La Commission européenne a officiellement demandé à la Hongrie de modifier ses dispositions fiscales concernant la taxe prélevée sur l'acquisition de propriétés. Ces dispositions défavorisent les contribuables dont l'acquisition est précédée ou suivie de la vente de leur précédente résidence dans un autre État membre. Elles sont incompatibles avec la libre circulation des personnes et la liberté d’établissement, garanties par les articles 18, 39 et 43 du traité CE ainsi que par les articles correspondants de l'accord EEE. La demande revêt la forme d’un avis motivé (deuxième étape de la procédure d’infraction prévue à l’article 226 du traité CE). En l’absence de réaction satisfaisante à l’avis motivé dans un délai de deux mois, la Commission peut décider de saisir la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes.
En vertu de la l´article 21(5) de la loi XCIII hongroise de 1990 sur les taxes, toute personne achetant une maison en Hongrie doit verser une taxe (en hongrois visszterhes vagyonátruházási illeték) calculée sous la forme d'un pourcentage de la valeur de la propriété. Si la propriété est la résidence du contribuable et si l'acquisition est précédée ou suivie de la vente de sa précédente résidence en Hongrie, la taxe est prélevée uniquement si la valeur de la propriété nouvellement acquise est supérieure à celle de la propriété vendue, et ne concerne que la différence de valeur.
En revanche, si l'acquisition de la résidence en Hongrie est précédée ou suivie de la vente de la résidence précédente du contribuable dans un autre État membre, la taxe sera calculée sous la forme d'un pourcentage de la valeur de la propriété acquise, indépendamment de la valeur de la résidence précédente.
Par conséquent, les personnes s’installant en Hongrie et vendant leur résidence dans un autre État membre sont défavorisées par rapport aux résidents hongrois achetant une nouvelle résidence pour remplacer leur résidence actuelle située en Hongrie. La Commission estime que ces personnes peuvent être considérées comme étant dans la même situation que les résidents hongrois, étant donné qu’elles sont susceptibles d'avoir versé une taxe comparable à la taxe hongroise lors de l’acquisition d'une résidence à l'étranger.
La Commission considère donc que les règles hongroises en question imposent des restrictions au droit de chaque citoyen de l'Union européenne de circuler et de résider librement sur le territoire des États membres (article 18 du traité CE), et, plus particulièrement, qu’elles ne sont pas conformes au droit de libre circulation des travailleurs (article 39 du traité CE) et à la liberté d'établissement (article 43 du traité CE).
Sunday, 29 June 2008
La CE demande à la Hongrie de modifier ses dispositions fiscales discriminatoires concernant l'acquisition de propriétés à usage résidentiel
Saturday, 28 June 2008
La CE demande au Portugal de mettre fin à la discrimination fiscale des contribuables non-résidents
La Commission européenne a officiellement demandé au Portugal de modifier ses dispositions fiscales en vertu desquelles les contribuables non‑résidents doivent nommer un représentant fiscal s’ils perçoivent un revenu imposable au Portugal. La Commission considère ces dispositions incompatibles avec la libre circulation des personnes et la libre circulation des capitaux garanties par les articles 18 et 56 du traité CE ainsi que par les articles 36 et 40 de l’accord EEE. La demande revêt la forme d’un avis motivé (deuxième étape de la procédure d’infraction prévue à l’article 226 du traité CE). En l’absence de réaction satisfaisante à l’avis motivé dans un délai de deux mois, la Commission peut décider de saisir la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes.
En vertu de l´article 130 du CIRS (Código do Imposto portugaise sobre o rendimiento das pessoas singulares, loi fiscale sur les revenus des personnes physiques), les contribuables non-résidents percevant un revenu imposable au Portugal doivent nommer un représentant fiscal afin de les représenter devant l'administration fiscale portugaise et de garantir l'acquittement de leurs obligations fiscales. La Commission comprend que cette exigence a pour objectif de garantir le paiement des impôts et de prévenir la fraude fiscale. Ce sont là des nécessités reconnues d'intérêt public. Toutefois, la Commission est d'avis que l’obligation générale faite aux non-résidents de nommer un représentant fiscal va au‑delà des mesures nécessaires à la réalisation de ces objectifs et entrave par conséquent la libre circulation des personnes et la libre circulation des capitaux établies aux articles 18 et 56 du traité CE et dans l'accord EEE.
L'avis de la Commission est basé sur le traité CE dans l’interprétation qu’en donne la Cour de justice des communautés européennes dans l’arrêt du 7 septembre 2006 concernant l’affaire C-470/04, N.
En vertu de l´article 130 du CIRS (Código do Imposto portugaise sobre o rendimiento das pessoas singulares, loi fiscale sur les revenus des personnes physiques), les contribuables non-résidents percevant un revenu imposable au Portugal doivent nommer un représentant fiscal afin de les représenter devant l'administration fiscale portugaise et de garantir l'acquittement de leurs obligations fiscales. La Commission comprend que cette exigence a pour objectif de garantir le paiement des impôts et de prévenir la fraude fiscale. Ce sont là des nécessités reconnues d'intérêt public. Toutefois, la Commission est d'avis que l’obligation générale faite aux non-résidents de nommer un représentant fiscal va au‑delà des mesures nécessaires à la réalisation de ces objectifs et entrave par conséquent la libre circulation des personnes et la libre circulation des capitaux établies aux articles 18 et 56 du traité CE et dans l'accord EEE.
L'avis de la Commission est basé sur le traité CE dans l’interprétation qu’en donne la Cour de justice des communautés européennes dans l’arrêt du 7 septembre 2006 concernant l’affaire C-470/04, N.
