, de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades española establece que las empresas españolas pueden amortizar el fondo de comercio financiero que resulta de la adquisición de participaciones significativas en empresas extranjeras durante los veinte años siguientes a la adquisición. Ello produce una ventaja económica que asciende a la diferencia entre el precio de adquisición de las acciones y el valor de mercado de los activos de la empresa adquirida.

Esta posibilidad constituye una clara excepción al sistema fiscal general español aplicado a las transacciones entre empresas españolas, ya que permite la amortización del fondo de comercio incluso cuando la empresa adquirente y la empresa adquirida no se unen en una sola entidad comercial. Tomando en consideración la armonización legislativa alcanzada en la UE, principalmente a través de la Directiva relativa a las fusiones transfronterizas (2005/56/CE) y la Directiva relativa al régimen fiscal común aplicable a las fusiones (90/434/CEE), la Comisión consideró que el trato favorable de las adquisiciones españolas en otros Estados miembros era discriminatorio y, por consiguiente, injustificable. Estas ventajas no pueden justificarse por la lógica general del sistema fiscal español, ya que constituyen una excepción clara e injustificada a las normas comunes aplicables a las adquisiciones.

La Comisión ha concluido que el régimen constituye ayuda estatal porque confiere ventajas selectivas a las empresas españolas que toman parte en la adquisición de empresas europeas no españolas en comparación con las empresas españolas que adquieren acciones de otras empresas españolas.

España no notificó el régimen a la Comisión antes de empezar a aplicarlo en 2002. Sin embargo, la Comisión ha decidido limitar el alcance de la obligación de recuperación y ordenar a España que recupere la ayuda incompatible concedida sólo a partir del 21 de diciembre de 2007, fecha de publicación de la decisión de la Comisión de iniciar la investigación, debido a la existencia de confianza legítima.

Por lo que respecta a las adquisiciones en países que no pertenecen a la UE, las autoridades españolas aducen que persisten obstáculos específicos y que en un futuro próximo presentarán a la Comisión elementos adicionales a este respecto. Por lo tanto prosigue la investigación sobre esta parte de la medida. También se están llevando a cabo conversaciones constructivas con España sobre la configuración de un futuro régimen.

La versión no confidencial de la decisión se publicará con la referencia C 45/2007 en el Registro de Ayudas Estatales en el sitio Internet de la DG Competencia una vez se hayan resuelto las cuestiones de confidencialidad. Las nuevas publicaciones de decisiones sobre ayudas estatales en Internet y en el Diario Oficial figuran en State Aid Weekly e-News .

Bruselas declara ilegal el sistema de deducción fiscal para compras en el extranjero

Exige a España que devuelva las ayudas

La Comisión Europea ha declarado ilegal el sistema de deducciones fiscales del que se han beneficiado empresas españolas como Iberdrola y Telefónica por comprar compañías extranjeras y ha pedido al Gobierno que suprima este régimen, contemplado en la ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades.

