Salvador

El abogado Salvador Trinxet comenta sobre el libro del autor David H. Maister

2012-01-16T05:15:00.000-08:00

Comentario sobre libro “Dirigir un despacho profesional” del autor David H. Maister

Comentario de Salvador Trinxet:

"David Maister es un consultor y autor británico, quien ha aportado su enfoque de gestión a empresas de servicios profesionales. En España, la editorial CISS tradujo y publicó, tres de sus obras, pero la que más he utilizado a lo largo de mi carrera profesional es “Dirigir un despacho profesional”.

El autor nos habla sobre las exigencias del mercado y como la calidad de servicios es posible cuando el personal cuenta con las habilidades necesarias para desempeñar su papel dentro de la empresa. Es verdad que la empresa puede enfrentar sus problemas utilizando sus propias herramientas, adaptándose a las necesidades del cliente y otorgando una adecuada atención para la satisfacción de sus necesidades.

Habla de 3 tipos de especialización importantes:

1. La especialización basada en la eficiencia pone su enfoque en el coste o a rapidez de ejecución en trabajos o encargos que no requieren especiales habilidades y que el cliente no desarrolla directamente por falta de tiempo o recursos.

2. La especialización basada en la experiencia requeriría desarrollar procesos y sistemas que permitieran a la empresa reproducir los conocimientos adquiridos vía experiencia para resolver los encargos similares de otros clientes (o de los mismos, cuando estos tienen un carácter periódico).

3. La especialización de conocimientos prácticos, dedicada a resolver problemas complejos de los clientes, con altas dosis de creatividad e innovación basadas en el conocimiento y el talento y no tanto en la experiencia (puesto que la complejidad mencionada es propia de problemas nuevos que requieren soluciones distintas).

Comparto con él, en base a mi experiencia que la forma más adecuada de prestar un servicio de calidad a los clientes, es contar con un equipo con las habilidades necesarias para desarrollar su papel dentro de la empresa, ya que esto obteniendo la adecuada satisfacción de las necesidades del cliente, lo cual además de satisfacer las necesidades del cliente, rentabilidad de un despacho, calidad de los servicios, promoción, marketing y comercialización de sus servicios, obteniendo de forma global el éxito económico de la compañía.

Frangmento interesante del libro:

“Dirigir un despacho profesional”

Cuando se consideran nuevos proyectos para emprender, habitualmente es más rentable para el gabinete ocuparse de uno que sea similar al que se ha llevado a cabo recientemente para otro cliente. Se pueden aprovechar los conocimientos teóricos y prácticos, así como los enfoques básicos del problema que ya se han desarrollado, aplicándolos en un problema similar o conexo. Frecuentemente el segundo proyecto puede facturarse al cliente a un coste similar o ligeramente inferior puesto que el cliente percibe y recibe algo igualmente hecho a medida: la solución a su problema. Sin embargo, no todo el ahorro en los gastos que soporta el gabinete al realizar esta personalización se comparte con el cliente. Así, el gabinete gana la mayor parte de su dinero liderando el mercado: explotando la capacidad de vender como un servicio completamente personalizado lo que cada vez más pasa a ser un servicio con elementos reproductibles, estandarizados.

La mayoría de las personas que se incorporan a gabinetes profesionales lo hacen por el deseo de desafío profesional y de variedad y por la evitación de la rutina y la repetición. Si bien pueden estar conformes con emprender un proyecto similar por segunda o tercera vez, no lo estarán la cuarta o sexta u octava.

La solución, por supuesto, es convertir la pasada experiencia y conocimientos prácticos del empleado en los conocimientos prácticos del gabinete, aceptar ese proyecto similar y destinar a él una proporción mayor de subalternos la segunda o tercera vez. Aparte de exigir un menor compromiso de tiempo de los superiores experimentados, este recurso cumple la admirable finalidad de formar a los subalternos.

Título del libro: Dirigir un despacho profesional

Autor: David H. Maister

Editorial. CISSPRAXIS, SA en Valencia

I.S.B.N. 84-8235-383-7

Más sobre el tema:

Plan de Negocios

Análisis de la Industria y Objetivos Corporativos
las proyecciones financieras es la herramienta más eficaz donde a través de estimaciones y números podemos augurar nuestro éxito.

Gestión del Abogado ante el Divorcio

Salvador Trinxet. El Divorcio y sus complicaciones.Implica la disolución del matrimonio y la separación legal de las personas, representa la terminación de la unión conyugal; el rompimiento absoluto del vínculo matrimonial por la intervención de una autoridad judicial facultada por las leyes.