Brazil, more tax sophisticated still
In an interesting article from the Governo do Para, a new Brazilian law shows that Brazil is even becoming more sophisticated, and it was the more tax-sophisticated country in Latin America already. Brazil will now apply higher withholding tax rates and special transfer pricing rules on payments to recipients to include jurisdictions where there is lack of information as to the "partners"/shareholders of a legal entity – these are in effect taxed as if such recipients were located in zero or low tax jurisdictions. This can make Brazil a country where some investors will not be willing to invest, but the economy of Brazil is soaring, and maybe there is not much interest from the goverment to change this attitude. Salvador Trinxet.
Friday, 27 June 2008
SEC Wants to Improve Regulation of Foreign Broker Activities in U.S.
The current rule provides an exemption for foreign broker-dealers that induce or attempt to induce securities transactions by certain institutional investors, if a U.S. registered broker-dealer intermediates certain aspects of the transactions. The proposed rule would modify the conditions under which a foreign broker-dealer could solicit U.S. investors and reduce the role of the U.S. broker-dealer, while maintaining key investor protections.
The category of U.S. investors with which a foreign broker-dealer would be permitted to interact would expand under the proposed rule. Foreign broker-dealers would be able to interact with U.S. institutional investors with $25 million or more in investments, or natural persons who own or control investments of more than $25 million. Currently, such foreign broker-dealers may only interact with institutions with financial assets of more than $100 million.
In addition, the U.S. registered broker-dealer would play a more limited role in transactions involving foreign broker-dealers. U.S. broker-dealer personnel would no longer have to "chaperone" foreign broker-dealer personnel. The current chaperoning requirements have been criticized as impractical and as imposing unnecessary operational and compliance burdens, particularly for investors communicating with broker-dealers in time zones outside the United States.
To maximize flexibility for U.S. investors, foreign broker-dealers could rely on the proposed rule under two approaches:
- Under the first approach, a foreign broker-dealer could effect all aspects of a transaction with a qualified investor, including maintaining custody of funds and assets, provided it makes certain disclosures and conducts a "foreign business." The proposed rule would define "foreign business" to mean the business of a foreign broker-dealer with qualified investors and foreign resident clients where at least 85 percent of the aggregate value of the securities purchased or sold in transactions conducted pursuant to the proposed rule by the foreign broker-dealer is derived from transactions in foreign securities. A U.S. registered broker-dealer, however, would have to maintain copies of all books and records relating to any resulting transactions, although the books and records could be kept with the foreign broker-dealer.
- Under the second approach, a foreign broker-dealer could effect all aspects of a transaction with a qualified investor in both U.S. and foreign securities, provided that a U.S. registered broker-dealer maintains custody of the qualified investor's funds and securities in connection with any resulting transactions and maintains books and records relating to any resulting transactions. There would be no foreign business test under the second approach.
The proposed rule also would retain the conditions in the current rule related to the provision of research reports by foreign broker-dealers, but would expand the category of investors to which a foreign broker-dealer could directly provide research reports.
In addition, the proposed rule would provide:
A new exemption for transactions by foreign broker-dealers with any U.S. person that acts as a fiduciary of a foreign resident client, subject to certain conditions designed to protect U.S. investors.
A new exemption to allow foreign options exchanges to engage in limited efforts to familiarize qualified investors with their markets without triggering additional obligations for their foreign broker-dealer members under U.S. law.
The Securities and Exchange Commission today published for public comment proposed rule amendments to increase the range of services foreign broker-dealers are allowed to offer in the United States. The proposed amendments also would maintain a regulatory structure designed to protect investors and the public interest.
The Commission voted unanimously on June 25, 2008, to issue the proposed rule amendments for public comment. The SEC's proposals would modify the requirement that any contact by a foreign broker-dealer with a U.S. institution must be chaperoned by a person registered with a U.S. broker-dealer.
"In practice, this chaperoning requirement has proven unwieldy as investors face significant inconvenience caused by differences in time zones and limitations on when investors can be contacted," said SEC Chairman Christopher Cox. "Further difficulties for U.S. investors arise because U.S. registered personnel have to be available for communications with foreign broker-dealers. Taken together, these limitations seriously hamper the service of U.S. investors, while making them pay for brokerage services twice. They also effectively limit U.S. investors' access to certain foreign investments."
Erik Sirri, Director of the SEC's Division of Trading and Markets, added, "While the Commission has provided a useful framework for U.S. investors to access foreign broker-dealers for almost two decades, ever increasing market globalization suggests that it is time to revisit that framework to consider whether it could be made more workable."
In general, the SEC's proposed amendments would expand and streamline the conditions under which a foreign broker-dealer could operate without triggering the registration, reporting and other requirements of the Exchange Act and related rules that apply to broker-dealers that are not registered with the Commission. Among other things, foreign broker-dealers would continue to be subject to the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws.
Public comments on today's proposed amendments must be received by the Commission within 60 days after their publication in the Federal Register.
The category of U.S. investors with which a foreign broker-dealer would be permitted to interact would expand under the proposed rule. Foreign broker-dealers would be able to interact with U.S. institutional investors with $25 million or more in investments, or natural persons who own or control investments of more than $25 million. Currently, such foreign broker-dealers may only interact with institutions with financial assets of more than $100 million.
In addition, the U.S. registered broker-dealer would play a more limited role in transactions involving foreign broker-dealers. U.S. broker-dealer personnel would no longer have to "chaperone" foreign broker-dealer personnel. The current chaperoning requirements have been criticized as impractical and as imposing unnecessary operational and compliance burdens, particularly for investors communicating with broker-dealers in time zones outside the United States.
