Banks, Investments and Taxes

Oferta de Trabajo - Asistente Administrativo Senior

2011-09-16T01:21:00.001-07:00

ASISTENTE ADMINISTRATIVO SENIOR

Descripción de la oferta:

Se ofrece integrarse en un Despacho Internacional de Abogados en Barcelona, con posibilidad de desarrollar una interesante carrera profesional bajo un entorno altamente cualificado, donde el compromiso con el éxito del cliente, la orientación a resultados, la innovación continua y el espíritu de equipo son el reflejo de los valores de la firma.

Imprescindible alto nivel del idioma inglés, tanto hablado como escrito.

Requisitos profesionales:

Diplomados, licenciados o estudiantes de últimos cursos.
Se valorará experiencia en un Despacho Profesional.
Experiencia mínima de 1 año en temas afines.

Requisitos personales:

Persona dinámica y polivalente.
Con iniciativa, pro-activa.
Organizada.
Honesta, discreta y de confianza.
Orientada a cumplir metas y al trabajo en equipo.
Flexibilidad y compromiso profesional.
Buena capacidad de comunicación y facilidad para las relaciones interpersonales.

Para más información sobre esta oferta, Visite Braxton Asesoramiento Internacional

Nueva Ley del Juego Online en España:

2011-09-15T03:01:00.000-07:00

Nueva Ley del Juego Online en España:

Ley 13/2011, de 27 de mayo, de regulación del juego

Infracciones, sanciones y responsabilidad on

Fiscalidad del Juego Online on

Licencias de Juego on

Los operadores de juego on

Rifas, Sorteos y Tómbolas en España on

RÉGIMEN GENERAL DE AUTORIZACIÓN on

Juegos Online on

EL CONCEPTO LEGAL DE SORTEO, RIFA Y TÓMBOLA on

Juego y Derecho Comunitario on

Aspectos generales de la Ley del Juego on

Servicios Transfronterizos y Juegos on

Contrabando y Juego on

Fiscalidad del Juego en España on

Infracciones sobre Juego en España on

El Juego y la Fiscalia Española on

¿Qué novedades esperan al Financial Services Authority?

2011-07-22T02:59:00.001-07:00

A finales de 2012 las funciones de la actual Financial Services Authority (Autoridad de Servicios Financieros) del Reino Unido se dividirá en dos nuevos órganos en virtud de una división del Banco de Inglaterra. La Prudential Regulatory Authorit (autoridad reguladora) será la responsable de controlar los proveedores de productos financieros y la Financial Conduct Authority se encargará de proteger al consumidor, incluyendo cómo se venden los productos financieros y el negocio de la banca en general.

Grandes cambios, pero mejorarán los intereses de los consumidores? Estarán mejor protegidos a partir de ahora?

En vista del hecho de que muchos mercados interesados en los proveedores de servicios financieros internacionales están siguiendo los mismos pasos que el Reino Unido en esta reglamentación, hace, si cabe, más relevante esta reforma.

En el documento que detalla la regulación publicado en junio, la Autoridad de Conducta Financiera (FCA, por sus siglas en inglés), establece que la nueva estructura tendrá como objetivo estratégico lo siguiente:

"La protección y mejora de la confianza en el sistema financiero del Reino Unido"

En vista de ello, la separación en dos instituciones distintas de la protección del consumidor y el control de los proveedores de servicios financieros aparece para eliminar una anomalía bastante obvia en el sistema en la actualidad, y al menos deberían permitir que la nueva FCA se centrara más en los problemas de los consumidores.

Sin embargo, a diferencia de las instituciones que regulan otros sectores la nueva FCA no tendrá los poderes intervencionistas de la Agencia de Seguridad Alimentaria o la fijación de precios de los poderes de la Ofwat, a pesar de la FCA se espera que sea capaz de suspender los productos dañinos igual que lo pretende hacer las nuevas Autoridades de Supervisión Europeas.

La FCA por lo tanto, parece ser un paso en la dirección correcta, aunque uno que todavía está atrapado dentro del mismo sistema global de regulación. Sin embargo, será un sistema que permite una supervisión prudencial a los proveedores para la fabricación de productos, la venta de los cuales la mayor parte de ellos no controlan, o que muchos de ellos no se preocupan en especial más allá de cumplir los requisitos reglamentarios básicos. Por eso será un sistema de difícil implementación y de difícil control.

A menos que la FCA sea capaz de tener una influencia directa en los productos que existen en el mercado, así como la forma en que se vende, es difícil ver cómo van a ser capaces de cumplir con su objetivo de "Protección y mejora de la confianza del sistema financiero en el Reino Unido", y todo esto podría ser otro caso que implicara problemas financieros en un futuro.

Braxton Capital: Trayectoria y diversidad en operaciones Transfronterizas

2011-03-28T02:37:00.001-07:00

Braxton Capital: Trayectoria y diversidad en operaciones Transfronterizas
Más de 15 años de trayectoria respaldan la experiencia en operaciones de inversión transfronterizas (cross-border) de Braxton Capital (www.braxton-group.com), un holding de negocios internacionales especializados en especializados en Corporate Finance cross-border y asesoramiento internacional.
La expansión de sus servicios fiscales y financieros a través de oficinas en Asia, Europa y América le permiten presentar a sus clientes una amplia gama de ofertas de inversión en sociedades y fondos en el middle market, con apoyo de socios e inversores estratégicos, que añaden valor a sus productos, a la vez que le permiten globalizar las perspectivas de su negocio. Recientes operaciones de mercado financiero han exigido enlaces entre países tan lejanos como Alemania, Australia, China y Estados Unidos, lo cual ha sido posible gracias al desarrollo de la diversificada red de negocios de Braxton Capital.
Norteamérica sigue siendo el destino potencialmente más retador para el capital de riesgo, especialmente para los inversionistas europeos quienes están en constante exploración de mejores rendimientos. En el caso de los clientes industriales, el interés se centra principalmente en diversificar su cartera de negocios, para mantener un flujo constante de adquisiciones y ventas que le permitan aprovechar las ventajas de las fluctuaciones del mercado.
El mercado de inversionistas de Asia, en plena expansión, está interesado en oportunidades de adquisición de empresas occidentales, especialmente en los sectores de energía, tecnología y materias primas. Braxton Capital ha demostrado capacidad para identificar ofertas de compra-venta adecuadas a cada grupo de interés, especialmente por la diversificación geográfica de sus servicios.
En cuanto a las tendencias de los inversores latinoamericanos, los reportes de Braxton Capital indican un creciente interés en las inversiones de capital riesgo, por lo cual los sus asesores están desarrollando propuestas destinadas a cubrir las demandas de este mercado.

Media Marketing Online expands operations in Asia Pacific with a company in Hong Kong

2011-02-20T03:28:00.000-08:00

Media Marketing Online expands operations in Asia Pacific with a company in Hong Kong

We are excited to say that we have expanded our operations in the Asia Pacific region. Through our new regional company in Hong Kong, our local team will support MMO’s customers – advertisers, agencies, publishers and bloggers – in connecting with the growing number of consumers across the region that are accessing blogs, news and mobile web sites.
Outside of Europe and Latin America, Asia is the MMO’s largest markets today. We’ve seen iPhone usage explode in advanced markets such as Australia, Singapore, and Hong Kong.
Our team in Hong Kong is already starting to work closely with customers throughout the region to open new online magazines and to break down the barriers to doing business on mobile. Our goal is to develop the global magazine online marketplace and make mobile work for advertisers who want to engage with a targeted audience of consumers and for mobile publishers who need to effectively monetize their business. In addition, our localized sites for English, Bahasa or Chinese delivers the rich functionality, detailed targeting options, scalable ad units and robust self-serve capabilities the Asia Pacific market needs.
We are looking forward to the challenge of continuing to grow Media Marketing Online’s leadership position in online magazine and mobile advertising in Asia Pacific.
For more information, visit www.media-marketing-online.com

¿Quiénes pueden acceder a la DEH?

2011-02-17T02:21:00.001-08:00

El acceso a la DEH puede ser realizado directamente por el obligado tributario o mediante un apoderado con poder expreso para recibir notificaciones telemáticas de la Agencia Tributaria.

En ambos casos es necesaria la autenticación de los interesados mediante los certificados electrónicos que se admitan conforme lo establecido en la normativa vigente.

Si ya se dispone de un certificado electrónico admitido por la Administración General del Estado o DNI-e, en el caso de que se tratara de una persona física, puede hacer uso del mismo para acceder al DEH.

Twf cymhellion.

2011-01-21T04:17:00.000-08:00

Twf cymhellion.

Twf cyfleoedd sy'n gysylltiedig â marchnadoedd rhyngwladol eu nodi fel sbardun allweddol o rhyngwladol gadarn yn y nifer o astudiaethau diweddar. Orser et al. (2008), er enghraifft, bod ôl caniatáu ar gyfer effeithiau maint a sector cadarn, Canada cwmnïau y mae eu perchnogion wedi mynegi bwriadau twf yn fwy na dwywaith yn fwy tebygol o allforio, na'r rhai y mae eu perchnogion ddim yn dangos huchelgais am dwf. Mae'r posibilrwydd o dwf mewn marchnadoedd eraill a chyfleoedd elw cynyddu o ehangiad rhyngwladol eu hamlygu fel symbyliadau allweddol ar gyfer allforio ymhlith y Awstralia, cwmnïau Prydeinig, Sbaeneg, Swedeg, ac yn yr Unol Daleithiau ymchwilio mewn astudiaethau diweddar. Cwmnïau "penderfyniad mentro dramor hefyd yn ymddangos i fod yn cymell gan yr angen am, twf busnes elw, mae maint y farchnad yn cynyddu, sefyllfa gryfach farchnad, ac i leihau dibyniaeth ar nifer unigol neu lai o farchnadoedd.

Novedades en la Ley Beckham

2010-12-28T04:05:00.001-08:00

Por las previsiones del Convenio para evitar la Doble Imposición suscrito entre España y Austria, las rentas de los deportistas sólo podían someterse a imposición en Austria de acuerdo con la legislación de ese país sobre la polémica de si la Selección tributará en Sudáfrica o en España la prima por ganar el Mundial, entiende que se ha mezclado el asunto con la Eurocopa.

Fiscalidad internacional para deportistas también analiza el marco tributario de EEUU y de países emergentes. Suiza ha sido una jurisdicción suave con el deporte hasta ahora, pero que se está endureciendo.

Malta o Luxemburgo, se han incluido en el libro porque ofrecen un marco global de tributación atractivo, pero "no son unas jurisdicciones que atraigan a deportistas individuales o equipos".

"Los grandes clubes están todos afectados". Sólo escapan a la subida los futbolistas que pudieron acogerse al régimen de impatriados con anterioridad a su limitación, como Cristiano Ronaldo. Los que han llegado a España en 2010 tributarán más. Por ejemplo, los alemanes de origen turco Özil y Khedira. . Toda esta información es fácil localizarla en Google.

La subida a las rentas irregulares del trabajo que acompaña la medida también toca al mundo del deporte. Por ejemplo en los supuestos en los que se produce un cese de mutuo acuerdo de la relación laboral o a las indemnizaciones a los entrenadores de fútbol.

En otros países se han sumado en los últimos ejercicios a los incentivos que ha derogado España.

La subida a las rentas altas que entra en vigor el 1 de enero con la Ley de Presupuestos da la puntilla al atractivo de la Liga Española de Fútbol esta es la segunda por ingresos. Este incremento se suma a la limitación de la Ley Beckham de hace un año y afecta sobre todo al deporte rey, ya que perjudica a las rentas superiores a 600.000 euros, cantidades que los fichajes estrella superan con creces.

En paralelo al marco poco alentador que ofrece España al futbolista, Holanda, Francia, Portugal, o Dinamarca decidieron sumarse a los incentivos que ofreció el Gobierno con la Ley Beckham. Portugal también ofrece incentivos, aunque no son extensibles a deportistas. Francia ha desarrollado un régimen específico para expatriados, al igual que Holanda. Se trata de una tributación a un tipo del 20% para atraer talento.

Las primas obtenidas por la participación en el Mundial, atendiendo a lo previsto en el Convenio entre Sudáfrica y España, pueden gravarse en cualquiera de las dos. En España normalmente se eliminará el impuesto satisfecho en Sudáfrica: "Las rentas se pueden gravar en el país donde se desarrolló la actividad, pero hay que eliminar la doble imposición" según el Convenio.

Los países emergentes han elegido a India por ser una potencia en criket y ofrecer un tipo del 30%. Brasil, con un 27,50%, "es una maravilla". A fin de cuentas va a celebrar unos Juegos Olímpicos y unos Mundiales de Fútbol. China, no entra en el cupo atractivo, con un 44,3% y por su parte, en EEUU el tipo es del 35%.

El sistema tradicional suizo permite tributar a determinados no residentes de acuerdo a una estimación de la renta, en función de los gastos. "Hay una variación notable entre los tipos de los cantones, entre el 18% y el 49%, por lo que el deportista debe elegir bien.

Las notificaciones y comunicaciones electrónicas

2010-12-21T03:15:00.001-08:00

Esta nueva forma de comunicar o notificar por vía electrónica es eficaz, segura, económica y ecológica, garantizando así la eficiencia en las relaciones con los ciudadanos.

Con carácter general, las Administraciones Públicas y en particular la Agencia Estatal de Administración Tributaria, en sus relaciones con los ciudadanos europeos comunican o notifican actos o resoluciones, especialmente por escrito.

El acceso electrónico de los ciudadanos a los Servicios Públicos ha determinado una nueva forma de notificar a través de Internet en una Dirección Electrónica Habilitada (DEH) para toda la Administración General del Estado.

Entidades híbridas "y" revertir entidades híbridas

2010-12-17T03:14:00.001-08:00

Nuestro colaborador en Braxton, Luis Roca nos habla de las entidades híbridas.

Los planificadores de fiscalidad internacional a menudo se refieren a las "entidades híbridas" y "revertir entidades híbridas".

Desde una perspectiva de impuestos de los EE.UU., una entidad híbrida es una entidad que es "fiscalmente transparente" a efectos fiscales EE.UU. pero no fiscalmente transparentes a efectos fiscales extranjeros. En general, la entidad es fiscalmente transparente, si los beneficios actuales de la entidad año son actualmente pasivos a los propietarios de la entidad, independientemente de si la entidad hace cualquier distribución a sus propietarios durante ese año.