Asociación de Abogados del Estado

Web de la Asociación de Abogados del Estado, la cual agrupa a la práctica totalidad de los miembros de este prestigioso Cuerpo de la Administración Pública ...

Paises – Listado

Afganistán Afghanestan Albania Albania Shqiperia Algeria Argelia Al Jaza’ir American Samoa Samoa Americana American Samoa Andorra Andorra Andorra Angola Angola Angola Anguilla Anguilla Anguilla Antarctica Antártida Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Antigua y Barbuda Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Argentina Argentina Armenia … Sigue leyendo →

"Diplomacia tomando un cafe" presentado por Don Luis del Castillo, autores Fabian Plaza y Salvador Trinxet

2011-12-27T05:42:00.000-08:00

Don Luis del Castillo, firme y constante defensor de los derechos humanos y la Justicia internacional, Presidente honorífico de la Comisión del Mediterráneo de la Federación del Colegio de Abogados de Europa y Abogado de la Corte Penal Internacional de La Haya, asistió a la presentación de “Diplomacia tomando un café”, pronunciando unas palabras introductorias sobre el texto.

Don Luis del Castillo lo describió como "un libro dirigido a un público adolescente y profesores; sencillo, llano y al mismo tiempo con una nota mantenida de humor, de lenguaje asequible que permite que sea un instrumento importante para la docencia", afirma Don Luis del Castillo.

Además los autores hablaron sobre la creación y estructuración del mismo.

Fabián Plaza hablo sobre el origen del libro, personas quienes le apoyaron, los consejos que recibió y la forma en que llego Salvador Trinxet coautor del libro, quien dio el conocimiento práctico que requería el texto. Salvador Trinxet ha trabajado en el parlamento europeo, trabaja en el mundo internacional a nivel empresarial, ha escrito diferentes libros sobre temas internacionales, además cuenta con capacidades docentes.

Logrando mediante la unión de ambos conocimientos, el resultado deseado, la creación de un libro "asequible y claro sobre las relaciones internacionales" incluso para personas sin previo conocimiento sobre la materia.

Salvador Trinxet por su parte hablo sobre la importancia que tienen las decisiones internacionales en la vida diaria y muchas personas lo desconocen, por lo que considera que este libro puede ser de gran ayuda.

Los autores del libro, Fabián Plaza y Salvador Trinxet, firmaron ejemplares al final del acto y posteriormente se invito a Don Luis del Castillo y familiares y amigos a tomar un aperitivo.

Las Mejores empresas de Consultoría del 2011

2011-12-20T01:21:00.001-08:00

Las Mejores empresas de Consultoría del 2011

A continuación tenemos una lista de las firmas de consultoría más importantes de todo el mundo así como los detalles como el Ranking, Nombre de compañía, su Página Web, Central, año de fundación, número aproximado de empleados, porcentaje de hombres y mujeres, y otras estadísticas. Ser una de las consultorías en esta lista no tiene porque significar siempre prestigio y calidad automáticamente, pero los clientes y los que buscan empleos dentro del ámbito de la profesión de consultoría podrían estar interesados en estas estadísticas.

Propósito: Sumarizar y proveer una información beneficiosa de estadísticas acerca de la industria de la consultoría y dar un acceso rápido a una lista de las mejores empresas consultoras y sus páginas webs.

Para quien: Individuales en busca de trabajo, estudiantes, profesionales, y todos aquellos que busquen información sobre las empresas de consultoría más importantes

Derechos: No pretendemos tener ningún derecho y declinamos toda responsabilidad o propiedad en crear, diseñar, desarrollar o programar cualquiera de las páginas webs listadas en esta página. Todas ellas son públicas y visibles desde la red.

Rankinks: Cualquier información de rankings listadas abajo han sido elaboradas por terceras partes, organizaciones que hacen su propio ránking y las ponen a disposición pública, páginas, todas ellas gratuitas. En este particular caso, hemos realizado los ránkings basándonos en varias fuentes de internet entre las que encontramos CNN, Vault.com, fortune.com y linkedin.

