martes, 13 de enero de 2009
"Inseguridad jurídica para el IVA", articulo publicado el 12-01-2009 , por Luis de Ulíbarri, abogado de Hammonds, en Expansion (www.expansion.com):
No deja de ser sorprendente la postura de la Administración Tributaria respecto a los criterios “temporales” de valoración en las permutas de terrenos por edificaciones futuras.
Fue en en el mes de abril de 2008 cuando la Comisión Europea solicitó de manera formal a España que adaptase sus prácticas administrativas en lo que respecta a la determinación de la base imponible de este tipo de operaciones.
La Comisión Europea entendía que el valor de mercado debe ser considerado exclusivamente en el momento de la entrega del solar, siendo contraria a la Sexta Directiva la modificación de la base imponible del Impuesto sobre el Valor Añadido a posteriori, en el momento de la recepción de las construcciones, sobre la base de que la forma de pago (dineraria o en especie) no debe llevar a un resultado distinto en el ámbito del impuesto.
La Dirección General de Tributos, lejos de asimilar esta interpretación de la norma, ha venido justificando su doctrina en repetidas ocasiones, la última en Consulta Vinculante nº V2036-08, de 4 de noviembre.
Sus explicaciones resultan complejas, muy complejas, rozando el límite de lo ininteligible. Pero si dan respuesta a los sencillos planteamientos de la Comisión, es cuanto menos dudoso. “Excusatio non petita...” Esperemos que en algún momento el Tribunal de Justicia de las Comunidades Europeas (TJCE).
Por el momento, el panorama que se abría con la mencionada solicitud de Bruselas, con el criterio seguido actualmente en lo que respecta al Impuesto sobre Sociedades (ver Consulta V1225-08), y algunos comentarios vertidos en este sentido desde la Inspección, si bien de manera más oficiosa que oficial, se han visto truncados en la segunda mitad año.
Una vez más las directrices que gobiernan los distintos tributos en España resultan dispares ante los mismos hechos, y las demandas de Europa desoídas.
Cabría reflexionar si esta actitud, que no parece la mejor de cara a la seguridad jurídica del contribuyente, es un lujo que nos podemos permitir en un momento en que la inversión se hace más necesaria que nunca.
Confiemos que 2009 reconduzca la situación, y si no, que “al menos” nos saque de la crisis.
domingo, 4 de enero de 2009
There is an interesting article named "Privacy; a Necessity not a Luxury" posted by Corbett & Kish at its blog.
"The year was 1917 and the location was Latvia. A poor and mostly agrarian country in Northern Europe’s Baltic region bordered to the north by Estonia and to the south by Lithuania. My grandparents were children at the time. As the saying goes, “timing is everything,” and theirs could not have been much worse. The Bolshevik Revolution began in October that year starting in Petrograd (now St. Petersburg). It was quickly followed by another civil war - later to be coined the Russian Revolution - and spread throughout the various countries doomed to become possessions of the Soviet Union. It would be bloody and last until 1922. My great-grandfather became a casualty when a local preacher turned him in as a dissident and he was shot. Having personally witnessed this event, my grandfather would flee to the United States, leaving behind a world and relatives he would never see again. He met a woman, also of Latvian heritage, and together they started a new life.
Vladimir Lenin got his wish and rose to prominence, becoming Russia’s most powerful figure. Although Lenin’s post-revolutionary Soviet Union would forge much advancement – most notably education and industrial development - the cost would be enormous. The State was to become godlike. Human rights and the individual spirit were quashed. Citizens feared to even whisper dissent for Siberia, or worse would be a likely sentence. The seeds of the KGB had been sown, and privacy was altogether nonexistent.
History teaches us many lessons if we are only willing to pay attention. Perhaps none as profound and recurring as the importance of protecting an individual’s right to privacy which equates to civil liberties. It is impossible to live in peace and obtain true prosperity without privacy. The tragic events of 9/11/01 changed the landscape of human rights in the United States and throughout the world. If the truth be told, however, personal privacy was under attack long before that day. And while the right to privacy is not completely lost, it should give one pause that history is full of examples wherein these privileges become reduced under the guise of “national security”.
In recent years the same holds true; the inception of the Patriot Act in 2001 gave law enforcement agencies more authority to search the phone, email and financial records of some citizens while wiretaps and searches of suspected homes and businesses were made more accessible. International security measures that have inhibited the civil liberties of citizens include hidden cameras & microphones in public transportation areas like taxis and subway stations as well as roving taps, illegal search & seizures and more.
As recently as 2006, USA Today reported that The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth. The database is currently the largest ever collected, and, while it focuses mostly on international calls, either those ending or originating outside the U.S., it does keep track of domestically placed calls as well.The struggle to preserve essential human rights is a theme most recently tapped by Hollywood. In 2009, it is paying tribute to those individuals who stood against tyranny with films such as Tom Cruise’s “Valkyrie” or Daniel Craig’s “Defiance”.
While it remains to be seen the acclaim these films receive, the mere fact that Hollywood producers have allotted their production dollars to bring these true stories to the big screen further affirms the emotional connection we feel towards human rights and those who guard them.
In no way are we promoting civil disobedience, nor are we attempting to draw a parallel between western society and tyrannical governments of long ago. Yet we do feel it is essential for individual citizens to take common sense steps to protect themselves from the prying eyes of individuals seeking monetary gain or the potential of a government becoming dysfunctional and over-stepping its bounds. The economic events of 2008 and collapse of some of the world’s largest banks re-emphasizes this need. Anyone of substantial wealth should be taking measures to diversify and protect their privacy. It is really not that difficult to find a safe haven from these turbulent times. One of our favorite strategies is to utilize Switzerland and have our clients “take matters into their own hands” through owning their own financial facility. This allows for effective planning and extensive control. There are, however, other locations and other strategies that can be implemented. The key is to be proactive.
The lessons to be learned from the past are not ivy tower philosophy or vague political rhetoric but real-world and relevant to current events. We live - as the ancient Chinese saying goes – in interesting times.