Las asociaciones suelen ser entidades transparentes fiscalmente. Las corporaciones no son típicamente entidades fiscalmente transparentes. sociedades de responsabilidad limitada y varios tipos de entidades extranjeras pueden o no ser fiscalmente transparente.

Una entidad hibrido inverso es el "reverso" de una entidad híbrida en la que la entidad es fiscalmente transparente a efectos fiscales extranjeros, pero no transparente a efectos fiscales con fines de impuestos de los EEUU.

Las entidades que reciben el mismo trato para EE.UU. y extranjeras con fines fiscales no son "híbridos" entidades.

Luis Roca.

Nueva directiva para el cobro de las exacciones

2010-12-15T04:41:00.001-08:00

El progresivo desarrollo del mercado interior a lo largo de los últimos 30 años ha puesto de relieve la necesidad de adoptar una

nueva reglamentación sobre la mutua asistencia en el cobro de determinadas exacciones, derechos, impuestos y otras deudas que se tienen en cuenta a la hora de hacer una planificación fiscal .

Parece oportuno recordar en este contexto que la política fiscal de la Comunidad ha de garantizar en primera instancia la competitividad y neutralidad fiscal del mercado interior.

Conviene añadir que una buena cooperación y un eficaz sistema de recaudación de impuestos son una condición fundamental para su correcto funcionamiento.

Teniendo en cuenta lo susodicho, el ponente de la comisión competente para opinión se pronuncia a favor de la iniciativa del Consejo de reemplazar la Directiva 1976/308/CEE de 15 de marzo de 1976, consolidada por la Directiva 2008/55/CE de 26 de mayo de 2008, por un nuevo acto legal comunitario para los servicios legales .

Los consumidores en Europa

2010-12-09T03:47:00.001-08:00

La fragmentación del acervo sobre consumidores provoca elevados costes a las empresas. Según las encuestas, la mayoría de agentes económicos considera que dichos costes de cumplimiento constituyen una barrera importante para el comercio

transfronterizo, que reduce sus incentivos para vender a consumidores de fuera de sus fronteras, en particular de los pequeños Estados miembros. Si no se toma ninguna medida legislativa a escala comunitaria, estos costes continuarán repercutiéndose a los consumidores en forma de precios más elevados o, peor aún, las empresas continuarán negándose a realizar ventas transfronterizas o practicarán discriminaciones geográficas entre consumidores en función de su país de residencia.

En su Resolución de 16 de julio de 2007, el Parlamento Europeo recomendó adoptar medidas legislativas y expresó su preferencia por un instrumento que adopte la forma de una Directiva horizontal basada en una armonización plena específica.

En su Comunicación «Un mercado único para la Europa del siglo XXI», de 20 de noviembre de 2007, la Comisión afirmó que el mercado único debe ofrecer mejoresresultados y beneficios tangibles a los consumidores y a las PYME.

Encontrará otros artículos sobre fiscalidad internacional en otros blogs como el de http://fiscalidadinternacional1.blogspot.com

Glosario utilizado por Abogados Internacionales

2010-12-03T04:28:00.001-08:00

Algunos de los términos en español e inglés que usan los Abogados Internacionales

Personal property:

bienes muebles

Per stirpes:

por estirpe

Plea bargaining:

regateo por un alegato

Pleadings:

Alegatos

Pledge:

Prenda

Police powers:

poders de policia y de prevención del crimen

Policy:

Póliza

Positive law:

derecho positivo; ley positiva

Possibility of reverter:

posibilidad de reversión

Precedent:

Preemptive right:

derecho de prelación

Preferred stock:

acciones preferidas

Premium:

recompensa; prima

Presentment warranty:

garantía de presentación

Price discrimination:

discriminación en los precios

Principal:

mandante; principal

Privity:

nexo jurídico

Privity of contract:

relación contractual

Probable cause:

causa probable

Probate:

verificación; verificación del testamento

Probate court:

tribunal de sucesiones y tutelas

Proceeds:

resultados; ingresos

Profit:

beneficio; utilidad; lucro

Promise:

Promesa

Promisee:

beneficiario de una promesa

Promisor:

Promtente

Promissory estoppel:

impedimento promisorio

Promissory note:

pagaré; nota de pago

Promoter:

promotor; fundador

Proximate cause:

causa inmediata o próxima

Proxy:

apoderado; poder

Punitive, or exemplary, damages:

daños y perjuiciospunitivos o ejemplares

Qualified indorsement:

endoso con reservas

Quasi contract:

contrato tácito o implícito

Quitclaim deed:

acto de transferencia de una propiedadpor finiquito, pero sin ninguna garantía sobre la validez del título transferido

Ratification:

Ratificación

El glosario completo puede usted encontrarlo en Glosario para asesores fiscales internacionales y abogados internacionales

Grupo de Fiscalidad Internacional en Linked In

2010-12-03T04:02:00.001-08:00

Recientemente hemos visto las ventajas que una red social como Linkedin representan para un colectivo como es el de los abogados.

Cuando hablamos de la revolución de internet, mil imágenes nos vienen a la cabeza. Chat, marketing, redes sociales, información, trámites, etc.

Sin embargo, la revolución en sí, no está en el propio internet (como lo fuera la revolución del vapor) sinó en las herramientas que trabajan con ella.

En Linkedin hemos creado un grupo de fiscalidad internacional para que abogados, con vocación internacional puedan discutir de los temas de actualidad.

Así pues, os invitamos a que os unáis a este grupo y así podamos discutir los temas de actualidad fiscal internacional.

Proposta da Comissão

2010-12-01T04:33:00.001-08:00

O objectivo da proposta consiste em estabelecer um procedimento que permita à Comunidade avaliar se existe um interesse comunitário suficiente para concluir acordos bilaterais propostos com países terceiros e, na ausência do mesmo, autorizar os Estados-Membros a concluírem estes acordos com países terceiros em certos domínios da cooperação judiciária em materia civil e comercial que são da competência exclusiva da Comunidade.

Uma vez que a autorização concedida aos Estados-Membros constitui uma derrogação à regra segundo a qual a Comunidade tem competência exclusiva para concluir acordos internacionais sobre estas matérias, o procedimento deve ser considerado uma medida excepcional e ter um âmbito de aplicação e uma duração limitados.

Propõe-se limitar o procedimento em causa às questões sectoriais relacionadas com as matérias matrimoniais, a responsabilidade parental e de obrigações de alimentos, por um lado, e com a lei aplicável às obrigações contratuais e extracontratuais, por outro. A proposta em anexo diz respeito ao segundo domínio.

A Comissão propõe as garantias a seguir descritas com o objectivo de preservar o acervo comunitário, incluindo a integridade do sistema comunitário no domínio em causa.

O procedimento baseia-se na notificação prévia do projecto de acordo pelos Estados-Membros que pretendem obter uma autorização para renegociar e concluir um acordó com um país terceiro com base em condições específicas a avaliar caso a caso.

More about international lawyers on International Lawyers

Acuerdos bilaterales

2010-12-01T04:06:00.001-08:00

Acuerdos bilaterales

Debe asumirse que la Comunidad ha adquirido una competencia exclusiva para la negociación y celebración de gran parte de los acuerdos bilaterales y sobre todo en materia de fiscalidad internacional.

No obstante, hay que evaluar si la sustitución de todos los acuerdos de ese tipo, existentes o propuestos, entre Estados miembros y terceros países por acuerdos comunitarios reviste, actualmente, suficiente interés para la Comunidad. Por este motivo es necesario establecer un procedimiento con un doble propósito: en primer lugar, permitir que la Comunidad valore si la celebración de un acuerdo dado tiene suficiente interés para ella y, en segundo lugar, autorizar a los Estados miembros a celebrar el acuerdo en cuestión si actualmente no reviste interés para la Comunidad celebrar un acuerdo comunitario. Lo anteriormente expuesto coincide con las conclusiones del Consejo de Justicia y Asuntos de Interior de 19 de abril de 2007.

La Comisión ha aceptado que debe concebirse asimismo un procedimiento en relación con la fiscalidad internacional para los acuerdos que afectan a los Reglamentos Roma II y Roma I.

En consecuencia la Comisión propone que se conciba un procedimiento de este tipo para determinados acuerdos bilaterales relativos a asuntos sectoriales. El procedimiento propuesto cubre, por tanto, dos categorías diferentes de asuntos sectoriales. Una propuesta se refiere a los asuntos sectoriales relacionados con la competencia, el reconocimiento y la ejecución en materia matrimonial, de responsabilidad parental y de obligación de alimentos y a la ley aplicable a la obligación de alimentos. La otra propuesta se refiere a los asuntos sectoriales relacionados con la ley aplicable a las obligaciones contractuales y extracontractuales.

La presente propuesta trata sobre un procedimiento para conceder autorización a los Estados miembros en el segundo ámbito mencionado, es decir en el de la ley aplicable a las obligaciones contractuales y extracontractuales. Simultáneamente a esta propuesta, la Comisión presenta otra propuesta para establecer un procedimiento similar en el ámbito de los asuntos sectoriales relacionados con la competencia, el reconocimiento y la ejecución en materia matrimonial, de responsabilidad parental y de obligación de alimentos y a la ley aplicable a la obligación de alimentos. Puesto que este último ámbito se rige por la unanimidad, estas propuestas deben presentarse en dos actos separados.

Más sobre fiscalidad internacional en fiscalidad internacional

Seminario sobre la Responsabilidad Penal de las Empresas a cargo de Fabian Plaza (braxton group)

2010-11-26T05:07:00.001-08:00

Seminario sobre la Responsabilidad Penal de las Empresas a cargo de Fabian Plaza (Braxton group)

El pasado día 23 de noviembre se celebró en el Hotel Acevi Villarroel un seminario destinado a informar sobre la reforma del Código Penal y sus implicaciones para el mundo de la empresa. El ponente fue el abogado y escritor Fabián Plaza, miembro de Braxton Group y del Colegio de Abogados Penal Internacional.

A través de un estudio pormenorizado de las nuevas circunstancias atenuantes para las personas jurídicas, Plaza elaboró una propuesta de programa de "Corporate compliance" penal, con el objetivo práctico de reducir futuros riesgos para la empresa.

Plaza incidió en los riesgos que presenta la reforma para el sector empresarial, con especial hincapié en las nuevas figuras jurídicas. En este sentido, se recalcó la incertidumbre que creará la futura responsabilidad penal de las sociedades, que podrán ser imputadas incluso por delitos cometidos por empleados sin poderes de representación. Del mismo modo, se analizó en profundidad el nuevo delito de corrupción entre particulares, que el ponente calificó de "ambiguo" y "generador de inseguridad jurídica".

Inicio de las negociaciones

2010-11-26T02:42:00.001-08:00

Inicio de las negociaciones

En cuanto a fiscalidad internacional, si a la vista de las condiciones mencionadas en la propuesta, la Comisión considera que no existen obstáculos para el acuerdo propuesto, podrá permitir que el Estado miembro inicie las negociaciones (artículo 5). En caso necesario, la Comisión podrá proponer unas directrices de negociación, así como pedir la inclusión de determinadas cláusulas.

El acuerdo deberá incluir asimismo una cláusula de expiración para el caso de que la Comunidad Europea celebre un acuerdo con el tercer país en cuestión. La Comisión adoptará la decisión de autorizar o no autorizar la negociación internacional con la ayuda de un comité consultivo, de conformidad con el artículo 3 de la Decisión 1999/468/CE del Consejo por la que se establecen los procedimientos para el ejercicio de las competencias de ejecución atribuidas a la Comisión. Dado que su finalidad es limitar los trámites al mínimo imprescindible, el procedimiento de consulta está justificado. La Comisión presentará al comité un proyecto de las medidas que deban adoptarse, medidas sobre las que el comité emitirá un dictamen. A continuación, la Comisión tomará una decisión, teniendo en cuenta en la mayor medida posible ese dictamen, e informará al comité sobre la manera en que su dictamen se ha tenido en cuenta.

Más información sobre abogados internacionales en abogados internacionales

Recaudación de la AEAT del impuesto de Sociedades

2010-11-25T02:10:00.001-08:00

Recaudación de la AEAT del impuesto de Sociedades

Una noticia sorprendende de Fiscalidad Internacional. Al Director de la Agencia Tributaria (AEAT), don Juan Manuel López Carbajo le cuesta creerse las cifras de recaudación por lucha contra el fraude. Tan sorprendente reacción es debido a la alta recaudación lograda recientemente. 8.200 Millones de Euros es lo que se dice haber ingresado en la Agencia hasta el mes de octubre gracias a sus actuaciones contra el Fraude Fiscal. Mucho más que en el año anterior por completo, que ascendía a 8.119 millones de Euros.

Hay otros detalles a tener en cuenta, una de las partidas que ha crecido más de toda esta contribución es el que representa la delegación central de grandes contribuyentes. A pesar de ello, afirma que el fraude de las grandes empresas no es en absoluto la causa del derrumbe de la recaudación que soporta el Impuesto de Sociedades desde hace más de dos años.

En esta delegación central se cuentan adscritas unas 2500 empresas españolas que facturan a efectos de IVA, más de 100 millones de Euros, y según fuentes de la Hacienda, es el fraude de las empresas más grandes la que causa este crecimiento de la recaudación por inspecciones en 2010. De hecho, fue a principios de año cuando la inspección cerró por subcapitalización, con un valor de cientos de millones de Euros.

Más recursos sobre fiscalidad internacional en fiscalidad-internacional

Fusiones anglosajonas entre abogados internacionales

2010-11-24T03:00:00.001-08:00

Cada vez más, nos encontramos con fusiones entre firmas de Abogados Internacionales Británicas y Americanas. Recientemente podemos hablar de la que ha tenido lugar entre la Británica Hammonds y la americana Squier, Sanders & Dempsey. Justo antes, por nombrar alguna, la de Hogan & Hartson con Lovells.

Estas fusiones entre mercados, están provocando que estas firmas tengan una mayor presencia en todo el mundo. La pregunta que a nosotros se nos plantea es si esta tendencia puede acarrear que los despachos españoles se fusionen con los internacionales.

Manuel Martín, Socio director del despacho Gómez-Acebo & Pombo, abogado internacional, opina que esto no debería afectar demasiado a los despachos españoles. "Las fusiones, aunque todas parezcan lo mismo, son distintas. Cada una responde a una motivación diferente", según sus palabras.