En 2011 las mejores Firmas para las que se puede trabajar, según Consulting Magazine son:

Bain & Company
The Boston Consulting Group
North Highland
Point B
Deloitte Consulting
Slalom Consulting
McKinsey & Company
PwC
Booz Allen Hamilton
Huron Consulting Group
Ernst & Young
Accenture
Crowe Horwath
Monitor
A.T. Kearney

Las mejores pequeñas empresas de consultoría del 2011

Stroud Consulting
Impact Advisors
Cask
Vynamic
Infinitive
Fitzgerald Analytics
Lenati
Jabian Consulting
PeopleFirm
HiSoft (formerly Nouveon)
Plus Consulting
Meridian Compensation Partners
Marakon
SEI
IBB Consulting Group

Rank	Consulting Firms	HQ	Industry	Type	# of employees	Year founded	Med age	Male	Fe- male
1	McKinsey & Company	Greater New York City Area	Management Consulting	Partnership	15000	1926	29	67%	33%
2	The Boston Consulting Group, Inc	Greater Boston Area	Management Consulting	Partnership	6000	1963	28	67%	33%
3	Bain & Company	Greater Boston Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	10000	1973	28	65%	35%
4	Booz & Company	Washington DC Metro Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	22000	1914	32	64%	36%
5	Deloitte Consulting LLP	Greater New York City Area	Financial Services	Partnership	168000	-	29	61%	39%
6	Monitor Group	Greater Boston Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	1500	1983	29	63%	37%
7	PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP	Greater New York City Area	Accounting	Partnership	17500	-	29	59%	41%
8	Mercer LLC	Greater New York City Area	Human Resources	Public	18000	1937	34	51%	49%
9	Ernst & Young LLP	Greater New York City Area	Accounting	Partnership	144000	-	29	59%	41%
10	Oliver Wyman	Greater New York City Area	Management Consulting	Public	1001	-	30	70%	30%
11	Accenture	Greater Chicago Area	Management Consulting	Public	177000	1989	30	67%	33%
12	IBM Global Business Services	Greater New York City Area	Information Technology and Services	Public	300000	1911	34	76%	24%
13	KPMG LLP	Amsterdam Area, Netherlands	Accounting	Partnership	137000	-	30	60%	40%
14	Towers Watson	Greater Philadelphia Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	6400	1934	34	52%	48%
15	AlixPartners, LLP	Greater Detroit Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	900	1981	35	77%	23%
16	A.T. Kearney	Greater Chicago Area	Management Consulting	Partnership	2700	1926	30	68%	32%
17	Braxton Consulting	Eurpe & Latin America	Management Consulting	Privately Held	250	1996	31	54%	46%
18	The Parthenon Group	Greater Boston Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	200	1999	28	62%	38%
19	Towers Watson	-	Financial Services	Public	14000	-	34	53%	47%
20	L.E.K. Consulting	London, UK	Management Consulting	Partnership	900	1983	28	70%	30%
21	FTI Consulting, Inc.	Washington DC Metro Area	Management Consulting	Public	3500	1982	32	71%	29%
22	Alvarez & Marsal	Greater New York City Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	1600	1983	33	73%	27%
23	NERA Economic Consulting	Greater New York City Area	Management Consulting	Public	600	1961	27	61%	39%
24	Capgemini	Paris Area, France	Information Technology and Services	Privately Held	91000	1967	32	77%	23%
25	Navigant Consulting, Inc.	Greater Chicago Area	Management Consulting	Public	2500	1983	32	62%	38%
26	Huron Consulting Group	Greater Chicago Area	Management Consulting	Public	2000	2002	30	61%	39%
27	Hewitt Associates	Greater Chicago Area	Outsourcing/Offshoring	Public	25000	1940	32	55%	45%
28	Roland Berger Strategy Consultants	-	Management Consulting	Partnership	2100	1967	28	72%	28%
29	ZS Associates	Greater Chicago Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	1400	1983	27	72%	28%
30	CRA International, Inc.	Greater Boston Area	Management Consulting	Public	800	1965	33	65%	35%
31	Arthur D. Little	Paris Area, France	Management Consulting	Privately Held	1000	-	30	75%	25%
32	Kurt Salmon Associates	Greater Atlanta Area	Management Consulting	Public	700	1935	33	63%	37%
33	LECG	San Francisco Bay Area	Management Consulting	Public	1200	1988	34	69%	31%
34	Gallup Consulting	District of Columbia	Management Consulting	Privately Held	2000	-	27	60%	40%
35	Aon Consulting Worldwide	Greater Chicago Area	Management Consulting	Public	6300	1983	36	52%	48%
36	BraxtonTechnology	Europe, Asia & Latin America	Technology Consulting & Services	Privately Held	219	2005	26	74%	26%
37	Cornerstone Research	San Francisco Bay Area	Legal Services	Privately Held	201	1989	27	61%	39%
38	Corporate Executive Board	Washington DC Metro Area	Management Consulting	Public	2000	1979	28	50%	50%
39	Hay Group	Greater Philadelphia Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	2600	1943	32	47%	53%
40	Analysis Group, Inc.	Greater Boston Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	500	1981	30	62%	38%
41	Milliman, Inc	Greater Seattle Area	Insurance	Privately Held	2000	1947	35	62%	38%
42	Zolfo Cooper	Greater New York City Area	Financial Services	Privately Held	75	-	31	67%	33%
43	Mars & Co	-	-	-	-	1979	-	-	-
44	The Advisory Board Company	Washington DC Metro Area	Hospital & Health Care	Public	1000	1979	28	43%	57%
45	Putnam Associates	Greater Boston Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	50	1988	26	64%	36%
46	First Manhattan Consulting Group	Greater New York City Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	51	1980	26	76%	24%
47	IMS Health Incorporated	Greater Philadelphia Area	Pharmaceuticals	Public	10000	1954	34	57%	43%
48	Buck Consultants	Greater New York City Area	Human Resources	Public	1900	1916	38	55%	45%
49	Giuliani Partners LLC	Greater New York City Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	11	2002	45	79%	21%
50	Archstone Consulting	Greater New York City Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	250	2003	34	63%	37%