La Comisaria Europea de Competencia, Neelie Kroes | Foto Efe

El Ejecutivo comunitario considera que "distorsiona la competencia" y "otorga una ventaja injustificada a las empresas españolas, especialmente en el contexto de las ofertas públicas de adquisiciones competitivas".
Además, la Comisión reclama a España que recupere toda ayuda ilegal concedida en virtud de dicha disposición respecto a las adquisiciones europeas a partir del 21 de diciembre de 2007, fecha en que se publicó la decisión de la Comisión de iniciar una investigación sobre este sistema, debido a la existencia de "confianza legítima".
Aunque Bruselas no cifra la cantidad de dinero que hay que recuperar, quedan fuera las principales operaciones que se beneficiaron de estas deducciones, como la compra de O2 por Telefónica y de Scottish Power por Iberdrola, así como las ofertas de Sacyr, Abertis y Cintra para la concesión de las autopistas en Francia.
"Esta disposición fiscal otorga una ventaja discriminatoria a las empresas españolas a la hora de adquirir acciones en otras empresas europeas", según ha explicado la comisaria de Competencia, Neelie Kroes, en un comunicado.
"Para preservar unas condiciones de competencia equitativas en el mercado único, España debe poner fin a esta medida y recuperar la ayuda ilegal concedida desde diciembre de 2007", ha añadido.
Respecto a la aplicación de esta disposición fuera de la UE, la Comisión ha anunciado que proseguirá su investigación.
Salgado
La vicepresidenta segunda del Gobierno y ministra de Economía, Elena Salgado, se reunió hace dos semanas con la comisaria de Competencia, Neelie Kroes, para discutir sobre este caso.
Al ser preguntada por si las empresas españolas deberán devolver las ayudas recibidas, Salgado contestó tajante: "Seguro que no".
Tanto el comisario de Asuntos Económicos, Joaquín Almunia, como el comisario francés, Jacques Barrot, habían presentado objeciones a la propuesta de decisión de Kroes, pero la comisaria de Competencia introdujo algunos cambios para satisfacer sus preocupaciones y el colegio de comisarios ha respaldado sus propuestas.
Investigación
La Comisión abrió su investigación sobre estas ayudas fiscales en 2007 tras haber recibido varias denuncias formales y preguntas de eurodiputados, especialmente británicos, que sostenían que el régimen español es ilegal.
Las quejas se referían específicamente a la compra de O2 por Telefónica y de Scottish Power por Iberdrola, así como a las ofertas de Sacyr, Abertis y Cintra para la concesión de las autopistas en Francia.
El importe total de las ayudas de las que se han beneficiado las empresas españolas gracias a este régimen asciende a 30.000 millones de euros, según fuentes conocedoras del caso citadas por Efe.
Impuesto
El régimen está recogido en el artículo 12, apartado 5, de la ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades españolas. En él se establece que, desde el 1 de enero de 2002, las empresas españolas pueden amortizar el fondo de comercio financiero que resulta de la adquisición de participaciones significativas en empresas extranjeras durante los veinte años siguientes a la adquisición.
Fuente: expansion.com

Nota: Se refiere a la deducción fiscal de la amortización del fondo de comercio financiero en particiones de entidades no residentes. Para más y mejor información, ver el siguiente post.

LA REPÚBLICA ARGENTINA FIRMÓ UN ACUERDO DE INTERCAMBIO DE INFORMACIÓN TRIBUTARIA CON EL PRINCIPADO DE ANDORRA

• La República Argentina y el Principado de Andorra intercambiarán información tributaria para prevenir y combatir el fraude, la evasión y la elusión tributaria
• El acuerdo contempla la posibilidad de realizar fiscalizaciones en el extranjero
• Este acuerdo se suma al firmado con el Principado de Mónaco y a los que se rubricarán con Islas Caimán, Jersey, Bahamas, Costa Rica, entre otros Estados

El titular de la Administración Federal de Ingresos Públicos (AFIP) de la República Argentina, Dr. Ricardo Echegaray, firmó hoy un Acuerdo de Intercambio de Información Tributaria con el Principado de Andorra.

A través del acuerdo firmado entre Echegaray y el ministro Asuntos Exteriores y Relaciones Internacionales del Principado, Xavier Espot Miró, los Estados se comprometen a  prestarse asistencia mutua para facilitar el intercambio de información que sea previsiblemente relevante para la administración y aplicación de las leyes nacionales.

El acuerdo suscripto prevé el intercambio de información a solicitud, la que  puede versar sobre información conservada por bancos, otras instituciones financieras, y cualquier persona, que actúe como agencia o en calidad de fiduciario; e información vinculada con la titularidad de compañías o sociedades.

También contempla la posibilidad de efectuar fiscalizaciones  en el extranjero, es decir, que los representantes de una de la Partes estén presentes en el territorio de otro Estado. La información tendrá carácter de confidencial.

El ministro Xavier Espot Miró destacó la importancia del acuerdo con la República Argentina al anunciarlo en su discurso en la 64° Sesión de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas, llevada a cabo el 26 de setiembre  pasado. La Argentina es el primer país de América Latina en firmar un acuerdo de este tipo con Andorra.

Es de interés para la AFIP promover la cooperación internacional en materia tributaria mediante el intercambio de información con otras Administraciones Tributarias, con la finalidad de prevenir y combatir el fraude, la evasión y la elusión tributaria.

En este sentido, la semana pasada Echegaray firmó un acuerdo de características similares con el Principado de Mónaco y tiene prevista la rúbrica de otros compromisos de esta índole con las Islas Caimán, Jersey, Bahamas, Costa Rica, Antillas, Aruba, Barbados, entre otros.

La subdirectora del Centro de Política y Administración Tributaria de la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico (OCDE), Grace Pérez Navarro, destacó el convenio firmado por el Dr. Ricardo Echegaray con el Principado de Mónaco, porque dio inicio a una nueva forma de observar y controlar el flujo del comercio internacional advirtiendo sobre los modelos de planificación fiscal nociva para las economías del mundo.