Podemos dividir las distintas fusiones según su tipo, Ofensivas y Defensivas y según Martín, las "defensivas suelen funcionar mejor".

Fernando Torrente, un socio del prestigioso bufete Cuatrecases, también de abogados internacionales, opina que los despachos pasan por un periodo de autosuficiencia lo que hace que la fortaleza de los despachos españoles se base en gran parte en su independencia. El despacho español cumple la función de llegar a todas partes mientras que el americano es el que hace los encargos.

Más información sobre abogados internacionales en abogados internacionales

La tarjeta Azul y los expatriados

2010-11-23T02:22:00.001-08:00

Guidance Notes vs. 5 - draft vs. 8 - cleaned up versionYo todavía no he visto ninguna. Desde el año 2007, El Parlamento Europeo está promoviendo un sistema que utiliza la denominada Tarjeta Azul para facilitar la libre circulación de trabajadores cualificados dentro de la zona de la UE.

Esta tarjeta debería funcionar como un permiso de residencia de hasta 2 años renovables y otorgaría plena libertad para circular por el territorio comunitario; acceso al mercado laboral, igualdad de trato con los nacionales del país de residencia y el derecho a la reunificación de su familia para los expatriados.

Guidance Notes vs. 5 - draft vs. 8 - cleaned up version

más sobre expatriados

Cómo impacta social y económicamente el Capital de Riesgo en España

2010-11-22T01:40:00.001-08:00

Según el último informe 2010 de la Asociación Española de Entidades de Capital Riesgo (ASCRI) sobre el Impacto Económico y Social del Capital Riesgo en España, se puede entender que las compañías con participación de Capital Riesgo se encuentran en fases mucho más avanzadas de desarrollo que las compañías que no cuentan con este tipo de financiación. Por esta razón, el Capital de Riesgo es concebido como un factor importantísimo en el crecimiento económico.

Este informe es basado en el estudio que se ha hecho de todas las empresas financiadas por Capital Riesgo entre los años 1995-2004 y el crecimiento que han experimentado en los tres años posteriores a la entrada de Capital Riesgo. El impacto del Capital Riesgo sobre la situación del empleo, la competitividad y el crecimiento económico se manifiesta de la siguiente forma:

- Impacto del Capital Riesgo sobre el empleo: se demuestra que la creación de empleo es mucho mayor en las compañías que han recibido financiación de Capital de Riesgo, ya que en el ese periodo la plantilla agregada de las compañías con este respaldo creció una media del 15,2% frente al 4,3% de las otras empresas.

- Impacto sobre la competitividad y el crecimiento: La inversión en Capital Riesgo es muy beneficiosa para las empresas en términos de resultados, facturación e incluso en esperanza de vida. Las cifras del informe muestran que las empresas financiadas por este medio crecen más rápido y además perduran más en el tiempo.

En resumidas cuentas, el Capital de Riesgo tiene un impacto positivo por antonomasia sobre el crecimiento, la economía y el empleo en España.

más información sobre sociedades extranjeras

La actividad de Capital Riesgo en España hoy en día

2010-11-22T01:38:00.001-08:00

- Se constata la ausencia de buyouts de grandes dimensiones debido a los actuales problemas de financiación bancaria,

- Las entidades de Capital Riesgo han decidido realizar sus inversiones con mayores niveles de recursos y fondos propios y menos apalancamiento respeto a periodos anteriores.

- Los bancos apenas ya no financian nuevas operaciones y, cuando lo hacen es de una forma sindicada y con unas más amplias garantías. - Las transacciones realizadas mediante la toma de participación minoritaria – es decir, sin cambio de control- ha concentrado un mayor volumen de inversión. - Las entidades de Capital Riesgo se han decidido centrarse más en la refinanciación de sus carteras y en la gestión de las empresas participadas a causa de la caída de los EBITDAS.

Más sobre sociedades extranjeras

El futuro de la Ley de Sociedades de Capital

2010-11-18T03:29:00.001-08:00

La LEY DE SOCIEDADES DE CAPITAL nace con voluntad de provisionalidad; de un lado, se advierte por el legislador de la necesidad de afrontar a corto plazo importantes reformas de la materia, con la revisión de algunas soluciones legales tradicionales, con la ampliación de la dinámica de los deberes fiduciarios de los administradores, con una más detallada regulación de las sociedades cotizadas y con la creación de un Derecho sustantivo en materia de grupos de sociedades; de otro lado, se constata la aspiración a que la totalidad del Derecho general de las sociedades mercantiles, incluido el aplicable a las sociedades personalistas, se contenga en un cuerpo legal unitario.

Más sobre la Ley de sociedades de Capital en:

http://internationaltax1.blogspot.com/

http://salvadortrinxet.blogspot.com/

¿Qué novedades se producen en la ley de sociedades de capital respecto a las participaciones sociales y acciones?

2010-11-17T02:56:00.001-08:00

Por un lado, los derechos del socio, tradicionalmente regulados en sede de sociedades anónimas, quedan a partir de ahora regulados, y en las mismas condiciones, para el resto de las sociedades de capital.

Por otro, en materia de transmisión de participaciones sociales, el artículo 107.3 de la LEY DE SOCIEDADES DE CAPITAL prohíbe de forma expresa que los estatutos atribuyan al auditor de cuentas de la sociedad la fijación del valor de las participaciones objeto de transmisión, lo que ya fue incluido por la Ley 12/2010 de 30 de junio por la que se modifica, entre otras, la Ley 19/1988, de 12 de julio, de Auditoría de Cuentas.

más información sobre Sociedades Extranjeras en:

http://internationaltax1.blogspot.com/

La recuperación del IVA de las facturas incobrables

2010-11-15T01:03:00.000-08:00

En España, el procedimiento de recuperación de las cuotas del IVA correspondiente a facturas impagadas por los clientes requiere por parte de la empresa de una serie de requisitos formales, materiales, temporales y subjetivos establecidos por la normativa del impuesto. Un adecuada gestión del procedimiento de recuperación del IVA de las facturas impagadas por los clientes puede favorecer el cobro del propio crédito y la recuperación del IVA ingresado en las facturas incobrables.

Más información sobre recuperación del IVA en http://fiscalidadinternacional1.blogspot.com/

El Sandwitch Holandés

2010-11-15T00:46:00.000-08:00

Introducir el paso por los Paises Bajos entre dos sociedades es lo que se llama el Sandwich Holandés.

Irónicamente, el "Sandwich no deja migajas que degustar" como dijo un empleado de Tax Research LLP.

La compañía Microsoft, que está basada en Redmond, WA, también ha utilizado una estructura de Doble Irlandés según los mismos registrs de esta en el extrangero. A Forest Laboratories Inc, fabricante del antidepresivo Lexapro, las cosas también le van bien según la agencia de noticias Bloomberg News. Esta empresa farmacéutica de Nueva York, declara la mayoría de sus beneficios en el extrangero, aunque la mayor parte de sus ventas sean dentro de los Estados Unidos. Sus precios de transferencia están siendo auditados por el IRS.

Desde los años 60, Irlanda a perseguido una estrategia de incentivos fiscales para atraer multinacionales. Otro aspecto menos comentado es que permite a las sociedades transmitir los beneficios fuera del país sin demasiadas consecuencias fiscales.

"Sacando los provechos fuera"

Para que no se acumulen todos los beneficios en Irlanda, hay que sacarlos fuera de esa jurisdicción de alguna manera fácil, y eso, se hace a través de Bermuda.

Irlanda siempre ha buscado asegurar que los beneficios cobrados en Irlanda reflejen en su totalidad la funciones, bienes y riesgos localizados ahí por grupos multinacionales.

Una vez que los beneficios no americanos de google llegan a Bermuda, es dificil seguirles la pista. Su subsidiaria en ese país, cambió su forma legal de organización en 2006 convirtiendose en una LLC. Bajo las reglas irlandesas eso implica el no requisito de transferir información fiscal al país de orígen.

Diferida indefinidamente

Técnicamente las multinacionales que transfieren los beneficios al extrangero, evitan los impuestos permanentemente. O hasta que deciden devolver al país de orígen los beneficios. A la práctica, pocas veces se repatrían porciones significantes evitando así indefinidamente los impuestos. Según Michelle Hanlon, una profesora de contabilidad del Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

En 2009 el departamento de tesorería americano, propuso reducir las tasas en los pagos entre sociedades americanas y sus subsidiarias.

Los oficiales de tesorería estimaron que el cambio reportaría unos beneficios de $86.5 billones en nuevos ingresos para los próximos diez años, pero ciertas compañías en el Congreso se mostraron contrarias a la medida como General Electric co, los fabricantes de cosméticos Johnson & Johnson y Starbucks Corp, según unos informes hechos por la Ong Center for Responsive Politics.

Google y Transfer pricing

2010-11-12T05:17:00.000-08:00

Precios de Transferencia.

En febrero pasado, la administración de Obama, propuso medidas para cambiar la dinámica de la transferencia de beneficios offshore. En su propuesta se incluía destinar $12 billones a tal efecto en los siguientes 10 años. Mientras estas propuestas no avanzan en el Congreso de Estados Unidos, el IRS dijo en abril que dedicaria más agentes y abogados en cinco de lass más grandes soluciones de

Longitud de Brazo

La transferencia de beneficios normalmente empieza cuando compañías como Google venden o licencian derechos extrangeros sobre propiedad intelectual para desarrollar en los Estados Unidos a un subsidiario sito en un país con una fiscalidad más beneficiosa. Esto significa que los beneficios en el extrangero basados en tecnología se atribuyen a una unidad offshore, no a la empresa madre. Bajo la jurisdiccion americana, los subsidiarios deben pagar precios de longitud de brazo por esos derechos, la cantidad que una empresa totalmente ajena, pagaría.

Como esos pagos contribuyen a los beneficios taxables, la compañía madre tiene un incentivo a establecerlos cuanto más bajo mejor. Recortando los gastos de la subsidiaria, efectivamente se trasladan los beneficios al extrangero.

Despues de tres años de negociación, Google recibió la aprovación del IRS en 2006 para el pacto de precios de transferencia, acorde con las cuentas en el Securities and Exchange Commission.

El IRS dio su consentimiento en un pacto secreto conocido como un pacto de precios avanzado. Google no discutiría el precio bajo ese pacto, lo que daba licencia a los derechos de su tecnología de búsqueda y publicidad y otras propiedades intangibles para Europa, Medio Oriente y Africa. A eso se le llama Google Ireland Holdings, según un experto ene l tema.

Oficina de Dublín.

El licenciado a su vez es propietario de Google Irlanda Limited, que emplea al menos a 2,000 personas en un edificio de cristal en el centro de Dublin, a una manzana de distancia del Grand Canal de la ciudad. El subsidiario de Dublin vende propaganda globalmente y según google obtiene el 88% de sus $12.5 billones de ventas no americanas anualmente.

Hacer que los beneficios sean en Irlanda ayuda a Google a evitar el impuesto de retna en Estados Unidos, donde la mayor parte de su tecnología fue desarrollada. El pacto también reduce la responsabilidad de la compañía en otras jurisdicciones europeas con jurisdicciónes fiscales poco favorables.

Los beneficios pero, no se quedan en la filial de Dublín, que reportó beneficios antes de las tasas de menos del 1% en ventas en 2009 según los registros Irlandeses. Esto en mayor parte ocurro porque pagó $ 5.4 billones en royalties a Google Ireland Holdings que tiene el centro de gestión efectiva en Bermuda, según los registros de la compañía.

Directores de firmas legales.

Esta entidad dirigida en bermuda es propiedad a partes iguales de los subsidiarios de Google que se nombran como directores a dos abogados y un manager de Conyers Dill & Pearman, una firma legal de Hamilton, Bermuda.

Los asesores fiscales le llaman a esto una solución de Doble Irlandés porque se basa en dos compañías irlandesas. Una que paga royalties para el uso de la propiedad intelectual, generando gastos que reducen los beneficios taxables irlandeses. Y la otra recolecta los royalties en un paraiso fiscal como Bermuda, evitando los impuestos Irlandeses.

Para mantenerse fuera de la retención fiscal, los pagos desde Google Dublin no van directamente a bermuda. Hacen primero una parada en los Paises Bajos evitando así responsabilidad porque las leyes fiscales irlandesas eximen ciertos royalties de compañías que sean de miembros de la Unión Europea. Así, los pagos primero van a la sociedad holandesa, Google Netherlands Holdings B.V. Que paga un 99.8% de lo que recolecta la entidad en Bermuda. Como curiosidad la sociedad basada en Amsterdam no tiene ni un solo empleado.

Más información en fiscalidadinternacional1.blogspot.com

Sieć / więzi społecznych i ogniw łańcucha dostaw.

2010-05-21T04:20:00.000-07:00

Sieć / więzi społecznych i ogniw łańcucha dostaw.

Kilka ostatnich badań zwrócono uwagę na znaczenie sieci / więzi społecznych i linki łańcucha dostaw w wyzwalaniu MŚP "pierwszy krok internacjonalizacji i rozszerzające procesy internacjonalizacji. Są to badania wśród amerykańskich, Australii, Kanady i Portugalii przedsiębiorstw. Zarówno amerykańskich prac szczególnie zgłosił stymulujący wpływ na działalność eksportową firm "soft aktywów, w tym kapitału społecznego i sieci, z których mogą powstać przez menedżerów ", imigrantów i związane z nimi łączy. W badaniu wśród eksporterów ryb z Azorami, autonomicznego portugalski archipelag na północnym Atlantyku, około 900 km od kontynentu europejskiego, podkreślił znaczenie więzi rodzinnych i społecznych z emigrant społeczności na rynkach światowych w prowadzeniu internacjonalizacji MŚP (patrz ramki 3 i 4). Kocker i Buhl również zauważyć, że wykorzystywanie wspólnych powiązań jest wspólnym motywem wśród firm, które badano w państwach OECD.
Wreszcie należy wspomnieć o wartość powiązań z powrotem do krajów urodzenia, że migranci mogą wnieść w organizowaniu możliwości eksportowe [OECD CFE / SME (2008) 5/PART1/REV1].