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
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
del Juego en España on
Infracciones sobre Juego en España on
El Juego y la Española on

"Diplomacia tomando un café".- presentación de la guía divulgativa

2011-09-08T01:07:00.001-07:00

"El próximo día 21 de septiembre se realizará en Vigo una presentación de la guía divulgativa "Diplomacia tomando un café". El texto, escrito por los abogados Fabián Plaza y Salvador Trinxet, supone una introducción al mundo de las relaciones internacionales, dirigida a cualquier persona interesada en el tema. Su lenguaje sencillo lo hace asequible para cualquier lector sin importar su formación previa.

El evento tendrá lugar en el salón de actos de la Casa del Libro de Vigo, en la calle Velázquez Moreno, 27, de la ciudad pontevedresa. Contará con la introducción del Letrado Francisco Abalde y la presencia del autor Fabián Plaza, quien firmará ejemplares a los presentes.

Está previsto que la presentación se lleve a cabo entre las 20:00 y las 21:00".

Si quieres obtener el libro, visita la siguiente página:

http://www.editorial-club-universitario.es/libro.asp?ref=4870

Libro "Dilpomacia tomando un café"

2011-07-22T05:06:00.000-07:00

Es posible encontrar el libro en la propia editorial ( http://www.editorial-club-universitario.es/ ), a través de diversas librerías virtuales o solicitándolo direcamente a los autores.

Para más información ver: www.salvador-trinxet-llorca.com

El Comercio Electrónico y los establecimientos permanentes

2011-07-22T03:19:00.000-07:00

En 2010, la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo (la OCDE) ha elaborado un Modelo de Convenio sobre la Renta y el Patrimonio (el "Tratado Modelo de la OCDE").
El artículo 5 del Tratado Modelo de la OCDE define a un establecimiento permanente. Un establecimiento permanente es un concepto usado para determinar el derecho de un país del tratado de gravar los beneficios de un residente de una empresa del país.
Para ayudar a las personas a entender y aplicar el Tratado de la OCDE, la OCDE también publica un comentario del tratado. Una de las cuestiones abordadas específicamente en el comentario de la OCDE en el artículo 5 es el grado en que la participación en el comercio electrónico puede resultar en un establecimiento permanente. Véanse los párrafos 42.1 a 42.10 del comentario de la OCDE sobre el artículo 5.
En general, los comentarios de la OCDE dicen que un sitio web no involucra todos los bienes tangibles, y por lo tanto no puede constituir una establecimiento permanente. En el párrafo 42.2: Por el contrario, el servidor en el que un sitio web se almacene y a través del cual se puede acceder es un lugar físico y por lo tanto constituyen un establecimiento permanente.
Esta distinción entre un sitio web y el servidor en el que se almacena el sitio web y quien lo utiliza es importante ya que la empresa que opera el servidor puede ser diferente de la empresa que realice actividades empresariales a través del sitio web. De hecho, una empresa que desarrolle una actividad empresarial a través de un sitio web a menudo lo hace en un servidor propiedad de un proveedor de servicios ("ISP"). Un contrato de este tipo de servicios de alojamiento no suele dar lugar en el servidor y su ubicación está a disposición de la empresa que desarrollará una actividad empresarial a través del sitio web.
En tal caso, la empresa no tiene presencia física en el lugar donde se encuentra el servidor ya que el sitio web no es tangible y el servidor no está a disposición de la empresa. El comentario de la OCDE también señala que sería muy raro que las empresas de servicios de hosting se consideren que constituyen un establecimiento donde se alojan las webs de sus clientes y donde desarrollan los clientes su actividad. El párrafo 42.10: Generalmente, al proveedor de hosting le falta autoridad para concluir contratos en nombre de la empresa que realiza la actividad del sitio web y constituirá un agente independiente que actúa en el curso ordinario de sus negocios. El resultado puede ser diferente si la empresa propietaria de la web tiene el servidor a su disposición porque y puede operarlo, ya sea de propiedad o arrendamiento. En tal caso, el lugar donde se encuentra el servidor puede constituir un establecimiento permanente.
Es importante señalar que las reglas descritas anteriormente se aplican sólo en el contexto de los tratados, es decir, donde se encuentra la empresa que explota el sitio web y el proveedor de hosting en los países que han celebrado un tratado de impuesto sobre la renta basada en el Tratado de la OCDE. Reglas totalmente diferentes puede aplicarse si no existe un tratado en el que basarse.