To maximize flexibility for U.S. investors, foreign broker-dealers could rely on the proposed rule under two approaches:
- Under the first approach, a foreign broker-dealer could effect all aspects of a transaction with a qualified investor, including maintaining custody of funds and assets, provided it makes certain disclosures and conducts a "foreign business." The proposed rule would define "foreign business" to mean the business of a foreign broker-dealer with qualified investors and foreign resident clients where at least 85 percent of the aggregate value of the securities purchased or sold in transactions conducted pursuant to the proposed rule by the foreign broker-dealer is derived from transactions in foreign securities. A U.S. registered broker-dealer, however, would have to maintain copies of all books and records relating to any resulting transactions, although the books and records could be kept with the foreign broker-dealer.
- Under the second approach, a foreign broker-dealer could effect all aspects of a transaction with a qualified investor in both U.S. and foreign securities, provided that a U.S. registered broker-dealer maintains custody of the qualified investor's funds and securities in connection with any resulting transactions and maintains books and records relating to any resulting transactions. There would be no foreign business test under the second approach.
The proposed rule also would retain the conditions in the current rule related to the provision of research reports by foreign broker-dealers, but would expand the category of investors to which a foreign broker-dealer could directly provide research reports.
In addition, the proposed rule would provide:
A new exemption for transactions by foreign broker-dealers with any U.S. person that acts as a fiduciary of a foreign resident client, subject to certain conditions designed to protect U.S. investors.
A new exemption to allow foreign options exchanges to engage in limited efforts to familiarize qualified investors with their markets without triggering additional obligations for their foreign broker-dealer members under U.S. law.
The Securities and Exchange Commission today published for public comment proposed rule amendments to increase the range of services foreign broker-dealers are allowed to offer in the United States. The proposed amendments also would maintain a regulatory structure designed to protect investors and the public interest.
The Commission voted unanimously on June 25, 2008, to issue the proposed rule amendments for public comment. The SEC's proposals would modify the requirement that any contact by a foreign broker-dealer with a U.S. institution must be chaperoned by a person registered with a U.S. broker-dealer.
"In practice, this chaperoning requirement has proven unwieldy as investors face significant inconvenience caused by differences in time zones and limitations on when investors can be contacted," said SEC Chairman Christopher Cox. "Further difficulties for U.S. investors arise because U.S. registered personnel have to be available for communications with foreign broker-dealers. Taken together, these limitations seriously hamper the service of U.S. investors, while making them pay for brokerage services twice. They also effectively limit U.S. investors' access to certain foreign investments."
Erik Sirri, Director of the SEC's Division of Trading and Markets, added, "While the Commission has provided a useful framework for U.S. investors to access foreign broker-dealers for almost two decades, ever increasing market globalization suggests that it is time to revisit that framework to consider whether it could be made more workable."
In general, the SEC's proposed amendments would expand and streamline the conditions under which a foreign broker-dealer could operate without triggering the registration, reporting and other requirements of the Exchange Act and related rules that apply to broker-dealers that are not registered with the Commission. Among other things, foreign broker-dealers would continue to be subject to the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws.
Public comments on today's proposed amendments must be received by the Commission within 60 days after their publication in the Federal Register.
CE exige a Portugal que ponha termo à tributação discriminatória dos contribuintes não residentes
A Comissão Europeia exigiu formalmente a Portugal que altere as suas disposições fiscais segundo as quais os contribuintes não residentes têm de designar um representante fiscal caso obtenham rendimentos tributáveis em Portugal. A Comissão considera a referida disposição incompatível com a livre circulação de pessoas e de capitais, consagrada nos artigos 18.° e 56.° do Tratado CE e nos artigos 36.° e 40.° do Acordo EEE. Esta exigência assume a forma de parecer fundamentado (segunda fase do processo de infracção, prevista no artigo 226.º do Tratado CE).
Se, no prazo dois meses, não houver uma resposta satisfatória ao parecer fundamentado, a Comissão pode decidir remeter a questão para o Tribunal de Justiça das Comunidades Europeias.
De acordo com l´artigo n.º 130 do CIRS (Código do imposto sobre o rendimento das pessoas singulares), os contribuintes não residentes que obtenham rendimentos tributáveis em Portugal têm de designar um representante fiscal para os representar junto das administrações fiscais portuguesas e garantir o cumprimento dos seus deveres fiscais. A Comissão compreende que o objectivo deste requisito seja o de garantir o pagamento dos impostos e impedir a evasão fiscal. Contudo, a Comissão considera que uma obrigação geral imposta aos não residentes para que designem um representante fiscal ultrapassa o necessário para assegurar estes objectivos, impedindo assim a livre circulação de pessoas e de capitais, tal como estabelecido nos artigos 18.° e 56.° do Tratado CE e no Acordo EEE.
O parecer da Comissão baseia-se no Tratado CE tal como interpretado pelo Tribunal de Justiça das Comunidades Europeias no seu Acórdão de 7 de Setembro de 2006, no processo C-470/04.
Se, no prazo dois meses, não houver uma resposta satisfatória ao parecer fundamentado, a Comissão pode decidir remeter a questão para o Tribunal de Justiça das Comunidades Europeias.
De acordo com l´artigo n.º 130 do CIRS (Código do imposto sobre o rendimento das pessoas singulares), os contribuintes não residentes que obtenham rendimentos tributáveis em Portugal têm de designar um representante fiscal para os representar junto das administrações fiscais portuguesas e garantir o cumprimento dos seus deveres fiscais. A Comissão compreende que o objectivo deste requisito seja o de garantir o pagamento dos impostos e impedir a evasão fiscal. Contudo, a Comissão considera que uma obrigação geral imposta aos não residentes para que designem um representante fiscal ultrapassa o necessário para assegurar estes objectivos, impedindo assim a livre circulação de pessoas e de capitais, tal como estabelecido nos artigos 18.° e 56.° do Tratado CE e no Acordo EEE.
O parecer da Comissão baseia-se no Tratado CE tal como interpretado pelo Tribunal de Justiça das Comunidades Europeias no seu Acórdão de 7 de Setembro de 2006, no processo C-470/04.