KOBİ ULUSLARARASI İÇİN MOTIVASYON

2010-02-22T04:15:00.000-08:00

KOBİ ULUSLARARASI İÇİN MOTIVASYON
KOBİ uluslararasılaşma sürücüleri inceleyerek araştırmalar bir dizi OECD ve APEC üyesi ekonomileri ve OECD büyüme veya gelişmiş nişan sürecinde yer alan bazı ülkeler arasında özel ve kamu kaynaklarından kullanılabilir hale gelmiştir 2007 OECD APEC tamamlanmasından yana sürdürülmekte olan çalışma.
Bu son çalışmalar kapsamında belirli OECD ekonomilerinin Avustralya, Belçika, Kanada, Fransa, Almanya, Yunanistan, İrlanda, İtalya, Hollanda, Polonya, Portekiz, İspanya, İsveç, İngiltere ve ABD yer alıyor. Incelenen olmayan OECD üyesi ekonomilerin Şili, Hindistan ve Endonezya vardır. A Bu çalışmaların birkaç KOBİ uluslararasılaşması için motivasyonu üzerinde alt-ulusal ve sektörel bakış açısı sağladı.
Bilgi ile ilgili motifler;; ağ / sosyal bağları ve yerli / bölgesel piyasa faktörleri yukarıda özetlenen çalışmalar kanıtları gözden geçirilmesi büyüme nedenleri de dahil olmak üzere KOBİ'lerin uluslararasılaşma, anahtar motive edici faktörler bir dizi çıkıntı göstermektedir.

中小企业国际化更多的障碍

2010-02-21T04:12:00.000-08:00

中小企业国际化更多的障碍中小企业国际化的一个障碍是一些额外的突出在最近的调查，特别是行政和技术上的困难，汇率，文件和收支问题和国外市场的竞争数量。然而，在这里，这些建议基本上是知觉障碍/心理作为其总体发病率呈下降趋势，因为企业在国际市场的进一步发展经验知识。这与解释中小企业国际化行为占主导地位的理论是一致的，特别是发展阶段模型（Johanson和Vahlne，1977年）和资源为基础的观点（Ibeh，2005年; Ibeh和惠勒，2005）。这种知识的中心地位也加强了对出生的研究证据和加速国际化的全球性企业中小型企业，其中大部分倾向于依靠关键的知识资产，属于知识型和知识（哈里斯和李，2005年）密集的部门。总体而言，目前的审查和最近的有关证据的分析表明，最国际化的障碍主要是中小企业与经合组织亚太经合组织2007年研究的结果一致。两个额外的点需要加以强调。首先，有一些迹象表明，在某些部门的企业所面临的特殊行业的特定国际化的障碍 - 见专栏2所示。二是资源限制高度流行，尤其是规模较小的金融类中，新国际化公司。这提供了持续广泛地由出口信贷机构（非洲经委会）和贸易促进组织（贸促机构）通过的分割，或需要为基础的办法的理由。事实上，中小型企业关键资源缺乏的特征 - 金融，技术，海外市场准入，必要的管理技能和知识 - 需要强调的政策思想，促进中小型企业日益朝着投入生产/供应系统和价值链整合的趋势观察大型企业和外国分公司。正如最近经合组织关于“加强全球价值链中的中小企业的作用”的报告指出，这些联系可能代表的中小企业部门的方式，或在其与增长潜力最大部分，至少要访问的一系列关键缺少的资源搞相互（经合组织，2008）受益的关系。

المعرفة المتصلة الدوافع.

2010-02-10T04:18:00.000-08:00

المعرفة المتصلة الدوافع.

نتائج البحوث التي أجريت مؤخرا تشير إلى أن أصول المعرفة على حد سواء الشد والجذب الشركات الصغيرة والمتوسطة في الأسواق الدولية. وتتصل "دفع" البعد إلى أهمية مديري "الخبرة الدولية السابقة، والعوامل ذات القدرة الإدارية، كما لوحظ في دراسات بين الشركات الكندية والشركات الاسبانية والسويدية والشركات. هناك ترتبط أيضا نتائج من عدد من بلدان منظمة التعاون الاقتصادي (كندا وايرلندا والسويد) وغير منظمة التعاون والتنمية - الاقتصادات (شيلي والهند واندونيسيا) على تدويل اثار آثار جوانب المعرفة، بما في ذلك الاستثمار في البحث والتطوير ، وقدرات الابتكار، منتج فريد من نوعه أو التكنولوجيا ، والمهارات اللغوية، وشركة قاعدة الموارد، كما هو مبين من قبل وكلاء مثل الحجم والعمر ، والخبرة. قد البحث عن أصول المعرفة سحب أيضا الشركات الصغيرة والمتوسطة في الأسواق الدولية، كما اقترح Kocker وBühl "ليالي النتائج أن تدويل الشركات للحصول على المفقودين الدراية اللازمة للحفاظ على تقدمهم في مجال التنمية التكنولوجية.

po

2009-06-27T07:27:00.001-07:00

Latinoamerica: crisis y democracia

2008-11-29T20:00:00.000-08:00

Cinco años de un fuerte crecimiento económico ha producido un lento pero firme alza en apoyo de la democracia y sus instituciones entre los latinoamericanos.

Estas encuestas realizadas en 18 paises fueron publicadas por la revista The Economist en inglés. Tratan de las actitudes en cuánto a la intervención del Estado, la democracia, los partidos y otros asuntos.

"The Latinobarómetro poll

Democracy and the downturn

Latin Americans are standing up for their rights

FIVE years of strong economic growth have prompted a slow but fairly steady rise in support for democracy and its institutions among Latin Americans, although many remain frustrated by the way their political systems work in practice. Most see themselves as politically moderate, but they retain a yearning for strong leaders and expect the state to solve their problems. These are some of the findings from the latest Latinobarómetro poll taken in 18 countries across the region and published exclusively by The Economist. Because the poll has been taken regularly since 1995, it tracks changes in attitudes in the region.

This year’s poll was taken in September and early October. It therefore reflects the sharp increase in inflation in the region in the first half of this year, but not the full effect of the financial turbulence and deteriorating economic outlook that hit some Latin American countries in recent weeks. Nevertheless, it carries some sobering lessons for the region’s politicians.

The poll underlines the fact that a small majority of respondents are convinced democrats. In 12 countries, support for democracy has risen since 2001, when the region last suffered an economic recession. But only in five countries is it higher than it was in 1996. This year democracy has received a particular boost in Paraguay, a country where authoritarian attitudes previously predominated. The shift follows the victory in a presidential election in April of Fernando Lugo, a leftish former bishop who ended more than half a century of rule by the Colorado Party. That echoes similar hopes of change aroused by newly elected leaders in the region in recent years.

Conversely, in Venezuela, support for democracy may have been boosted this year among opponents of President Hugo Chávez, after their victory in a referendum on constitutional change last December. In Colombia, President Álvaro Uribe’s success against the FARC guerrillas may be the reason for a similar democratic lift.

Uruguayans are by far the most satisfied with how their democracy works (see chart 3). Peruvians are particularly disgruntled. That is paradoxical: Peru’s economy has grown faster than that of any other of the region’s bigger countries both this year and last. Their discontent seems to reflect deep flaws in the political system. But even if slightly less than two-fifths of respondents across the region are satisfied with their democracies, that is a significant improvement on the 2001 figure.

The relative dissatisfaction owes much to the deep-rooted socioeconomic inequalities in Latin America. Across the region 70% of respondents agreed that governments favour the interests of the privileged few; around half say they would not mind a non-democratic government if it solved economic problems; a similar proportion say democracy has not reduced inequalities; and only 30% think there is equality before the law. These attitudes help to explain the popularity of Mr Chávez, an oil-rich strongman—more than a third of Venezuelan respondents say inequalities have diminished.

But most respondents are convinced that democracy is the only road to development—and 71% say they are personally happy. So why the grumbles? As democracy has come to stay in the region, “people are more conscious of their rights and their expectations are higher”, says Marta Lagos, Latinobarómetro’s director. She adds that the yearning for a strongman is more a cultural trait than a political preference—and that the same goes for a fondness for a paternalist state.

The poll shows that a large majority believe that pensions should be in state hands. In Argentina that number is 90%, which perhaps helps explain why President Cristina Fernández last month nationalised the private pension system. But at the same time 56% of respondents see a market economy as the road to development (up from 47% last year). And 32% declare themselves satisfied with privatised public services, up from 15% in 2004. Some 44% say they trust their banks, up from 29% in 2003. The church remains the most trusted institution in the region—but less so than it was. Trust in government and legislatures continues to edge up.

In six countries, including Mexico and Venezuela, crime and public safety are seen as the most important problem. In ten countries, economic concerns (unemployment, poverty and inflation) are still seen as paramount. In Brazil 19% cited health care as the biggest problem.

Despite the swing to the left in the region in recent years, most respondents to the poll consider themselves in the political centre (42% this year, up from 29% in 2003). Only 17% say they are on the left and 22% are on the right (even in Mr Chávez’s Venezuela those on the left and right are tied at 26%).

That provides hope for centre-right politicians in a round of presidential elections in the larger countries in the region in 2010-12. Those elections are likely to be held against a much less rosy economic backdrop than has prevailed for the past few years. The task facing Latin America’s politicians is to ensure that economic difficulties do not spill over into a weakening of support for democracy.

Lecciones de la crisis japonesa

2008-11-04T09:00:00.000-08:00

"Algunas lecciones de la crisis japonesa", articulo publicado el 03-11-2008 , por José Carlos Díez. Economista jefe de InterMoney, en Expansion.com:

En 1991, la bolsa japonesa y los precios inmobiliarios se desplomaron y provocaron la peor crisis de un país desarrollado desde la Gran Depresión. El sistema bancario había financiado toda aquella locura y el desplome del valor de los colaterales provocó una quiebra sistémica, cuyo saneamiento ha costado el 15% del PIB japonés.

La principal característica de la crisis fue la inacción, tanto de los responsables de la política económica como de las empresas y de los bancos.

Cuando comenzaron a tomar medidas, el sistema financiero estaba quebrado, la economía entró en una trampa de la liquidez keynesiana, la política monetaria perdió efectividad y el policy mix de política económica fue desastroso, especialmente la política cambiaria y fiscal que acabaron neutralizando sus efectos restando efectividad a las medidas. A continuación, se va analizar las consecuencias de la crisis, que más de tres lustros después mantienen a la economía nipona al borde de la deflación.

La deflación maligna

La deflación es una patología atípica y es lógico que los economistas nos preocupemos más de proteger a las economías de la inflación que es más habitual. Pero, Japón es un ejemplo de la deflación y sus efectos deben hacer que cualquier sociedad tome las medidas que sean necesarias para protegerse de ella.

Se puede observar la debilidad del crecimiento de del PIB que ha registrado un crecimiento promedio anual de 1,3% desde 2001 hasta 2007. Destaca la debilidad del consumo privado y la inversión y la fortaleza de las exportaciones.

Cuando las familias tienen expectativas deflacionistas retrasan sus decisiones de consumo, especialmente de bienes duraderos, ya que esperan que al año siguiente podrán comprar los bienes más baratos.

La debilidad de consumo estanca las ventas de las empresas y la deflación de precios, junto a salarios nominales rígidos a la baja, hunde los márgenes empresariales, lo cual elimina cualquier incentivo a invertir en nuevos proyectos empresariales e incluso en proteger a la capacidad instalada de su depreciación.

Esto explica que la tesis de Keynes en la teoría General fuera que ante la contracción de la demanda efectiva, tenía que ser el gasto público el que compensase los efectos de deflación para evitar en una caída en picado de la acumulación de capital que hundiese el crecimiento potencial.

Por fortuna para Japón, la burbuja se concentró en el precio de los activos inmobiliarios y de las acciones pero no se contagió al resto del mundo, por lo que gracias a su elevada capacidad tecnológica la economía puede mantener el crecimiento y la acumulación de capital vía exportaciones. Eso libró a Japón de la pobreza extrema que si se produjo en la Gran Depresión.

En el gráfico 2 se puede observar cómo el sector público tardó varios años en implementar políticas fiscales expansivas y cuando lo hizo fue ineficaz, al no priorizar el gasto en infraestructuras y acompañarlo de medidas de liberalización de sus economías para aumentar el crecimiento potencial.

Conclusiones

Aunque en la actual crisis también hay deflación de activos, por fortuna hay muchas diferencias que alejan el caso japonés del escenario central, aunque el riesgo sigue existiendo. La principal es que al ser una crisis de activos, el desplome de los mercados, especialmente de las bolsas, ha hecho que la sociedad sea consciente de la gravedad de la crisis y ha favorecida la acción de los Gobiernos.

Las primeras medidas han sido apuntalar el sistema financiero y recapitalizar a los bancos más afectados, pero ahora ha llegado la hora de la política fiscal. En las últimas décadas el paradigma liberal del minimalismo público «menos estado es más» ha primado la rebaja de impuestos. A partir de ahora, la incertidumbre es máxima y la bajada de impuestos puede ser destinada por las familias al ahorro, por lo que replicaríamos la trampa de la liquidez keynesiana que ha asolado Japón.

El gasto público tiene un efecto multiplicador y acaba arras-trando al sector privado al reactivar el empleo y las rentas salariales. Lo relevante es tener presente que el Estado no puede suplantar al sector privado permanentemente y que debe priorizar el gasto en infraestructuras. El anuncio de fuertes emisiones de deuda pública mundial ha provocado un aumento de las pendientes de las curvas de tipos, lo cual nos aleja del caso japonés. Sin duda, una gran noticia.

Investment banking: Difficult times may give rise to a different model

2008-10-29T12:22:00.000-07:00

Very interesting article publshed in Financial Times (www.ft.com), writed by Brooke Masters and entitled "Investment banking: Difficult times may give rise to a different model":

"Of all the financial services sectors, investment banking has been hit the hardest by the turmoil of the past year or so.

Not only have such venerable houses such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers disappeared, but the survivors have had to find well-capitalised partners or reconstitute themselves as traditional commercial banks.

Volatile equity markets, the credit squeeze and the sharp decline in activity on Aim have made it hard for corporates of all sizes to raise money and have hit the bottom lines at bulge-bracket investment banks and smaller boutiques alike.

Many institutional investors are sitting on the sidelines and most banks are reluctant to lend.

Yet companies still need to raise money: to keep going, refinance debt, or take opportunities. That makes them even more dependent on their advisers to help them find a way through what everyone agrees are difficult times.

“In these volatile times, it is crucial to be close to the markets, so we can advise clients on how shareholders will react to corporate developments. When it comes to capital-raising, our ability to judge the market and move quickly are important,” says Naguib Kheraj, chief executive of JPMorgan Cazenove.