Perspectives from UK Exporting Healthcare SMEs

2011-03-14T10:05:00.000-07:00

Perspectives from UK Exporting Healthcare SMEs

Finding an appropriate distributor or agent was perceived to be the main barrier to exporting. Other major obstacles for these legal firms included the costs associated with marketing overseas, competing with overseas producers, currency exchange fluctuations, and a lack of market knowledge. A study among UK based SMEs that predominantly manufacture devices for hospitals revealed that business growth, opportunity for greater profit and market size were the prime motivators for exporting.
Source: Barnes et al. (2006)

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

¿Qué puede comunicar o notificar la Agencia Tributaria por medios electrónicos?

2011-02-17T02:20:00.001-08:00

¿Qué puede comunicar o notificar la Agencia Tributaria por medios electrónicos?

Las Personas y entidades citadas anteriormente estarán obligadas a recibir por medios electrónicos todas las comunicaciones y notificaciones que efectúe la Agencia Tributaria de esta forma en sus actuaciones y procedimientos tributarios, aduaneros y estadísticos de comercio exterior y en la gestión recaudatoria de los recursos de otros Entes y Administraciones Públicas que tiene atribuida o encomendada.

Por tanto, la notificación electrónica pasa a ser la forma habitual de notificación de las actuaciones de la Agencia Tributaria. No obstante, existen una serie de excepciones.

About me

2011-01-03T02:28:00.001-08:00

Salvador Trinxet Llorca is an internationally renowned author and columnist.
Salvador is an international legal and business writer with expertise in such wide-ranging fields as International and European law, expatriates taxation, professional firms marketing or online businesses. His scholarship focuses on international law and international business. He also explores the relationship between international law and business and its application for SMEs. On the International and European tax law field, his highly multidisciplinary work analyzes the direct taxation and VAT Directives, as well international tax treaties. Salvador Trinxet’s practiced international law in the European Parliament (Brussels) and in a Belgian consultancy firm advising government policymakers and representing a tax and audit network.
Professor Trinxet has also an extensive background in international trade and business, online marketing and law practice management.
His career has bridged both the business and research / academic worlds. He has been CEO of different service companies (one with more than 300 employees), a venture capitalist, and an Executive Director. He has also held research appointments
His research during 2010 focused on the Web 2.0 networked enterprise. Salvador Trinxet’s new research finds that companies using the Web intensively gain greater market share and higher margins. He thinks that a new class of international company is emerging—one that uses collaborative Web 2.0 technologies intensively to connect the internal efforts of employees and to extend the organization’s reach to customers, partners, and suppliers.
Salvador is a professor and Associate Dean at a Mexican University, and served as Vice Provost for International Law.
His teaching and research also focuses on the internationalization of companies and on a range of challenges facing such companies with international operations, including inbound and outbound investments, tax agreements, international VAT, expatriates and international social security. Professor Trinxet has written and lectured extensively on the international tax law and on asset protection.
He’s also the author or adaptator of several children´s books, including “El lobo que cree que la luna es queso”, “Enemigos natos”, “Hans el escudero”, “El leñador honrado” and “Las ratas y el oro”.
Salvador Trinxet’s writing career was launched many years ago. He began writing at the age of fourteen, writing novels about history and his weekend´s house. He teaches courses in international tax law and he is contributing editor of the Legal Magazine. Many of his dozens of law review articles, book chapters and columns will be accessed on SSRN. He is the principal financial backer of a major Foundation focused in developing children´s learning skills.