Thursday, 26 June 2008
The CE requests Hungary to amend discriminatory tax provisions relating to the purchase of residential property
The European Commission has formally requested Hungary to amend its fiscal provisions concerning the duty levied on the purchase of property. Those provisions discriminate against taxpayers whose purchase is preceded or followed by the sale of their previous home in another member state. The provisions are incompatible with the free movement of persons and the freedom of establishment, as guaranteed by Articles 18, 39 and 43 of the EC Treaty and the corresponding articles of the EEA agreement. The request takes the form of a Reasoned Opinion (second step of the infringement procedure provided for in article 226 of the EC Treaty). If there is no satisfactory reaction to the Reasoned Opinion within two months, the Commission may decide to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice.
Under Article 21(5) of the Hungarian Act no. XCIII of 1990 on Duties, a person buying a house in Hungary must pay a duty (in Hungarian visszterhes vagyonátruházási illeték) which is calculated as a percentage of the value of the property. Where the property is the taxpayer's home and the purchase is preceded of followed by the sale of his previous home in Hungary, the duty is levied only if the value of the property now acquired exceeds that of the one sold and only on the basis of the difference in values.
On the other hand, where the purchase of his home in Hungary is preceded or followed by the sale of the taxpayer's previous home in another Member State, the duty will be calculated as a percentage of the value of the property purchased irrespective of the value of his previous home.
As a result, people who move to Hungary and sell their homes in other member States will be treated less favourably compared to Hungarian residents buying a new dwelling to replace their current one situated in Hungary. The Commission considers that such persons can be in the same situation as Hungarian residents, by reason of the fact that they may have paid a duty comparable to the Hungarian one when buying a dwelling abroad.
Therefore, the Commission considers that the Hungarian rules at issue pose a restriction on the right of every citizen of the European Union to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.
Under Article 21(5) of the Hungarian Act no. XCIII of 1990 on Duties, a person buying a house in Hungary must pay a duty (in Hungarian visszterhes vagyonátruházási illeték) which is calculated as a percentage of the value of the property. Where the property is the taxpayer's home and the purchase is preceded of followed by the sale of his previous home in Hungary, the duty is levied only if the value of the property now acquired exceeds that of the one sold and only on the basis of the difference in values.
On the other hand, where the purchase of his home in Hungary is preceded or followed by the sale of the taxpayer's previous home in another Member State, the duty will be calculated as a percentage of the value of the property purchased irrespective of the value of his previous home.
As a result, people who move to Hungary and sell their homes in other member States will be treated less favourably compared to Hungarian residents buying a new dwelling to replace their current one situated in Hungary. The Commission considers that such persons can be in the same situation as Hungarian residents, by reason of the fact that they may have paid a duty comparable to the Hungarian one when buying a dwelling abroad.
Therefore, the Commission considers that the Hungarian rules at issue pose a restriction on the right of every citizen of the European Union to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.
EC requests Portugal to end discriminatory taxation of non-resident taxpayers
The European Commission has formally requested Portugal to change its tax provisions according to which non-resident taxpayers have to appoint a fiscal representative if they obtain taxable income in Portugal. The Commission considers the provision incompatible with the free movement of persons and the free movement of capital as guaranteed by Articles 18 and 56 of the EC Treaty and Articles 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement. The request takes the form of a reasoned opinion (second step of the infringement procedure provided for in Article 226 of the EC Treaty). If there is no satisfactory reaction to the reasoned opinion within two months, the Commission may decide to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice.
Under Portuguese Article 130 of the CIRS (Código do Imposto sobre o rendimiento das pessoas singulares, Tax Law on the income of natural persons), non-resident taxpayers who obtain taxable income in Portugal have to appoint a fiscal representative in order to represent them before the Portuguese tax authorities and to guarantee the fulfilment of their fiscal duties. The Commission understands that the aim of this requirement is to guarantee payment of taxes and prevent tax evasion. These are recognised requirements of public interest. However, the Commission is of the opinion that a general obligation imposed on non-residents to appoint a fiscal representative goes beyond what is necessary to ensure these objectives and thus impedes the free movement of persons and the free movement of capital as laid down in Articles 18 and 56 of the EC Treaty and in the EEA-Agreement.
The Commission's opinion is based on the EC Treaty as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Communities in its judgment of 7 September 2006 in case C-470/04, N,.
Under Portuguese Article 130 of the CIRS (Código do Imposto sobre o rendimiento das pessoas singulares, Tax Law on the income of natural persons), non-resident taxpayers who obtain taxable income in Portugal have to appoint a fiscal representative in order to represent them before the Portuguese tax authorities and to guarantee the fulfilment of their fiscal duties. The Commission understands that the aim of this requirement is to guarantee payment of taxes and prevent tax evasion. These are recognised requirements of public interest. However, the Commission is of the opinion that a general obligation imposed on non-residents to appoint a fiscal representative goes beyond what is necessary to ensure these objectives and thus impedes the free movement of persons and the free movement of capital as laid down in Articles 18 and 56 of the EC Treaty and in the EEA-Agreement.
The Commission's opinion is based on the EC Treaty as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Communities in its judgment of 7 September 2006 in case C-470/04, N,.
Tuesday, 24 June 2008
SEC review how investors get information of public companies
Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox today announced the kickoff of an ambitious effort to examine fundamental questions about the way the SEC acquires information from public companies, mutual funds, brokers, and other regulated entities, and the way it makes that information available to investors and the markets.
The aim of the wide-ranging internal inquiry will be to outline the attributes of the disclosure system for the future that incorporates technology, the new ways in which investors get their information, and recent developments in how companies compile and report the information in their SEC-mandated disclosures.