Very few deals are likely to get done before Christmas and some bankers think the slowdown could continue through the first few months of next year.
Investors and lenders, they say, are waiting to see first quarter 2009 results to get a sense of where earnings will go.

As a result, many corporate advisers are using this period to help clients get ready for tough scrutiny.

“Cash is still king, so advisers will be spending a lot of time over the several months helping their clients take a hard look at their balance sheets to determine the most advantageous mix of assets.

“Those who have managed their resources well will have a big advantage,” says Marisa Drew, a Credit Suisse managing director who is co-head of the European global markets solutions group and the European leveraged finance origination group.
The next year may see the return of private equity-backed deals, albeit on a far smaller scale than in pre-crunch days.

“Private equity deal volumes have fallen away, but dialogue and the search for opportunities has not,” says Simon Tilley, head of the European Financial Sponsors Group at Close Brothers. “Identifying and delivering bolt-on acquisition opportunities is a key focus for private equity sponsors and for our business.”

Some bankers believe the financial crisis will prove to be a great opportunity for the big universal banks, such as Citigroup and JP Morgan, which can talk up relationship banking, their top-tier mergers, and how they can offer acquisition advice, financing, foreign exchange and cash management all at once.

“Historically, we have supported our clients through difficult times and we expect this downturn to be no different,” says Tom King, head of Europe, Middle East and Africa Banking at Citigroup.

Companies interested in tapping the big banks for financing may find they have to offer other businesses as a sweetener. Lenders have become highly selective about which deals they will back, and institutional investors are also having to husband their cash.

“Companies need to foster and guard relationships with these organisations, as it is longer-term knowledge, shared experiences and the resultant loyalty that will have a bearing on the provision of services and financial backing – be that equity provision from fund managers, debt funding from banks or advice from investment banks,” says David Currie, head of UK investment banking at Investec.

On the other hand, difficult markets may also prove to be an opportunity for a completely different model because some companies will want independent advice that does not come with strings attached.

They are likely to turn to a wide variety of service providers, ranging from Rothschild and Lazard via boutiques such as Greenhill Partners and Fenchurch, to the corporate finance arms of the big accounting and consulting firms.

“Independence from a trading arm and balance sheet for funding will be an advantage both in terms of escaping the fallout and also reputation and reliability – and this is something that corporate finance boutiques and professional services firms alike will be able to leverage and benefit from,” says Neil Sutton, Head of UK Corporate Finance, PwC.

“We may therefore see a re-ordering of adviser brands, where independence and agility in the face of turbulence win over more traditional investment banking names or newly established boutiques.”

After the 2001 dotcom crash, some financial services industry observers predicted the emergence of a “barbell effect” in which universal banks and independent boutiques would prosper, while those in the middle were pushed out.

Independents certainly grew. According to Thomson Financial, in 2000, independent advisers advised on 19 per cent of global M&A. In 2007, the figure was 38 per cent.
But the banks in the middle prospered as well, because the whole pot got bigger and all sizes and kinds of investment banks did well. This downturn may bring about that long-expected squeeze. It may already be under way.

The last big US independent investment banks – Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs – are rushing to add a retail component, and retail banks such as Barclays – which picked up large parts of Lehman’s US business – and Bank of America – which is merging with Merrill Lynch – are expanding their advisory side.

It will be up to their clients to make clear which model they prefer.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

Failure to open an offshore bank account

2008-09-07T16:00:00.000-07:00

This post is really interesting and describes the problem we faces regularly:
05 September 2008
Offshore Banking: Failure to Open a Bank Account
You decided to join the club and enjoy the benefits of offshore banking. You incorporated an offshore company as recommended by your advisor, chose a sound and reliable bank, prepared the requested documents and submitted your application, but unexpectedly the bank didn't approve it and denied to open you an account. Why would a bank that spent so much time, money and efforts to attract more customers reject some applications?

Unfortunately any bank has the right to refuse with no comments. Let's see what could be the reasons.

Generally, this might obviously happen because the bank is not interested in you as a client. You don't fit the current appetite of the bank. You are expected to become a new investor while you are looking for a current trading account for your business; or the bank is oriented to clients with a significantly bigger account turnover than you anticipate.

Another problem is that the bank may be afraid of having you as a client because you fall into the category of undesirable customers. None of the well-established banks with good international reputation would ever wish to provide service to a criminal. Every bank has its own perception of troublesome business and relevant technical procedures assisting its managers to detect potentially unreliable clients. It might happen that the country of your citizenship, residence or domicile, jurisdiction of incorporation of your company or type of your business are black-listed by that bank.

Some clients fail to provide the bank with the right image of their business in general. You may simply be inaccurate and make a typo here and there, in the telephone number or address details, and that's it, you look suspect to the bank's compliance manager. Sometimes the reason lies deeper. You overdo trying to keep your privacy. You tend to tell the bank as less as possible. The result is the bank doesn't get a sufficient picture to be sure no problems will follow you. Most banks prefer to brush aside any suspicious client rather than engage in investigation because in case of mistake they might easily get more troubles than benefits. To avoid this situation do your best to make your business reality transparent enough for the bank to make a positive decision.

All these and other issues of that type can normally be avoided should you have a quality preliminary consultation with a professional independent advisor.

You have been reading an entry on the following blog:

Offshore Advisor
Mary Cleo of Offshore Advisor - all about business off shore
Mary is a consultant and blogger at Offshore Advisor - free online consultancy on offshore services covering asset protection, offshore banking, second citizenship and more. Contact Mary via mary@isla-offshore.com.

Migrant Money Remittances help to boost Real Estate in Emerging Markets

2008-07-21T09:16:00.000-07:00

According to www.iamtn.org, migration patterns have been shifting and along with them, the financial impact of remittances is leaving its trail. This money trail now follows the migrants moving from one developing country to another. One of the largest impacts of this migration pattern is on real estate. A recent report 'Global Demographics 2008' by Urban Land Institute, partly sponsored by Deloitte LLP, suggests that "global remittances from immigrants to their families support residential and retail developments in their countries of origin". Firstly, one of the first priorities for a remittance recipient is to spend on housing, leading to growth in real estate markets in 'receive' countries. A blue-collar worker from rural southern India sends money from the Middle East to his wife, two children and widowed mother; his wife says, "We have been saving the amount he sends us to build a home on the outskirts of a nearby urban area."

Second, the growing number of white-collar expatriates demands high quality residential realty in 'send' markets. Even at the lower level, migrant influx translates to housing and retail space demand. Global Demographics 2008 suggests that "increasingly, migrants gravitate towards large, urban areas". Already, the price of real estate in growing urban pockets of several developing nations is starting to climb. The report claims that "new migration patterns" are amongst the key factors that shape the future of real estate internationally.

Says Lady Olga Maitland, CEO, IAMTN, "We are well aware of the impact on real estate, and this is set to grow. In some countries it plays a more significant role than others. In Nigeria, 40% of the remittances go to building a home. Broadly remittances are prioritized into first sustenance; food then health, education, house building and finally a family business."

Less regulation in the case of SEC?

2008-07-17T20:50:00.000-07:00

U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission member Paul Atkins recently co-wrote an article claiming that enforcement issues are so egregious that the SEC needs to set up an independent review panel. The last time the SEC had one was 36 years ago.

These are excerps from the article:

Financial markets and their regulatory landscape have changed markedly in the past three and a half decades since an independent panel reviewed the SEC's enforcement program. It is time to convene a similar panel to bring the program up to date. The Division of Enforcement of the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission has a proud history and many dedicated attorneys, accountants and other staff. Thirty-six years after its creation, the Enforcement Division is larger, stronger and more visible than anyone at the time could have imagined.

In the 36 years since the Wells Committee set out its recommendations, financial markets have changed tremendously, and corporate scandals have rocked both Wall Street and Main Street. In response, Congress gave the SEC significantly more enforcement authority, much of it penal in nature. The SEC now can impose multimillion-dollar penalties against corporations and individuals, bar individuals from serving as officers and directors of corporations, and prevent professionals such as accountants and securities lawyers from practicing before the SEC. Some believe that in exercising these new punitive powers, the SEC has shifted its focus without adjusting its due process protections along the way. It is time for the commission to convene a new advisory committee, in a spirit similar to that of the Wells Committee, to conduct an independent review of the SEC's enforcement program and to recommend any needed changes to modernize enforcement practices. As the Wells Committee did, this new committee also should examine whether the SEC is taking appropriate steps to protect the rights of defendants and to provide appropriate due process. Although much has changed since the original Wells Committee did its work, the same philosophical and practical concerns exist today. Therefore, the new advisory committee could adopt essentially the same mandate as that of the Wells Committee in 1972.

Among the many issues that would fall under this broad mandate would be the implementation of mechanisms to provide more efficacy, predictability and transparency to the enforcement program. As an agency tasked with enforcing laws and regulations mandating transparency, the SEC itself must provide transparency to the public in its enforcement practices. Predictability and transparency provide for a fair process that respects the rights of all parties involved and ensures adherence to the rule of law.

The SEC is governed by a five-member commission, each of whom is appointed by the president with Senate confirmation. The commission delegates to the career staff investigative authority, but the commission retains the decision by majority vote to issue subpoenas and to sue defendants or settle with them. The most important Wells Committee recommendation was that the enforcement staff should give notice to a prospective defendant of the potential charges to be asserted against him before the enforcement division seeks authority from the commission to sue. This policy change was a key protection of due process, and gave a defendant the ability to defend himself on the basis of facts and the law. Thus, the formal defense submission in response to the notice came to be known as a "Wells Submission." Often, the facts uncovered in investigations indicate that no action should be taken against a potential defendant, or a Wells Submission may be persuasive in arguing against an action. Sometimes, however, institutional and other factors may make it difficult to drop a matter altogether. The ability of the Enforcement Division to recommend that no action be taken in a particular matter based on the facts and law should be encouraged and institutionalized. This will require a re-evaluation of the incentives for bringing actions and obtaining penalties, such as through promotions, awards and public recognition of SEC staff. An evaluation system should focus on rewarding high-quality efforts and professionalism regardless of the outcome of particular actions. In some instances, exercising discretion may not be appropriate. There should not be institutional encouragement for using discretion to formulate theories of liability that overstep the boundaries of existing law.
Standards are set through the legislative process in Congress and through the SEC's rule-making process; it is not the function of the Enforcement Division. Rule making through enforcement violates the fundamental principles of due process that Congress established in the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires regulatory agencies to give notice and seek (and respond to) comment from the public before adopting or changing rules. In the recent past, federal courts have nullified various SEC rule-making attempts because the agency did not follow proper procedure or overstepped its authority in adopting rules.

The U.S. General Accountability Office in 2007 strongly criticized the Enforcement Division for not promptly closing investigations at their conclusion. When the commission or its staff determines that an investigation should be closed or action is not warranted, the agency should promptly send a closing letter, not only to those who have made a Wells Submission but also to any significant nonparty who has been involved in the investigation. The advisory committee also should consider bolstering the Wells Submission process by permitting a proposed defendant to appear before the commission to oppose the initiation of an enforcement proceeding. Although it would be both unnecessary and unmanageable to allow such an "oral Wells Submission" in every matter, it may be beneficial to both the commission and proposed defendants for the commission to have a discretionary avenue to hear from proposed defendants prior to taking action, particularly in complex cases or those in which character assessment is important. A review of the enforcement process would not be complete without a review of the costs to parties responding to an investigation. The SEC must ensure that its investigations and enforcement actions do not impose unnecessary costs. Overly broad subpoenas or document or interview requests add to a responding entity's costs--and not every responding entity becomes a defendant. Compliance with notices to preserve--and subsequent requests to produce--electronic data, including e-mails, voice mails and server backup tapes, is undeniably burdensome and can be very expensive.

It is critical for the SEC to have certain electronic data, but preservation notices and requests for their production are often generic and extend well beyond the boundaries of an existing investigation. The new advisory committee should recommend ways to minimize costs while still ensuring that the SEC can get the information it needs for its investigations. With respect to enforcement policies, the advisory committee should examine the usage, effects, amount and appropriateness of corporate penalties in financial fraud cases, to determine if they are consistent with the SEC's mission to protect investors; maintain fair, orderly and efficient capital markets; and facilitate capital formation.

When evaluating the use of penalties against issuers of securities in financial fraud cases, the advisory committee should, for example, ask, Do penalties protect investors? Do they harm or benefit shareholders? Is the circularity of "Fair Fund" penalty distributions (the company pays--meaning, in effect, the shareholders pay--a penalty, which is put into a fund and then distributed to the company's shareholders) consistent with ensuring fair, orderly and efficient capital markets? Is capital formation impeded by the threat of large, unpredictable issuer penalties? Do we create a moral hazard if we permit officers of companies to agree to a large corporate penalty to avoid or soften actions against culpable individuals? Are individuals deterred from wrongdoing if they expect that shareholders will pay the penalties for the misconduct? And, most important, does the prospect of large issuer penalties and the inevitable press coverage cause the SEC to misallocate resources to use the government's power to pursue weaker cases to the detriment of other types of enforcement actions?.

But thigs may are not giving the reason to Mr. Atkins. The SEC is getting into the act as well with its “emergency order” restricting short trading — not in general, but specifically in the shares in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both of whom are protectorates of the federal government anyway. The SEC’s supposed target is “unlawful manipulation,” which is illegal.

All this in a not very serious maner. Normally in a functioning democracy, lawmakers and federal agencies craft rules through a deliberative process, and those rules apply prospectively across the board. When the government acts through orders rather than legislation or established administrative procedurees to identify emergencies and bogey men, and then seeks to outlaw their practices with hastily drafted decrees — well, that’s when the market makers, who depend on freedom and the established rule of law, should start to worry.

Paul S. Atkins is a commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Bradley J. Bondi is legal counsel and policy adviser to Commissioner Atkins. Their article is extracted from “Evaluating the Mission: A Critical Review Of The History And Evolution Of The SEC Enforcement Program,” first published in the Fordham Journal of Corporate and Financial Law.

Lack of preparedness for the European Payment Services Directive

2008-07-17T20:16:00.000-07:00

A recent IAMTN survey of money service businesses shows a serious lack of preparedness for the implementation of the European Payment Services Directive which comes into force in November 2009 - just 16 months away. Despite the fact that the Payment Services Directive which will impact on all those financial services providing money transfer facilities, IAMTN survey shows that companies have not got to grips with the changes which will impact on their business. The IAMTN response is similar to a survey put out by PSE Consulting exclusively to banks.