Salvador Trinxet is also the co-founder of the nonprofit organization, Central America Institute. His current research work addresses also the question of “company restructuring and protection”. This current research oversees a 4 year research project addressing these issues in a number of international contexts.
Recently his work has focused in providing seminars for businesses, lawyers and other professional advisors on international issues.
Trinxet has focused on international law and business, especially as it affects international companies. He is author of several books on the subject, including “European Union Direct Taxes” and “Relaciones Internacionales tomando un café” (International relations taking a coffee).
In addition to his work as a lawyer and his research, Trinxet writes about the marketing and technology issues of delivering legal services online and is interested in the use of technology by legal professionals to increase access to justice.
A family of entrepreneurs and Artists
The Trinxet family also helped artists through patronage (see, for example, Trinxet patronage in Google Books).
The family also provided artists and patronage. Joaquin Mir Trinxet (Joaquin Mir Trinxet in Wikipedia and in Artcyclopedia), born in1873, was a Catalan painter who specialized in landscapes. His paintings were also in Casa Trinxet, a modernist house made in 1904 by Josep Puig i Cadafalch (see more about Josep_Puig_i_Cadafalch in Wikipedia ) in Barcelona (268 Corcega Street). More about Casa_Trinxet.
Salvador Trinxet Lorca comes from a family of entrepreneurs. For example, one of the Trinxet Industries locations were Casa Trinxet, in Santa Eulália (near Barcelona), which was built (Unión Industrial Algodonera) in 1905, and had 1.200 workers between 1920 and 1930. Now is a Music School - Center of Arts.
Another Trinxet house (or Can Trinxet, or Casa Trinxet), also called ”la Baronia”, in San Antonio de Codines (Girone), was bought by the Trinxet family in 1920, and in 1925 was redesigned to the modernist style by the architect Joan Rubió i Bellver.

El gobierno disminuye los incentivos ofrecidos a deportistas de élite en los últimos incrementos tributarios. Otros deciden aprobar su propia ley Beckham.

2010-12-28T04:01:00.001-08:00

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

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

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 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.

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.

Derecho 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 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%.

Las primas obtenidas por la participación en el Mundial, atendiendo a lo previsto en el Convenio entre España y Sudáfrica, 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.

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..

Comunicación en Dirección Electrónica Habilitada

2010-12-21T03:17:00.001-08:00

¿Qué son las comunicaciones y notificaciones electrónicas?

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

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.

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.

Entidades híbridas "y" revertir entidades híbridas

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

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

Los planificadores de derecho 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 " transparente" a efectos legales EE.UU. pero no transparentes a efectos extranjeros. En general, la entidad es 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 . Las corporaciones no son típicamente entidades transparentes. sociedades de responsabilidad limitada y varios tipos de entidades extranjeras pueden o no ser transparente.

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

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

Luis Roca.

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 derecho internacional en otros blogs como el

Propuesta para proteger los consumidores.

2010-12-09T03:39:00.001-08:00

El nivel de confianza del consumidor en las compras transfronterizas es bajo. Una de las causas de este fenómeno es la fragmentación del acervo sobre consumidores. La fragmentación y el correspondiente desequilibrio de nivel de protección de los consumidores hacen difícil realizar campañas de sensibilización paneuropeas sobre los derechos del consumidor y aplicar modalidades alternativas de solución de conflictos.

El objetivo de la propuesta es contribuir a un mejor funcionamiento del mercado interior entre empresas y consumidores mediante un aumento de la confianza del consumidor en el mercado interior y la reducción de las reticencias de las empresas a realizar transacciones transfronterizas. Para alcanzar este objetivo global, es preciso disminuir la fragmentación, reforzar el marco regulador y ofrecer un elevado nivel común de protección a los consumidores, así como información adecuada sobre sus derechos y sobre la forma de ejercerlos. A tal fin, la Comisión Europea pondrá en marcha un proceso para determinar cuál es la forma más apropiada de informar a los consumidores sobre sus derechos básicos en el punto de venta.

En nuestra web de abogados internacionales encontrará más información abogados internacional barcelona

Nueva iniciativa de la Comisión

2010-12-07T09:04:00.001-08:00

La Comisión estimó que antes de proponer cualquier iniciativa nueva era necesario iniciar una profunda reflexión y un debate sobre el diseño del futuro SECA con todas las partes pertinentes interesadas. Presentó, por consiguiente, un Libro Verde, en junio de 2007, con objeto de identificar posibles opciones para conformar la segunda fase del SECA. La consulta pública recogió 89 respuestas de un amplio abanico de interesados. Las cuestiones planteadas y las sugerencias formuladas durante la consulta sirvieron de base para elaborar el Plan de política de asilo, que define una hoja de ruta para los próximos años y recoge las diferentes medidas que la Comisión tiene intención de proponer para completar la segunda fase del SECA, entre éstas, la de modificar la Directiva sobre las condiciones de acogida. El Plan también señala una serie de objetivos que habrán de alcanzarse en la segunda fase de la legislación sobre el asilo, referidos a la acogida de los solicitantes de asilo.