The first phase of the study will be completed by the end of 2008, when a follow-on advisory committee will be appointed to consider the questions in more detailed fashion through a public and consultative process.
"On the 75th anniversary of the SEC, with so much new technology available to improve the quality of information for investors as well as the way investors acquire it, we're initiating a broad, introspective look at our business model," said Chairman Cox. "What hasn't changed in 75 years is the importance of full disclosure — sunlight remains the best disinfectant for problems in our capital markets. We'll be examining how to improve the way disclosure works, including tapping the full potential of today's technology and integrating it seamlessly into our regulatory approach. That could mean fewer confusing forms, and more useful information at investors' fingertips in a form they can really use."
Chairman Cox also announced that the SEC's internal study known as the '21st Century Disclosure Initiative' will be undertaken by a dedicated staff of experts to be led by Dr. William D. Lutz of Rutgers University.
"Bill Lutz is ideally suited to lead this effort," said Chairman Cox. "He will bring an expert and fresh perspective to thinking about the agency's full-disclosure mission, and how it can best serve the needs of America's investors."
Dr. Lutz has a unique background with dual expertise as a securities lawyer and plain-English expert focused on transparency. He has significant experience in working with the SEC on disclosure issues, has participated in several SEC roundtables, and has frequently provided advice on SEC rulemaking. From 1995 to
1999, he played an important role in advancing the SEC's Plain English initiative by preparing the SEC's Plain English Handbook, a manual to help mutual funds and public companies write clear and understandable SEC filings. He is Emeritus Professor of English at Rutgers University, and the author of numerous books and articles on the importance of plain-language disclosure.
The internal study will produce, by the end of 2008, a blueprint for future Commission action to improve the usefulness and timeliness of disclosure for investors, and to streamline and modernize the collection of disclosure from companies and regulated entities. The study will be a fundamental rethinking of financial disclosure, beginning with the basic purposes of disclosure from the perspective of investors and markets. The inquiry will be aimed at identifying the objectives of the ideal disclosure system at the architectural level. Essential to the study will be the determination of how to match the capabilities of today's information technology with the SEC's regulatory aims and the needs of investors.
The study will include a review of all existing SEC forms and reporting requirements, as well as the manner in which information is provided to the Commission, with a special focus on needless redundancy. It will also include consideration of various alternative strategic approaches to acquiring and publishing disclosure information. In addition, the study will consider ways that regulatory requirements for the collection of information might be tailored to get the best real-time distribution of financial and narrative disclosure to investors. Finally, the study will examine how best to integrate public disclosure with the SEC's proposed new post-EDGAR architecture for investor search, assembly, and comparison of data.
The aim of the wide-ranging internal inquiry will be to outline the attributes of the disclosure system for the future that incorporates technology, the new ways in which investors get their information, and recent developments in how companies compile and report the information in their SEC-mandated disclosures.
The first phase of the study will be completed by the end of 2008, when a follow-on advisory committee will be appointed to consider the questions in more detailed fashion through a public and consultative process.
"On the 75th anniversary of the SEC, with so much new technology available to improve the quality of information for investors as well as the way investors acquire it, we're initiating a broad, introspective look at our business model," said Chairman Cox. "What hasn't changed in 75 years is the importance of full disclosure — sunlight remains the best disinfectant for problems in our capital markets. We'll be examining how to improve the way disclosure works, including tapping the full potential of today's technology and integrating it seamlessly into our regulatory approach. That could mean fewer confusing forms, and more useful information at investors' fingertips in a form they can really use."
Chairman Cox also announced that the SEC's internal study known as the '21st Century Disclosure Initiative' will be undertaken by a dedicated staff of experts to be led by Dr. William D. Lutz of Rutgers University.
"Bill Lutz is ideally suited to lead this effort," said Chairman Cox. "He will bring an expert and fresh perspective to thinking about the agency's full-disclosure mission, and how it can best serve the needs of America's investors."
Dr. Lutz has a unique background with dual expertise as a securities lawyer and plain-English expert focused on transparency. He has significant experience in working with the SEC on disclosure issues, has participated in several SEC roundtables, and has frequently provided advice on SEC rulemaking. From 1995 to
1999, he played an important role in advancing the SEC's Plain English initiative by preparing the SEC's Plain English Handbook, a manual to help mutual funds and public companies write clear and understandable SEC filings. He is Emeritus Professor of English at Rutgers University, and the author of numerous books and articles on the importance of plain-language disclosure.
The internal study will produce, by the end of 2008, a blueprint for future Commission action to improve the usefulness and timeliness of disclosure for investors, and to streamline and modernize the collection of disclosure from companies and regulated entities. The study will be a fundamental rethinking of financial disclosure, beginning with the basic purposes of disclosure from the perspective of investors and markets. The inquiry will be aimed at identifying the objectives of the ideal disclosure system at the architectural level. Essential to the study will be the determination of how to match the capabilities of today's information technology with the SEC's regulatory aims and the needs of investors.
The study will include a review of all existing SEC forms and reporting requirements, as well as the manner in which information is provided to the Commission, with a special focus on needless redundancy. It will also include consideration of various alternative strategic approaches to acquiring and publishing disclosure information. In addition, the study will consider ways that regulatory requirements for the collection of information might be tailored to get the best real-time distribution of financial and narrative disclosure to investors. Finally, the study will examine how best to integrate public disclosure with the SEC's proposed new post-EDGAR architecture for investor search, assembly, and comparison of data.
Sunday, 22 June 2008
UAE to improve anti money laundering regulations
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has implemented new anti-money laundering regulations in an effort to meet international standards of financial compliance. The central bank in the middle of june notified banks and exchange houses of the 13 new regulations that update the UAE’s first anti-money laundering controls, which came into force in November 2000.