Addressing a conference organized by Sidley Austin on the European Payments Services Directive, Lady Olga Maitland, CEO, IAMTN said "Our findings are worrying for the money service sector. Most companies we found have chosen to ignore the changes or make any preparation at all - despite being only 16 months away from the deadline. Bearing in mind that the PSD will have a beneficial effect on the money service sector; giving them a level playing field with banks in Europe - and a great opportunity for both themselves and their customers, it is interesting to note how little attention has been paid to changes which will undoubtedly change the way they operate. "Indeed we found, as indeed did PSE in their survey, that the vast majority of businesses and banks are light years away from preparedness. This will cause massive last minute problems for them."

The Payment Services Directive was approved by the European Parliament in December 2007. Charlie McCreevy, the European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Services, described its objectives as 'generating more competition' providing a simple, harmonized set of rule and ensuring a high level of consumer protection." The PSD will have a revolutionary effect on the legal framework between banks and their customers setting stringent rules for information disclosure, conduct of business rules and service provision. It addition it introduces a new lightly regulated licensed entity called a 'Payments Institution' which may allow non-banks ie. Money service businesses etc to join the bankers' payment schemes and associations across the European Union. It could be said that the money service sector and banks are into new territory. They are unused to implementing prescriptive legislation from the EU. As a consequence smaller institutions appear to be unaware of the potential impact of the PSD on their customers and operations.

While the major international institutions expect to be ready by November 1st, 2009, substantial concerns have appeared for the lack of readiness by smaller banks - let alone the money service businesses. "What was interesting in our survey were those who did NOT respond when it was in their interests for their businesses to take advantage of the new opportunities. Lack of awareness of the changes ahead, like it or not, have not hit them. Among those who did respond, they had a moderate understanding of the changes. Most felt that the impact would be modest. Interestingly it was the small and medium sized businesses who felt that the PSD would be implemented on time. The major institutions did not."

The Majority of respondents to our questionnaire who are more aware than most, admitted they have not yet made any effort to prepare for the changes. Others are keeping their heads down and waiting for the implementation by national governments. Only 11% had made an impact assessment and of that only 7% had agreed a budget for implementation. The others had not got started. As a result they had not consulted with third party providers who would also be involved, ie. The software companies, agency banks, agents and so on. For those who had given some thought, they felt that the greatest effort will fall on adjusting the IT, and updating the terms and conditions. Interestingly we should recall the Capgemini World Payments Report 2007 who also lamented lack of preparedness. But in addition they pointed out that the greatest beneficiaries would be the card sector. They anticipated that by 2012 44% of all non-cash transactions in Europe will be via cards - to the point that Europe needs a 'any card at any terminal solution. Costs. Most believe it will not be that bad.

Banks though are fearful. According to PSE Consulting over 40% of banks surveyed believe that implementation will cost them more than 10m Euros and almost 25% believe it will cost over 50mEuros. Significantly nearly 60% of the banks surveyed do not believe there will be any benefits. Broadly though there is a positive feel about the opportunities. Indeed 61% in the IAMTN survey said there would be a revenue benefit. If there is a wind of change, it will affect the banks the most, who face highly competitive, agile and innovative money service business competition."

US Investigations about Tax Haven Banks

2008-07-14T01:41:00.000-07:00

on 17 July, the Subcommittee on Investigations of the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will hold a hearing titled Tax Haven Banks and U. S. Tax Compliance. According to descriptive blurb on the committee web site, “The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations hearing will examine how financial institutions located in offshore tax havens, including Liechtenstein and Switzerland, may be engaged in banking practices that could facilitate, and in some instances have resulted in, tax evasion and other misconduct by U.S. clients. The hearing will also examine how U.S. domestic and international tax enforcement efforts could be strengthened. The Subcommittee expects to issue a Subcommittee staff report in conjunction with the hearing summarizing its investigative findings. A witness list will be available Monday, July 14, 2008.”

Les paradis fiscaux pour la France

2008-07-14T01:20:00.000-07:00

A un article de Le Monde, bien qu'ils soient très régulièrement fustigés, les paradis fiscaux sont aujourd'hui tout sauf des places financières marginales. La mondialisation aidant, ils sont devenus l'un des piliers de la finance mondiale et des milliards de milliards de dollars y transitent chaque année.

Tout circule via les paradis fiscaux : de l'argent propre, sale, des sommes provenant de l'évasion fiscale... Et après les avoir laissés prospérer, les grandes puissances économiques s'inquiètent aujourd'hui de leur essor. A la suite des attentats du 11-Septembre, les Etats-Unis ont réalisé que l'argent du terrorisme y avait en partie transité. Ces derniers mois, plusieurs scandales sont aussi venus démontrer comment ces places favorisaient la fraude fiscale à grande échelle, comme au Liechtenstein, où il a été découvert que plus d'un millier d'Occidentaux - dont 200 Français - y avaient placé leur pécule.

La France est un des principaux pourfendeurs de ces places
Officiellement, il n'existe aucune évaluation de la fraude fiscale réalisée aux dépens de la France via les places offshore. Seul le montant total de la fraude sous toutes ses formes est connu : 29 à 40 milliards d'euros, en 2007, selon le Conseil des prélèvements obligatoires. Malgré tout, ces montants astronomiques ont fait de l'Hexagone un des principaux pourfendeurs des paradis fiscaux.

Aujourd'hui, à Bercy, le dossier est encore plus pris à coeur depuis le scandale du Liechtenstein, au mois de février.

Le 2 avril, un rapport sur la lutte contre la fraude et l'évasion fiscale a donc été présenté. Il prévoit notamment de profiter de la présidence française de l'Union européenne, qui a débuté le 1er juillet, pour lancer un projet de plate-forme de lutte contre la fraude à la TVA : Eurofisc. Bercy souhaite aussi, d'ici à la fin de l'année, octroyer aux agents des impôts des pouvoirs de police judiciaire. A l'avenir, ils pourraient ainsi, sous la tutelle d'un juge, être autorisés à effectuer des perquisitions chez les contribuables fraudeurs.

Lors du sommet du G8 d'Hokkaido au Japon, du lundi 7 au mercredi 9 juin, les paradis fiscaux vont faire partie des grands sujets abordés.

Qu'est-ce qu'un paradis fiscal ? L'imaginaire collectif résume volontiers les paradis fiscaux à des îles dorées, dont la fiscalité est au moins aussi attractive que les cocotiers. C'est parfois le cas, mais c'est souvent plus subtil.

Il n'existe pas de définition unique. Christian Chavagneux et Ronen Palan, auteurs des Paradis fiscaux (La Découverte, 2007, 122 pages, 8,50 euros), distinguent dix critères pour identifier ce type de place. Parmi eux : une taxation faible ou nulle pour les non-résidents, un secret bancaire renforcé, des procédures d'enregistrement souples pour les entreprises qui désirent s'y installer... La variété des définitions engendre de facto des listes plus ou moins longues de paradis fiscaux.

Légal ou pas légal ? Instaurer un régime fiscal attractif n'est pas illégal en soi. Ce sont les types de capitaux attirés qui suscitent généralement les critiques ou la suspicion, car une part non négligeable de l'argent circulant dans les paradis fiscaux correspond à de l'évasion fiscale. Dans une moindre mesure, les criminels utilisent aussi ces places pour blanchir les sommes illégalement gagnées.

Les "paradis" se sont souvent dotés d'un régime fiscal avantageux pour développer un territoire sans ressources, sans industrie, et souvent isolé (Bahamas, Andorre...). Pour certains pays comme la Suisse ou Singapour, c'est le résultat d'un pari stratégique qui consiste à baser l'essentiel de leur développement économique sur "l'industrie de la finance".
C
omment sont-ils nés ? Ils sont apparus dans les années 1880, aux Etats-Unis. A l'époque, les Etats du New Jersey et du Delaware jalousaient New York et le Massachusetts qui concentraient la plupart des sièges sociaux des entreprises et enregistraient, en conséquence, de fortes rentrées fiscales. Pour les concurrencer, le New Jersey a instauré une législation plafonnant l'impôt sur les sociétés. En 1898, le Delaware a fait de même. Aujourd'hui, selon MM. Chavagneux et Palan, "la moitié des entreprises américaines cotées en Bourse ont leur siège social dans le Delaware".

Dans les années 1920, suite à des différends commerciaux, des juges britanniques ont considéré qu'une entreprise anglaise installée à l'étranger et faisant affaire hors du Royaume-Uni ne devait pas être assujettie à l'impôt anglais. Le principe de résidence fictive pour raison fiscale a alors de facto été créé. L'instauration par la Suisse, en 1934, d'une loi punissant pénalement la violation du secret bancaire a parachevé les principes qu'imitent aujourd'hui de nombreuses places.
La première vague de création de paradis fiscaux a eu lieu dans les années 1930. C'est à cette époque, par exemple, que se développent le Liechtenstein ou Gibraltar. La deuxième remonte aux années 1960. Leur expansion est allée de pair avec la mondialisation. Le phénomène se poursuit aujourd'hui, particulièrement en Asie, avec l'essor de Singapour, pays devenu une sorte de "Suisse asiatique"...

Pour ou contre les paradis fiscaux ? Depuis 2002, l'Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques (OCDE) a lancé un vaste programme - le Forum mondial pour la fiscalité - visant à instaurer une "équité et une concurrence loyale" en matière fiscale. A terme, le but est d'obliger les paradis fiscaux, par la négociation, à limiter leur "dumping fiscal". Pour de nombreuses associations, comme le réseau Tax Justice, et les grands argentiers de tout bord, les paradis fiscaux constituent - en plus d'un risque criminel - une vaste incitation à l'évasion fiscale, et donc un manque à gagner pour les Etats. Toutefois, la démarche de l'OCDE ne les satisfait pas toujours, car jugée par certains trop "diplomatique".

Pour de nombreux libéraux, l'action de l'OCDE est au contraire une ingérence inacceptable dans les affaires des pays concernés, voire une forme de "néocolonialisme". Ils estiment que la concurrence fiscale est saine et que les paradis fiscaux ne devraient pas être tenus d'amender leur législation. A leurs yeux, le secret bancaire relève du droit au respect de la vie privée. Ils minimisent les aspects criminogènes, et considèrent que les richesses dégagées par les paradis fiscaux sont, à leur manière, des sources de croissance.

Combien pèsent-ils ? Rares sont les données officielles sur le poids économique des paradis fiscaux. Ils communiquent peu sur les flux qui transitent chez eux, et lorsque certains le font, les experts considèrent que leurs données sont peu fiables. Il faut alors s'en remettre aux estimations régulièrement réalisées par la Banque des règlements internationaux (BRI), la Conférence des Nations unies sur le commerce et le développement (Cnuced), des cabinets d'audit ou des chercheurs. Ces études, forcément approximatives, donnent cependant une idée de l'importance des montants financiers en jeu : des milliards de milliards de dollars.
Les poids économiques des paradis fiscaux sont très variables. Certains ont leur spécialité. Les Bahamas sont le domicile privilégié des fonds spécialisés, la Suisse est en tête pour la gestion de fortune...

Peut-on lever leur secret bancaire ? Au nom du "respect de la vie privée", la plupart des paradis fiscaux ont mis en place un secret bancaire renforcé. Les menaces américaines de rétorsion, lancées après les attentats du 11-Septembre, ont toutefois amené la plupart des places offshore à lever leur secret bancaire en cas d'enquêtes pénales (avec plus ou moins de restrictions). Il s'agissait ainsi de disparaître de listes noires internationales, préjudiciables à leur réputation.

Aujourd'hui, l'OCDE incite les paradis fiscaux à signer le plus grand nombre possible de "conventions d'échange de renseignements", accords bilatéraux entre un paradis fiscal et un pays sur les conditions de levée du secret bancaire. Mais certains pays, comme les Bahamas, n'en ont signé qu'une seule, avec les Etats-Unis, leur plus gros client. Même chose pour Monaco avec la France. D'autres ont paraphé quantité de conventions, mais les conditions pour lever le secret bancaire sont très restreintes. Ainsi, Singapour en a signé avec 53 pays, mais n'autorise l'échange de renseignements que si un "intérêt fiscal national" est en jeu. Soit pratiquement jamais.
Les paradis fiscaux continuent donc de recourir à des artifices pour préserver la confidentialité de leur clientèle : c'est la clé de leur succès. Et, dans certains paradis fiscaux comme la Suisse, l'évasion fiscale n'est pas considérée comme un délit. Aussi refusent-ils de communiquer toute information, en cas d'enquêtes fiscales.

Quelle est la position de l'Union européenne ? L'UE a adopté en 2005 une directive imposant l'échange d'informations fiscales entre ses Etats membres. Cependant, une clause permet aux pays le désirant de ne pas s'y soumettre : auquel cas, les fonds déposés par des non-résidents doivent êtres taxés à hauteur de 25 % (35 % à partir de 2011). La plupart des paradis fiscaux européens (Luxembourg, Belgique, Autriche...) ont préféré taxer les revenus de l'épargne plutôt que de lever leur secret bancaire. Le Liechtenstein, qui a adopté ce texte, a en outre réussi à exempter de cette règle toutes ses "fondations", structures opaques sur lesquelles repose l'essentiel de son attractivité.

Comment les entreprises les utilisent-ils ? La plupart des banques possèdent des filiales dans les paradis fiscaux, de façon légale. En principe, tous les bénéfices dégagés dans ces places sont donc déclarés à leur pays d'origine. Mais, selon les détracteurs des paradis fiscaux, ces banques, malgré les précautions qu'elles peuvent prendre, contribuent à la circulation de capitaux d'origine douteuse via leurs filiales. De nombreuses grandes entreprises ou fortunes individuelles ont aussi recours aux paradis fiscaux dans le cadre des savants montages juridiques d'optimisation fiscale. Totalement légales, ces pratiques sont cependant très critiquées.

"White list" EU Money Laundering compliance questioned

2008-07-13T16:55:00.000-07:00

A “White paper” prepared by BakerPlatt examines the exclusion of Jersey from the latest EU White List of Equivalent jurisdictions.

Stephen Platt , specialist lawyer in the field of money laundering and financial service regulation has questioned the validity of the European Union’s "white list" of countries whose money laundering controls are considered to be equal to the EU member states.