Encontrará más información sobre el asilo en webs como expatriados

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 Derecho 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 el derecho 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 derecho internacional en derecho internacional

Seminario sobre la Responsabilidad Penal de las Empresas a cargo de Fabian Plaza

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

Seminario sobre la Responsabilidad Penal de las Empresas a cargo de Fabian Plaza

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 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 Derecho 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

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

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

Novedades destacadas en el régimen de responsabilidad de los administradores.

2010-11-18T03:26:00.001-08:00

La Ley de Sociedades de Capital es un Real Decreto Legislativo que, al amparo del mandato establecido en la disposición final séptima de la Ley 3/2009, de 3 de Abril, sobre modificaciones estructurales de las sociedades mercantiles, habilitó al Gobierno, para la aprobación de un Texto Refundido que armonizase, regularizase y aclarase la pluralidad de textos legales que regulaban con anterioridad las Sociedades de Capital. Así, este Real Decreto Legislativo refunde en una sola norma la pluralidad de textos legales vigentes hasta la fecha. Como tal Real Decreto Legislativo, su objeto es armonizar, refundir y aclarar textos legales anteriores y no proceder a un cambio sustancial en el legalidad aplicable a las Leyes de Sociedades de capital, más allá de introducir aclaraciones o alteraciones que derivadas de la dispersión normativa y temporal anterior, hagan necesaria su introducción. Así en la nueva Ley de Sociedades de Capital, dentro del Título VI, se crea un Capítulo V dedicado a la Responsabilidad de los Administradores, que reproduce el régimen legal anterior sin más novedades que las propias de sistematizar en artículos independientes determinadas previsiones contenidas en un mismo artículo en la anterior Ley de Sociedades Anónimas y en la Ley de Sociedades Limitadas. . Como única diferencia resaltable con el régimen anterior, es que se hacen extensivos a los administradores de las Sociedades Limitadas los deberes de recogidos en la anterior Ley de Sociedades Anónimas para los administradores de las Sociedades anónimas.

La modificación de la cifra mínima de capital social necesaria para la constitución de una Sociedad Limitada o Anónima no tiene más objeto que el proceder con el redondeo de unas cifras en Euros que traen su origen de la mera equivalencia con las antiguas pesetas. La Ley de Sociedades de Capital ha adaptado por fin estas cantidades a valores enteros mediante el redondeo por reducción de las cifras de capital social mínimo para ambas Sociedades. Las nuevas cifras mínimas de capital social son de aplicación tan sólo a aquellas Sociedades constituidas a partir del pasado 1 de septiembre de 2010. Por lo tanto, aquellas Sociedades de Responsabilidad Limitada o Anónimas, constituidas antes de la entrada en vigor de la nueva Ley, cualquiera que sea su cifra de capital social, al ser en todo caso superior a las mencionadas nuevas cifras de capital social mínimas, cumple con lo dispuesto en la Ley de Sociedades de Capital y no es necesario efectuar reducción de capital alguna.

Las firmas cotizadas españolas desconocen, a menudo, quién está detrás de la multiplicidad de vehículos de inversión, cadenas de intermediarios y productos financieros, así como la identidad del que ostenta realmente la acción. Es un problema de transparencia de mercado que en países como Francia, Alemania o Reino Unido ya se ha solventado.

En España, se han realizado varios intentos de conseguir esta transparencia que han terminado en fracaso o silencio. El último, en la Ley de Sociedades de Capital, se reitera una vieja norma de 1989: la obligación de las entidades que llevan los registros contables de los valores de "comunicar a la sociedad emisora los datos necesarios para la identificación de sus accionistas".

Sin embargo, es una normativa insuficiente pues, de un lado, no se explicita el procedimiento a través del cual la sociedad emisora pueda acceder a la información. Tampoco queda claro el alcance o contenido de la información a que accede la sociedad emisora. Por ejemplo, no se ha fijado el número de acciones, nombre o denominación social del titular, nacionalidad, fecha de adquisición o dirección.

El hecho de que una compañía conozca a sus accionistas encierra varios beneficios, tal y como se ha demostrado en Francia o Alemania.

La primera ventaja, que también es el que más repercusión tiene en una compañía, es un gobierno más eficiente. Al conocer el tipo de accionista, su origen e intenciones, los órganos de gobierno de la empresa pueden actuar con mayor precisión y previsión.

Por otro lado, una reforma legal que añada transparencia protegerá al pequeño inversor, que podrá conocer a sus co-socios en la aventura empresarial y estará en trato de igualdad de información.