The new measures require banks to carry out more due diligence on prospective customers, applying many existing practices still ignored by some local and regional institutions.
“These new requirements have come in response to the remarks of the assessment team in March to try to fill in the gap with international requirements,” a central bank official said.
The new regulations, which include five amendments to the 2000 law, bring down the threshold at which banks are forced to verify the name and address of remitters from Dh40,000 ($11,000) to Dh3,500.
They also require banks to engage in enhanced due diligence to determine whether “foreign politically exposed persons” are trying to open an account in the UAE, as well as officially banning all financial relationships with “shell banks or companies”.
Banks should carry out extra due diligence on dealers in precious stones, real estate and luxury goods. There were concerns that the booming property sector of Dubai, and now Abu Dhabi, could be used by money launderers.
There is also a move to regulate hawala, the informal money transfer system used across the Middle East and South Asia.
The central bank has also called on senior management to approve the opening of new correspondent banking relationships with foreign banks, taking care when they “are headquartered in countries which are reported to be involved in drugs, a high level of public corruption and/or criminal/terrorist activities”.
The new measures require banks to carry out more due diligence on prospective customers, applying many existing practices still ignored by some local and regional institutions.
“These new requirements have come in response to the remarks of the assessment team in March to try to fill in the gap with international requirements,” a central bank official said.
The new regulations, which include five amendments to the 2000 law, bring down the threshold at which banks are forced to verify the name and address of remitters from Dh40,000 ($11,000) to Dh3,500.
They also require banks to engage in enhanced due diligence to determine whether “foreign politically exposed persons” are trying to open an account in the UAE, as well as officially banning all financial relationships with “shell banks or companies”.
Banks should carry out extra due diligence on dealers in precious stones, real estate and luxury goods. There were concerns that the booming property sector of Dubai, and now Abu Dhabi, could be used by money launderers.
There is also a move to regulate hawala, the informal money transfer system used across the Middle East and South Asia.
The central bank has also called on senior management to approve the opening of new correspondent banking relationships with foreign banks, taking care when they “are headquartered in countries which are reported to be involved in drugs, a high level of public corruption and/or criminal/terrorist activities”.
Wednesday, 18 June 2008
Private Equity hit in US and the Netherlands for tax issues
In the US, House Ways and Means Chairman announced his plans to raise taxes on investment income those money managers take home each year. He included a nearly $31 billion tax increase on these investment managers in his broader measure to save middle-income families from the alternative minimum tax for another year. His proposal would force these highly paid money managers to record much of their revenue as labor - instead of the return on an investment - requiring them to pay significantly higher tax rates on that income each year.
Other revenue generators in that broader proposal include a prohbition on certain offshore tax shelters and a requirement for any company that processes credit or debit card payments to file revenue reports with the Internal Revenue Service. This latter requirement would force many businesses to report their earnings more accurately to the IRS.
Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, Private equity investors are threatening to leave the country due to a proposed law that could raise the tax they pay on investments to as much as 52 percent from 1.2 percent currently.
The Dutch government proposed law aims to raise taxes on excessive management pay after a public outcry at multi-million windfalls on stocks and bonuses of executives. The law also impacts some private equity investors.
The government says it wants to clarify taxation rules on "carried interest" rewards, which are returns on shares or other stakes in a company and are linked to a manager's work.
The Dutch association of private equity companies, NVP, said the measure was unfair as it would also tax historical value increases of investments that had not yet materialised. "We have received several notices that some managers are considering ending their seed funds. This would destroy a successful element of the government's innovation policy," the NVP said.
Other revenue generators in that broader proposal include a prohbition on certain offshore tax shelters and a requirement for any company that processes credit or debit card payments to file revenue reports with the Internal Revenue Service. This latter requirement would force many businesses to report their earnings more accurately to the IRS.
Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, Private equity investors are threatening to leave the country due to a proposed law that could raise the tax they pay on investments to as much as 52 percent from 1.2 percent currently.
The Dutch government proposed law aims to raise taxes on excessive management pay after a public outcry at multi-million windfalls on stocks and bonuses of executives. The law also impacts some private equity investors.
The government says it wants to clarify taxation rules on "carried interest" rewards, which are returns on shares or other stakes in a company and are linked to a manager's work.
The Dutch association of private equity companies, NVP, said the measure was unfair as it would also tax historical value increases of investments that had not yet materialised. "We have received several notices that some managers are considering ending their seed funds. This would destroy a successful element of the government's innovation policy," the NVP said.
Saturday, 14 June 2008
Experiencias en la compra de bienes raices en Panama
Lo que nos atrajo de este país no fue su crecimiento económico, superior a cualquier otro país de la región, o que la inversión internacional representara el 16% de PNB al atraer cada vez más a multinacionales. Tras visitarlo varias veces, invertimos en el país porque una serie de circunstancias lo hacía distinto: el canal, su potencialidad de ser el mayor centro financiero de latinoamerica, porque era el país más seguro desde Estados Unidos a Chile, por su incipiente industria turística (crece al 15-20%), las ventajas para instalarse de los jubilados extranjeros, utilizar el dólar, su seguridad jurídica, y porque su economía se basa en la exportación de servicios, a diferencia de sus vecinos.
Cuando empezamos a invertir, los precios inmobiliarios ya crecían un 20% anual, y eso nos llevó a la conclusión de que, con el tiempo, los inversores a pequeña escala perderían la oportunidad de grandes plusvalías o rentabilidades en el alquiler. La exención de impuestos por 20 años, que tanto atraía a los inversores, nos pareció un factor secundario, pero es cierto que comparado con tantos países, era un factor interesante. Como lo es el bajo precio de los notarios. Pero un factor económico de primer orden fue la posibilidad de conseguir rentabilidades financiero-fiscales muy interesantes, a diferencia de países como Brasil, donde la rentabilidad raramente puede basarse en términos fiscales.