He asks how countries such as Russia, Argentina and Mexico can make the list and points out that Australia and Canada, also on the list, are regarded as less than 25 per cent compliant by the standards set by the Financial Action Task Force into money laundering controls.

The White Paper is based on detailed analysis of the compliance of those countries with international standards that made the EU White List. The white list countries are seen as having a higher level of control than leading offshore finance jurisdictions, a conclusion Mr Platt describes as bewildering. He questions why countries that fall behind recognized international standards are on the list, while other finance centers are not.

The firm says that “given that the EU recently announced that it is to pursue infringement measures against 15 of its member states for failing to implement the Third Money Laundering Directive into national law, the EU would perhaps be better placed to give a jurisdiction such as Jersey the recognition it deserves, and the role model some of its member states appear to need, as the leader in the field of anti money laundering.”

His firm conducted comparisons between Jersey - which was not included on the list and yet was 76 per cent compliant at the time of the last IMF assessment of the Island in 2003 - and five countries which were included: Australia (24 per cent), Canada (14 per cent), Singapore (23 per cent), Switzerland (22 per cent) and USA (31 per cent) which are nowhere near the compliance standards reached by Jersey.

Analysts suggest that the exclusion of the Crown Dependencies from the white list has been politically motivated, in an attempt to prevent them from competing fairly with EU member states.

The analysis is being utilized by the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners (STEP) in its submissions to the UK Treasury Select Committee.

The Global Financial Centres Index do not include Panama

2008-07-13T16:17:00.000-07:00

The Global Financial Centres Index (GFCI), commissioned by The City of London, was first published in March 2007 to produce an indicative rating of the competitiveness of each major financial centre in the world. The GFCI enables financial centres to be ranked against each other
and identifies the changing priorities and concerns of finance professionals. This report, the second in the series, includes updates to the external indices used in the GFCI model and changes reflecting the perceptions of financial services professionals. It rates the competitiveness of the world’s top 50 financial centres. With surprise, Panama is not included, neither Bermuda. Of course, Cayman Islands are included.

The report ranks London and New York as the only two truly global financial centres, well ahead of the two Asian centres of Hong Kong (3rd place) and Singapore (4th place). Zurich is in 5th place; just ahead of Frankfurt.

Since the first edition of the GFCI in March 2007, London has maintained its slight lead over New York in all five areas of competitiveness – people, business environment, market access, infrastructure and general competitiveness. Regulation and tax continue to be seen as the most important determinant of a financial centre’s overall competitiveness. But the tax environment in the UK has deteriorated since the report was published.

Transport and infrastructure are flagged alongside skills as critical indicators of competitiveness. GFCI 2 highlights growing concerns over London’s crumbling infrastructure, with many survey respondents pointing out that failure to address overcrowding, high prices, delays and complexity in the system are already tarnishing London’s reputation.

GFCI 2 shows niche centres such as Zurich and Geneva flexing their muscle; Geneva (now 7th) has shot up the rankings to step on the heels of Frankfurt. It is clear that private banking and asset management continue to thrive in current markets.

The GFCI is designed to track the changing fortunes and perceptions of financial centres. Performance of Asian markets saw Hong Kong and Singapore remain the main contenders to attain status as a global financial centre.Shanghai (30th), Beijing (39th) and Mumbai (41st) have all lost ground in the GFCI rankings, although along with Dubai and Moscow they were named as the top candidates likely to pack a business punch in the next 2-3 years. Future GFCI reports will pay particular attention to the fortunes of Beijing and Shanghai, assessing the ability of the Chinese Government to provide a stable and competitive regulatory and economic environment.
Other key findings from the research include:

London, at that time, was attracts a greater proportion of foreign IPOs than New York and is contesting New York’s dominance in private equity and hedge funds (21% of global hedge funds are now managed in London)

Negative perceptions of the Sarbanes-Oxley impact are compounded by the propensity to litigation and high brokerage charges in New York

Despite high property costs in London (US$20,475 per workstation annually to NY’s US$14,355 per workstation) occupancy rates remain strong and there is a higher volume of real estate transactions in London than anywhere else.

The GFCI research is conducted by the Z/Yen Group Limited for the City of London Corporation. It uses additional data from PricewaterhouseCoopers and a survey of the industry to develop an index of competitiveness for 50 world financial centres, charting how they rate relative to each other.

The index brings together the results of online surveys completed by financial services leaders and 54 separate indices of competitiveness.

Why the threat of a free fall is growing

2008-07-13T07:51:00.000-07:00

The BusinessWeek cover story The Home Price Abyss: Why the threat of a free fall is growing. is very interesting. The core argument is that price declines could potentially feed on themselves. Big price declines make people unable to keep paying their mortgages (because their ARMs are resetting and the banks won’t refinance) or unwilling to keep paying their mortgages (because they see no point in throwing good money after bad). That drives up the foreclosure rate, which drives the prices of neighboring homes, adding to the downward spiral.We’re already seeing this happening in some of the markets with the worst price declines such as southern California, Nevada, Arizona, and southern Florida. The question is whether it could spread to more areas and become a national problem. One person which was quote in the story says that the taboo on walking away from your home and leaving the keys behind could be diminishing. He says that in commercial real estate it’s business as usual.

We would like to know what Banksit readers think about the idea of walking out on a mortgage.

Welcome to our blog!

2008-07-13T06:16:00.000-07:00

You are welcome to our blog about banks, investments and taxes worldwide. We hope you will enjoy this site.

SEC Finds Shortcomings in Credit Rating Agencies'

2008-07-08T21:09:00.000-07:00

The Securities and Exchange Commission today released findings from extensive 10-month examinations of three major credit rating agencies that uncovered significant weaknesses in ratings practices and the need for remedial action by the firms to provide meaningful ratings and the necessary levels of disclosure to investors.

Under new statutory authority from Congress that enabled the SEC to register and examine credit rating agencies, the agency's staff conducted examinations of Fitch Ratings Ltd., Moody's Investor Services Inc., and Standard & Poor's Ratings Services to evaluate whether they are adhering to their published methodologies for determining ratings and managing conflicts of interest. With the recent subprime market turmoil, the SEC has been particularly interested in the rating agencies' policies and practices in rating mortgage-backed securities and the impartiality of their ratings.

The SEC staff's examinations found that rating agencies struggled significantly with the increase in the number and complexity of subprime residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDO) deals since 2002. The examinations uncovered that none of the rating agencies examined had specific written comprehensive procedures for rating RMBS and CDOs. Furthermore, significant aspects of the rating process were not always disclosed or even documented by the firms, and conflicts of interest were not always managed appropriately.
"We've uncovered serious shortcomings at these firms, including a lack of disclosure to investors and the public, a lack of policies and procedures to manage the rating process, and insufficient attention to conflicts of interest," said SEC Chairman Christopher Cox. "When the firms didn't have enough staff to do the job right, they often cut corners. That's the bad news. There's also good news. And that's that the problems are being fixed in real time. The recent events affecting our economy and our markets have galvanized regulators around the world to re-examine the regulatory framework governing credit rating agencies, but ultimately the responsibility for providing meaningful ratings to investors begins with the credit rating firms themselves."

Lori Richards, Director of the SEC's Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, said, "These examinations found shortcomings in the ratings processes used by each of the firms examined. The firms have all agreed to implement broad reforms to address the letter and the spirit of the findings, to better ensure that investors can have confidence in their ratings."
The Summary Report of Issues Identified in the Commission Staff's Examinations of Select Credit Rating Agencies describes the significant weaknesses in the rating agencies' processes in rating subprime RMBS and CDOs linked to subprime residential mortgage-backed securities from January 2004 to the present.

Specifically, the examinations found:
- There was a substantial increase in the number and in the complexity of RMBS and CDO deals since 2002, and some of the rating agencies appear to have struggled with the growth.

- Significant aspects of the ratings process were not always disclosed.

- Policies and procedures for rating RMBS and CDOs can be better documented.

- The rating agencies are implementing new practices with respect to the information provided to them.

- The rating agencies did not always document significant steps in the ratings process - including the rationale for deviations from their models and for rating committee actions and decisions - and they did not always document significant participants in the ratings process.

- The surveillance processes used by the rating agencies appear to have been less robust than the processes used for initial ratings.

- Issues were identified in the management of conflicts of interest and improvements can be made.
- The rating agencies' internal audit processes varied significantly.

The examinations were conducted by staff in the SEC's Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, Division of Trading and Markets, and Office of Economic Analysis. The report summarizes generally the remedial actions that credit rating agencies are expected to take as a result of the examinations, and includes observations by the SEC's Office of Economic Analysis about conflicts of interest that are unique to these products. A factual summary of the models and methodologies used by the rating agencies is provided in the report to provide transparency to the ratings process and the activities of the rating agencies in connection with the recent subprime mortgage turmoil.

The SEC last month proposed a three-fold set of comprehensive reforms to regulate the conflicts of interests, disclosures, internal policies, and business practices of credit rating agencies. The first portion of rulemaking would address conflicts of interest in the credit ratings industry and require new disclosures designed to increase the transparency and accountability of credit ratings agencies. The second portion would require credit rating agencies to differentiate the ratings they issue on structured products from those they issue on bonds through the use of different symbols or by issuing a report disclosing the differences. The third part of the SEC's proposed rulemaking would clarify for investors the limits and purposes of credit ratings and ensure that the role assigned to ratings in SEC rules is consistent with the objectives of having investors make an independent judgment of credit risks.

UK HMRC lost in a case about European "tax havens"

2008-07-05T00:48:00.000-07:00

The UK government has lost a court battle of 6 years against Vodafone, in a failled effort to prevent companies using European tax havens. A UK judge ruled that Vodafone does not have to pay extra corporation tax on a Luxembourg-based subsidiary.

The UK HMRC has the right to appeal the decision, and if success for Vodafone, the ruling is likely to be closely watched by many other major multinational businesses with overseas subsidiaries, which are waiting the end of the case.

In an article about the case from The Guardian, it is remembered that the case centres around the Controlled Foreign Companies (CFC) legislation introduced in 1988 to try to claw back tax from companies with overseas businesses.

In the article, it was also remembered that two years ago the European court of justice ruled in a case involving Cadbury Schweppes that the legislation is restrictive and can only be justified where subsidiaries are set up artificially to gain a tax advantage. Today's high court judgment relates to the question of the compatibility of the CFC legislation with EU law rather than the facts of the Vodafone case. The judge said that as a result of the Cadbury ruling that no charge could be imposed on Vodafone, or any other company in the same position, under the 1988 legislation and parliament needs to rectify the situation with a new set of rules.

"In my judgement, the CFC legislation must be disapplied so that, pending amending legislation or executive action, no charge can be imposed on a company such as Vodafone under the CFC legislation".

"It seems to me that all UK taxpayers, including Vodafone, were and are entitled to be told by legislation, of which the meaning is plain, what the tax consequences for them will be if they decide to incorporate a controlled foreign company in a (EU) member state."

Vodafone Investments Luxembourg Sarl (VIL) was set up in 2000 as a vehicle for the holding of investments, and it is resident for tax purposes in Luxembourg.

2008-07-05T00:15:00.000-07:00

A new commission appointed by Norway will investigate ways of putting a stop to the huge flows of money into tax havens, reported Ips News . The commission, launched at the end of last June, includes a special advisor on corruption, as well as experts in the fields of international economics, anti-corruption, fund management, and development policy. Accordint to the publication, the tax havens can be very secretive, making them attractive for operators that want to avoid paying taxes to their home countries, as well as for those that want to hide away money gained through corruption. The surprise cames when, among the areas that have been labelled as tax havens, the publications highlight Andorra, Monaco, Gibraltar, Jersey, the Cayman Islands, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, as well as some parts of the financial system in London. It looks strange that Luxembourg, Netherlands and London, specially the last two, were labbeled as tax havens. Salvador Trinxet.

2008-07-04T00:40:00.000-07:00

The US Internal Revenue Service is to solicit the help of the world’s top accounting firms in its widening effort to clamp down on offshore tax evasion, acording to an article from financial times.

The IRS communicate with the six more importante accounting firms (Deloitte, Ernst & Young, KPMG, PwC, Grant Thornton, and BDO Seidman). The move comes amid the continuing investigation by US authorities into UBS Bank and whether the Swiss bank helped wealthy US clients avoid their tax obligations. The charges directs UBS to produce records identifying US taxpayers who held undeclared accounts between 2002 and 2007 with the bank and chose to have them hidden from the IRS.

Experts say that US authorities are taking advantage of the momentum provided by the UBS probe to increase overall enforcement of US tax compliance.

There are a US Qualified Intermediary program, which created an arrangement, from 2000, between banks and the US authorities allowing a degree of client confidentiality in return for the provision of certain client information. The US rules cover individuals but not companies, but at the end beneficial owners were individuals.

The IRS has greater assurance that taxes are properly withheld “because QIs agree to have external auditors perform oversight of their compliance with required procedures”, according to a 2007 report by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of the US Congress. But it also said: “Within their limited scope, auditors of QIs are not responsible for following up on possible indications of fraud or illegal acts.”

The IRS is being aggressive and taking a much tougher stance against this than in other cases of money offshore. The request for a so-called John Doe summons (the IRS uses such a summons to obtain information about possible tax fraud by people whose identities are unknown) to be served on a foreign bank is unprecedented, according to the US Department of Justice.

UBS said it “is working diligently with both Swiss and US government authorities, consistent with Swiss law and the legal frameworks for intergovernmental co-operation and assistance.”

It looks like the UBS case is part of a greater effort to ramp up enforcement of US tax compliance globally.

SEC Proposal to Reduce Reliance on Credit Ratings

2008-07-01T21:15:00.000-07:00

The Securities and Exchange Commission today published for public comment proposed rule changes to make the limits and purposes of credit ratings clear to investors and ensure that the role assigned to ratings in SEC rules is consistent with the objectives of having investors make an independent judgment of credit risks.

The Commission voted unanimously on June 25, 2008, to issue for public comment this third set of proposed recommendations to bring increased transparency to the credit ratings process and curb practices that contributed to recent turmoil in the credit markets. The Commission voted to propose the first two sets of recommendations on June 11, 2008.

"This action is designed to ensure that the role we assign to ratings in our rules is consistent with the objective of having investors make an independent judgment of the risks associated with a particular security," said SEC Chairman Christopher Cox. "It should be neither the purpose nor the effect of any SEC rule to discourage investors from paying close attention to what credit ratings actually mean."