Por otro lado, Panamá tiene uno de los procedimientos de registro de la propiedad más seguros, y no ofrece un mercado de riesgo para los compradores.
Hicimos varias inversiones en Panamá. Una de ellas, en el mercado de oficinas prime, fue fruto de un estudio sobre las rentabilidades (yield) por alquiler de las oficinas, que eran muy interesantes, del orden del 10% anual. Invertimos también en apartamentos en zonas buenas ya construidos, en proyectos sobre plano, y en terrenos. Siempre en la ciudad de Panamá, pues pensamos que el comprador internacional que nos podría comprar a nosotros en el futuro probablemente preferiría invertir en un área que conocía, y no tendríamos que “venderle” la localización que hubiéramos escogido nosotros.
Nuestra inversión en el mercado de oficinos no empezó muy bien. Compramos “en gris”, es decir, que no había nada más que paredes, y había que ponerlo todo. Los presupuestos que nos ofrecían eran muy superiores a lo estimado, basados en que como era una zona prime debíamos pagar un precio superior. Realmente, el coste era muy alto, de forma que tras algún tiempo, decidimos poner las oficinas a alquilar en gris, algo que sabíamos pocas empresas arrendatarias querían. Pero, tras unos meses, dada la escasez de oficinas prime en Panama, una compañía de seguros nos las arrendaron. Por ello, una lección que aprendimos era no comprar nunca “en gris”.
Respecto a los apartamentos construidos, éstos tenían casi 10 años, lo que los hacían todavía interesantes porque la exención era aún vigente. En aquel momento, en Panamá se daba la extraña circunstancia de que la vivienda nueva era mucho más cara que la que se había construido hace unos pocos años, cuando las calidades de construcción de estas últimas en ocasiones eran superiores. Pensamos que, con el tráfico casi imposible, los panameños de cierto poder económico no querrían vivir fuera de la ciudad, y los precios de apartamentos usados subiría, como así fue. Compramos, entonces, a buen precio, el problema fue alquilarlos, pues el panameño no tiene problemas en alquilar la oficina, pero prefiere ser propietario de la vivienda donde vive. No conseguíamos una rentabilidad interesante, del 8-10%, que buscábamos, en la mayoría de los apartamentos, hasta que el precio de los apartamentos subió bastante.
Respecto a los apartamentos comprados sobre plano, elegimos comprarlos a un promotor que no decidiera posteriormente dejar de construir porque el precio de venta le resultara antieconómico. No queríamos que al cabo de un año, el promotor se deshiciera de su compromiso meramente devolviéndonos las cantidades aportados y el interés legal. Por otro lado, negociamos un contrato que no incluyera ninguna cláusula de revisión de precios al alza por el aumento de los precios de construcción, lo que lo convertía en una buena inversión anti-inflacionaria. Para evitar que el promotor (por exigencia de sus bancos) pusiera límites al número de apartamentos comprados por un solo comprador, pusimos cada apartamento a nombre de una sociedad con acciones al portador.
Establecimos un precio de venta ligeramente inferior al de la venta por el propio promotor de apartamentos en el mismo edificio o en otros similares. Ello nos daba un margen muy interesante. No obstante, el gran número de apartamentos no construidos en oferta, y que el promotor sólo quería vender sus apartamentos, hizo que el proceso de venta durase bastante. Finalmente, debido a que no había demasiados apartamentos en venta acabados de construir, y que los apartamentos estaban a punto de ser finalizamos, benefició la venta de los mismos.
Respecto a los terrenos, sólo diré que hay que estar muy bien asesorados por un abogado y un arquitecto de confianza, porque el baile de números puede ser muy importante.
En cuanto a las hipotecas, aunque los bancos panameños han sido tradicionalmente más conservadores que los europeos y los norteamericanos, actualmente en Panama se puede conseguir financiación, lo que no se puede decir claramente de Europa. La razón es que Panama no necesita de la financiación procedente de los grandes grupos financeros americanos o europeos, pues la banca privada proporciona liquidez al sistema bancario. Hay muchas especialidades en las hipotecas con bancos panameños; ejemplos de ello es que a partir de cierta cantidad hay que pagar un 1% adicional de interés que va al Estado (sin embargo, si el inmueble es muy barato, el Estado, a través de los bancos, subsidiariza las hipotecas), que no se conceden prestamos una vez ya se ha comprado el inmueble, sólo antes, que la firma de la hipoteca no se hace frente al notario, o que las hipotecas generalmente se conceden por un máximo de años que se “cortan” en partes (cada cinco años es lo habitual), al final de la cual cualquiera de las partes pueden desistir (si no hay desestimiento por parte del banco, hay un recargo del 1% de la cantidad pendiente en varios bancos).
El llamado en España “crédito al promotor” es difícil y muy exigente en Panama. Como es razonable, a un banco panameño le cuesta confiar en una empresa que no está establecida desde hace varios años en el país, por muy bien que haya hecho las cosas en el país de origen. Es importante haber sido presentados por la persona adecuada, pues este tipo de préstamos se deciden en instancias muy elevadas del banco. Si lo conceden, entre las exigencias se encuentra pagar a un controller del propio banco en la obra, no vender muchos apartamentos u oficinas a un mismo comprador, retener por el banco parte del precio de los adelantos de los compradores, y muchas más condiciones.
Salvador Trinxet
CEO
Banco Internacional de Investimentos
www.bancoii.com
Cuando empezamos a invertir, los precios inmobiliarios ya crecían un 20% anual, y eso nos llevó a la conclusión de que, con el tiempo, los inversores a pequeña escala perderían la oportunidad de grandes plusvalías o rentabilidades en el alquiler. La exención de impuestos por 20 años, que tanto atraía a los inversores, nos pareció un factor secundario, pero es cierto que comparado con tantos países, era un factor interesante. Como lo es el bajo precio de los notarios. Pero un factor económico de primer orden fue la posibilidad de conseguir rentabilidades financiero-fiscales muy interesantes, a diferencia de países como Brasil, donde la rentabilidad raramente puede basarse en términos fiscales.