Erik R. Sirri, Director of the SEC's Division of Trading and Markets, said, "These proposals complete the rulemaking initiative begun two weeks ago with respect to NRSROs. I believe the proposed amendments will further promote the Commission's goals of strengthening the ratings process by reducing any undue reliance on NRSRO ratings and by encouraging independent evaluation and analysis of credit risk."

John White, Director of the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance, added, "These proposals are an important step toward clarifying the appropriate role of credit ratings in investors' decisions about the securities in which they invest. Not only do the proposals establish new criteria, independent of ratings, for issuers to access our forms and utilize the shelf registration process, they do so in a manner that protects the interests of investors."

The Commission has reviewed the requirements in its rules and forms that rely on credit ratings. In many cases, it has concluded that such references can be removed or revised. These proposals also address recent recommendations issued by the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, the Financial Stability Forum, and the Technical Committee of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO). Consistent with these recommendations, the SEC has considered whether the inclusion of requirements related to ratings in its rules and forms has, in effect, placed an "official seal of approval" on ratings that could adversely affect the quality of due diligence and investment analysis. The SEC's proposal would reduce undue reliance on credit ratings and result in improvements in the analysis that underlies investment decisions.

Public comments on this third set of proposed rules should be received by the Commission no later than Sept. 5, 2008.

The proposing releases comprising this third set of rule proposals have been posted to the SEC Web site:
http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2008/34-58070.pdf
http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2008/33-8940.pdf
http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2008/ic-28327.pdf

La CE demande à la Hongrie de modifier ses dispositions fiscales discriminatoires concernant l'acquisition de propriétés à usage résidentiel

2008-06-29T18:49:00.000-07:00

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).

La CE demande au Portugal de mettre fin à la discrimination fiscale des contribuables non-résidents

2008-06-28T17:10:00.000-07:00

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.

Brazil, more tax sophisticated still

2008-06-28T00:07:00.000-07:00

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.

SEC Wants to Improve Regulation of Foreign Broker Activities in U.S.

2008-06-27T21:19:00.000-07:00

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.

CE exige a Portugal que ponha termo à tributação discriminatória dos contribuintes não residentes

2008-06-27T16:59:00.000-07:00

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.

The CE requests Hungary to amend discriminatory tax provisions relating to the purchase of residential property

2008-06-26T17:42:00.000-07:00

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.

EC requests Portugal to end discriminatory taxation of non-resident taxpayers

2008-06-26T17:06:00.000-07:00

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,.

SEC review how investors get information of public companies

2008-06-24T21:25:00.000-07:00

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.

UAE to improve anti money laundering regulations

2008-06-22T02:02:00.000-07:00

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”.

Private Equity hit in US and the Netherlands for tax issues

2008-06-18T02:17:00.000-07:00

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.

Experiencias en la compra de bienes raices en Panama

2008-06-14T13:00:00.000-07:00

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

SEC propose Internet comparison shopping of mutual funds

2008-05-21T21:30:00.000-07:00

The Securities and Exchange Commission today voted unanimously to formally propose that mutual fund investors get access to key information about fees, performance, and strategies through interactive data, which would permit comparison shopping among thousands of funds with all the ease of conducting an Internet search.

The SEC's proposal would require funds to label data in their public filings using computer tags similar to the bar codes that identify products at stores or packages in the mail. The labeling would allow investors to instantly access and compare investment objectives and strategies, risks, performance, and costs for more than 8,000 mutual funds at the click of a mouse.

"This exciting new technology will enable investors to instantly analyze and compare not just two or three mutual funds, but hundreds or even thousands, and to quickly focus on the particular funds that are right for them," said SEC Chairman Christopher Cox. "Investors will no longer need to wade through lengthy documents to find the relevant details needed to compare funds one at a time."

Andrew J. Donohue, Director of the SEC's Division of Investment Management, said, "This proposal would, if adopted, create an interactive database of key mutual fund information that will enable investors to more easily analyze and compare cost, performance, and other key information across the more than 8,000 available mutual funds. Together with the Commission's recently proposed summary prospectus, this proposal has the potential to transform information access for mutual fund investors."

Mutual funds already have been submitting information to the SEC in interactive data format on a voluntary basis. The SEC's rule proposal would require all mutual funds to provide data-tagged information beginning with registration statement filings that become effective after Dec. 31, 2009. A mutual fund also would be required to post the interactive data on its Web site, if it maintains one.

Mutual funds seeking a head start on data tagging can participate in the SEC's voluntary program for the submission of interactive data. More information is available at: http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/xbrl.shtml. When the SEC's interactive data pilot program began in 2005, it initially covered the financial statements of corporate filers. The program was expanded to cover key mutual fund information in August 2007.

Investors can give mutual fund interactive data a "test drive" by using the Mutual Fund Reader on the SEC Web site to analyze and compare visual charts and graphs of key mutual fund information that has been voluntarily submitted using data tags.

Last week, the SEC proposed a similar rule to help investors by requiring public companies to provide financial information using interactive data beginning next year for the largest companies and within three years for all public companies.

Public comment on the SEC's proposed rule should be received by the Commission no later than August 1.

SEC proposes provide new technology to investor

2008-05-14T21:37:00.000-07:00

The Securities and Exchange Commission today voted unanimously to formally propose using new technology to get important information to investors faster, more reliably, and at a lower cost.

At the center of the SEC proposal is "interactive data" — computer "tags" similar in function to bar codes used to identify groceries and shipped packages. The interactive data tags uniquely identify individual items in a company's financial statement so they can be easily searched on the Internet, downloaded into spreadsheets, reorganized in databases, and put to any number of other comparative and analytical uses by investors, analysts, and journalists.

The proposed rule would require all U.S. companies to provide financial information using interactive data beginning next year for the largest companies, and within three years for all public companies.

"This is all about bringing investors better, faster, more meaningful information about the companies they own," said SEC Chairman Christopher Cox. "It would transform financial disclosure from a 1930s form-based system to a truly 21st century model that taps the power of technology for the benefit of investors."

John White, Director of the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance, said, "These steps will represent real progress, both for SEC filers and investors. All of the technology is coming together to make electronic filing a true analytical tool. The staff has gathered valuable experience during the almost three years that public companies have been submitting interactive data in our voluntary filer program. This helps give us a strong foundation for moving forward."

Conrad Hewitt, the SEC's Chief Accountant, said, "Accounting is the business language of the world, and interactive data will become an easy and reliable technology to improve that language worldwide, just like many other tools available on the Internet. The SEC's Advisory Committee on Improvements to Financial Reporting has been studying the benefits of interactive data and has proposed that the Commission proceed with a mandatory adoption schedule. Over the long term, preparers are expected to benefit through better internal management information and applications, and investors will benefit with improved analytical methods to analyze financial information."

Corey Booth, SEC Chief Information Officer, said, "Interactive data represents the logical next step in the evolution of company disclosure, just as HTML and Internet access were the next logical step a decade ago. And like a decade ago, this move will usher in a quantum leap in helping companies explain their business to investors."

David M. Blaszkowsky, Director of the SEC's Office of Interactive Disclosure, said, "Information — meaningful, accurate, timely, easy-to-use financial reporting — always has been the driver of commerce and markets. This proposal provides the critical regulatory framework by which interactive data will make financial reporting more easily and quickly available, and help transform the relationship between filer and investor."

Since 2005, companies have voluntarily submitted to the SEC financial information in interactive data format. The rules proposed today would require companies to provide this information according to a phase-in schedule.

The SEC's proposed schedule would require companies using U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles with a worldwide public float over $5 billion (approximately the 500 largest companies) to make financial disclosures using interactive data formatted in eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) for fiscal periods ending in late 2008. If adopted, the first interactive data provided under the new rules would be made public in early 2009. The remaining companies using U.S. GAAP would provide this disclosure over the following two years. Companies using International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board would provide this disclosure for fiscal periods ending in late 2010. The disclosure would be provided as additional exhibits to annual and quarterly reports and registration statements. Companies also would be required to post this information on their websites.

The required tagged disclosures would include companies' primary financial statements, notes, and financial statement schedules. Initially, companies would tag notes and schedules as blocks of text, and a year later, they would provide tags for the details within the notes and schedules.

Companies filing under the proposed rule that use U.S. GAAP will use upgraded data tags issued April 28, 2008, by XBRL US, Inc. that were developed based on U.S. GAAP and on the review of hundreds of actual SEC filings. The SEC's EDGAR system will accept test filings using a February 11 version of these tags later this month, with the final April 28 version of the tags becoming usable in June. In addition, an interim system is expected to be announced shortly that will enable companies immediately to provide interactive data submissions to the SEC using the April 28 version of the tags.

The SEC has had an interactive data pilot program for three years, beginning in 2005. It covered the financial statements of corporate filers. In addition, the SEC began an interactive data filing program for mutual fund risk return information in August 2007. Also last year, the SEC created an online database tagging executive compensation data for 500 large companies. Filers seeking a head start on data tagging are invited to formally join these SEC voluntary filing programs or informally practice with the new data tags.

More information is available at http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/xbrl.shtml.

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

2008-05-12T19:42:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008-05-09T21:27:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008-05-07T18:55:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008-05-06T21:11:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008-05-04T21:39:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

La CE adopta medidas contra España en relación con la BI del IVA en las permutas

2008-04-05T21:34:00.000-07:00

La Comisión Europea ha solicitado formalmente a España que adapte a las disposiciones de la Directiva IVA sus prácticas administrativas en lo que respecta a la aplicación de ciertas normas de determinación de la base imponible del IVA en relación con operaciones de permuta. Esta solicitud se plasma en un dictamen motivado (segunda fase del procedimiento de infracción previsto en el artículo 226 del Tratado CE). De no adaptarse las citadas prácticas administrativas al Derecho comunitario en el plazo de dos meses para ajustarse al dictamen motivado, la Comisión podrá someter el asunto al Tribunal de Justicia.

La Comisión considera que algunas de las normas aplicadas en España para determinar la base imponible del IVA en las permutas (en particular, cuando la operación comporta la adquisición de un futuro inmueble) vulneran el Derecho comunitario.

En España, cuando un futuro inmueble, o parte del mismo, se vende y paga antes de finalizar su construcción, el IVA se aplica en el momento del pago, siendo la base imponible el importe efectivamente abonado. No se recauda IVA alguno posteriormente cuando, habiendo terminado la construcción, el edificio se entrega al comprador. Este procedimiento es conforme con lo dispuesto en la Directiva IVA.

Sin embargo, en idéntica situación, si el pago anticipado del edificio proyectado se efectúa en especie (por ejemplo, si el pago se efectúa mediante la entrega de un solar por el comprador del inmueble proyectado) la base imponible a efectos de IVA es distinta. En efecto, en tal caso:
- el IVA se recauda cuando se efectúa el pago anticipado, sobre la base del valor de mercado previsto del inmueble una vez que esté construido;
- si, una vez finalizada la construcción, el valor de mercado del inmueble es superior a lo previsto, debe procederse a una corrección de la base imponible calculada inicialmente y el comprador del inmueble debe pagar el IVA sobre la diferencia.

La Comisión entiende que el producto entregado es idéntico en ambos supuestos y que sólo el medio de pago difiere. De acuerdo con el Tribunal de Justicia de las Comunidades Europeas, el recurso a medios de pago distintos a la hora de adquirir un producto no puede generar obligaciones diferentes a efectos de IVA.

The EC proposes measures to tackle VAT fraud effectively

2008-03-19T21:43:00.000-07:00

The European Commission on 17th March this year adopted proposals for the amendment of the VAT Directive and the VAT Administrative Cooperation Regulation to speed up the collection and exchange of information on intra-Community transactions from 2010 onwards. This will enable the Member States to detect carousel fraud very quickly. The proposals follow on from the Communication on the improvement of administrative cooperation between Member States to improve the fight against VAT fraud. They are part of a range of legislative and administrative measures which have been, or are about to be, agreed in order to combat VAT fraud more effectively.

Intra-Community carousel VAT fraud occurs where a person liable for VAT who has acquired goods or services within the Community on which no VAT has been paid supplies these goods or services within the Community with VAT imposed but then ‘disappears’ without paying the VAT into the Exchequer.

Faster information exchanges
When an intra-Community transaction takes place, it currently takes between three and six months for information about that transaction to be sent to the Member State in which the VAT is due. Under the proposals for a Directive and a Regulation, this period will be reduced to between one and two months, thus enabling any fraud to be detected much faster.
With this in mind, the Commission proposes:
- harmonising and reducing to one month the period which persons liable to VAT have for declaring intra-Community transactions involving the supply of goods or services within the Community;
- reducing from three months to one month the period for transmission of this information between Member States;
- collecting information monthly on intra-Community purchases of goods or services where the buyer or customer is liable for VAT to make it easier to cross-check the data with that provided by suppliers. For this purpose, buyers or customers making transactions to a value of more than EUR 200 000 per calendar year will be obliged to submit their VAT declarations monthly. The threshold has been set at this level to avoid imposing extra obligations on undertakings which make intra-Community acquisitions only occasionally or only for small amounts, while having regard to the significant amounts which fraud represents;
- simplifying the procedures for submitting declarations on intra-Community transactions in Member States in which these procedures are abnormally complex to reduce the burden which the procedures may impose on undertakings.

According to the various consultations carried out within the private sector, these measures will not impose an additional administrative burden on economic operators.

Other conventional measures under discussion
In addition to the proposals for a Directive and a Regulation, the Commission recently submitted several other conventional measures to the Member States’ tax authorities for consideration and for a decision. Some of these measures do not require any changes to EU legislation and can therefore be implemented quickly by the national authorities.

With effect from 2009, the department which checks the data on registration for VAT purposes on the Europa website will enable confirmation to be obtained of the name and address of trading partners established in other Member States and will issue personal consultation certificates.

This measure is intended to increase the legal certainty of operators acting in good faith and to enable the tax authorities to carry out more effective controls.

Considerable progress has also been made in discussions with the national authorities on the following points:

- automated access by all other Member States to certain non-sensitive data held by Member States on their own taxable persons (business sector, certain data concerning turnover, etc.),

- harmonisation of the procedures for the registration and de-registration of persons liable for VAT to ensure the swift detection and de-registration of fake taxable persons. The Expert Group is considering the introduction of minimum standards.