Por otro lado, Panamá tiene uno de los procedimientos de registro de la propiedad más seguros, y no ofrece un mercado de riesgo para los compradores.
Hicimos varias inversiones en Panamá. Una de ellas, en el mercado de oficinas prime, fue fruto de un estudio sobre las rentabilidades (yield) por alquiler de las oficinas, que eran muy interesantes, del orden del 10% anual. Invertimos también en apartamentos en zonas buenas ya construidos, en proyectos sobre plano, y en terrenos. Siempre en la ciudad de Panamá, pues pensamos que el comprador internacional que nos podría comprar a nosotros en el futuro probablemente preferiría invertir en un área que conocía, y no tendríamos que “venderle” la localización que hubiéramos escogido nosotros.
Nuestra inversión en el mercado de oficinos no empezó muy bien. Compramos “en gris”, es decir, que no había nada más que paredes, y había que ponerlo todo. Los presupuestos que nos ofrecían eran muy superiores a lo estimado, basados en que como era una zona prime debíamos pagar un precio superior. Realmente, el coste era muy alto, de forma que tras algún tiempo, decidimos poner las oficinas a alquilar en gris, algo que sabíamos pocas empresas arrendatarias querían. Pero, tras unos meses, dada la escasez de oficinas prime en Panama, una compañía de seguros nos las arrendaron. Por ello, una lección que aprendimos era no comprar nunca “en gris”.
Respecto a los apartamentos construidos, éstos tenían casi 10 años, lo que los hacían todavía interesantes porque la exención era aún vigente. En aquel momento, en Panamá se daba la extraña circunstancia de que la vivienda nueva era mucho más cara que la que se había construido hace unos pocos años, cuando las calidades de construcción de estas últimas en ocasiones eran superiores. Pensamos que, con el tráfico casi imposible, los panameños de cierto poder económico no querrían vivir fuera de la ciudad, y los precios de apartamentos usados subiría, como así fue. Compramos, entonces, a buen precio, el problema fue alquilarlos, pues el panameño no tiene problemas en alquilar la oficina, pero prefiere ser propietario de la vivienda donde vive. No conseguíamos una rentabilidad interesante, del 8-10%, que buscábamos, en la mayoría de los apartamentos, hasta que el precio de los apartamentos subió bastante.
Respecto a los apartamentos comprados sobre plano, elegimos comprarlos a un promotor que no decidiera posteriormente dejar de construir porque el precio de venta le resultara antieconómico. No queríamos que al cabo de un año, el promotor se deshiciera de su compromiso meramente devolviéndonos las cantidades aportados y el interés legal. Por otro lado, negociamos un contrato que no incluyera ninguna cláusula de revisión de precios al alza por el aumento de los precios de construcción, lo que lo convertía en una buena inversión anti-inflacionaria. Para evitar que el promotor (por exigencia de sus bancos) pusiera límites al número de apartamentos comprados por un solo comprador, pusimos cada apartamento a nombre de una sociedad con acciones al portador.
Establecimos un precio de venta ligeramente inferior al de la venta por el propio promotor de apartamentos en el mismo edificio o en otros similares. Ello nos daba un margen muy interesante. No obstante, el gran número de apartamentos no construidos en oferta, y que el promotor sólo quería vender sus apartamentos, hizo que el proceso de venta durase bastante. Finalmente, debido a que no había demasiados apartamentos en venta acabados de construir, y que los apartamentos estaban a punto de ser finalizamos, benefició la venta de los mismos.
Respecto a los terrenos, sólo diré que hay que estar muy bien asesorados por un abogado y un arquitecto de confianza, porque el baile de números puede ser muy importante.
En cuanto a las hipotecas, aunque los bancos panameños han sido tradicionalmente más conservadores que los europeos y los norteamericanos, actualmente en Panama se puede conseguir financiación, lo que no se puede decir claramente de Europa. La razón es que Panama no necesita de la financiación procedente de los grandes grupos financeros americanos o europeos, pues la banca privada proporciona liquidez al sistema bancario. Hay muchas especialidades en las hipotecas con bancos panameños; ejemplos de ello es que a partir de cierta cantidad hay que pagar un 1% adicional de interés que va al Estado (sin embargo, si el inmueble es muy barato, el Estado, a través de los bancos, subsidiariza las hipotecas), que no se conceden prestamos una vez ya se ha comprado el inmueble, sólo antes, que la firma de la hipoteca no se hace frente al notario, o que las hipotecas generalmente se conceden por un máximo de años que se “cortan” en partes (cada cinco años es lo habitual), al final de la cual cualquiera de las partes pueden desistir (si no hay desestimiento por parte del banco, hay un recargo del 1% de la cantidad pendiente en varios bancos).
El llamado en España “crédito al promotor” es difícil y muy exigente en Panama. Como es razonable, a un banco panameño le cuesta confiar en una empresa que no está establecida desde hace varios años en el país, por muy bien que haya hecho las cosas en el país de origen. Es importante haber sido presentados por la persona adecuada, pues este tipo de préstamos se deciden en instancias muy elevadas del banco. Si lo conceden, entre las exigencias se encuentra pagar a un controller del propio banco en la obra, no vender muchos apartamentos u oficinas a un mismo comprador, retener por el banco parte del precio de los adelantos de los compradores, y muchas más condiciones.
Salvador Trinxet
CEO
Banco Internacional de Investimentos
www.bancoii.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