La reforma legal, de cualquier modo, debería incluir un régimen sancionador societario en caso de incumplimiento del suministro de la información por falta de colaboración de los intermediarios financieros.

más sobre Derecho Internacional en:

http://salvadortrinxetllorca.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/

http://banksit.blogspot.com/

España: Inseguridad juridica del IVA

2009-01-13T06:52:00.000-08:00

"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.

Privacy; a Necessity, not a Luxury

2009-01-04T15:57:00.000-08:00

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.

PwC´s Report on Canada´s International Tax Advantage

2008-12-26T16:00:00.000-08:00

The Advisory Panel on Canada's System of International Taxation released its long-awaited final report on December 10, 2008. The report offers seventeen main recommendations, which, together with ancillary recommendations and suggestions, are intended to be "pragmatic, balanced and actionable advice to the Minister of Finance toward improving Canada's international tax system for the benefit of our country."A PricewaterhouseCoopers Tax Memo discusses the Panel's recommendations under the following headings:A. Taxation of Outbound Direct InvestmentB. Taxation of Inbound Direct InvestmentC. Non-Resident Withholding TaxesD. Administration, Compliance and Legislative Process.

Access the full PwC report on the Advisory Panel's recommendations here (pdf)

Nonresident real estate investors in the US

2008-12-15T17:57:00.000-08:00

This is a very interesting post, named "Inbound (investments in the US), Nonresident real estate investors", from http://www.hodgen.com/phil/

"I got an inquiry today from my FIRPTA.com website that I figured would be worth answering here, because it is a topic of general application. The question is whether using a foreign corporation works to protect against U.S. estate tax.

Foreign corporations to hold U.S. real estate

Nonresident investors frequently hold U.S. real estate using foreign corporation structures. (A “foreign corporation” for our purposes is a corporation formed in a country other than the United States.) There are two common variations of this theme:
• Nonresident owns all the shares of stock of a foreign corporation. The foreign corporation owns the U.S. real estate.
• Nonresident owns all of the shares of stock of a foreign corporation. The foreign corporation owns all of the shares of stock of a U.S. corporation. The U.S. corporation owns the U.S. real estate.
This is done primarily for estate tax protection.

Why it works

The United States will impose an estate tax (for our purposes let’s say it is 45% of the fair market value of the property) on U.S. real estate owned directly by a nonresident. That is because estate tax is imposed only on a nonresident’s property that is “located” in the United States. And nothing screams “I am located in the United States” quite as much as real estate within the national boundaries of the USA. :-)
The United States will NOT impose an estate tax on shares of stock of a foreign corporation which are owned by a nonresident deceased individual.
That is because a foreign corporation is treated as being “located” in the country under whose laws the corporation was formed. Thus, because the corporation is “located” outside the United States under the estate tax definitions, there is nothing to be taxed because if you look at what the nonresident individual actually owns, which is stock, not real estate.
“But . . . .”
“Well,” you say. “The foreign corporation owns U.S. real estate. Shouldn’t you look through the foreign corporation at the assets owned by the corporation?” And the answer is . . . no, we don’t do that.
Yes, we (meaning the U.S. tax authorities) could do that. And maybe they will some day. But at the moment it doesn’t work that way.

Summary of where we are now

For now the conventional wisdom is that indirect ownership of U.S. real estate by a nonresident — using the foreign corporation as described — will isolate the nonresident individual from U.S. estate taxation when he or she dies. Well, it won’t isolate that individual, because after death he/she doesn’t really care all that much, right? It’s the heirs that care.

Storm clouds over the horizon–family limited partnership analogy

The Internal Revenue Service has been attacking family limited partnerships — as an estate tax planning device — for several years. I won’t go into the details of the technical and metaphysical arguments on this.

But many people feel that the same theories used by the IRS to attack family limited partnerships could be used to attack the foreign corporation ownership structures used by nonresidents to hold U.S. real estate.

Storm clouds over the horizon–personal use of corporate asset

There’s a second thing. Let’s say you are a U.S. resident and you own a business. The business buys a yacht as a corporate asset and you happily sail it up and down the coast and have fun on it. Will the Internal Revenue Service have a cow? You bet. Individual use of corporate assets by shareholders and officers triggers all sorts of imputed income attacks by the government.

So now take a look at this holding structure used by nonresidents. They buy a house or a ski condominium or a beach house, and hold title in the name of a foreign corporation. Then they proceed to use the house. Personal use. And they are the shareholders of the foreign corporation.

I can see this as a potential reason to either disregard the foreign corporation or to cause the shareholders to have some kind of imputed income from the trust. U.S. source imputed income. Probably FDAP. On which 30% withholding should be imposed, ‘n other bad stuff.

Fashion-forward Canada

A few years ago the Canadian tax authorities changed the tax rules for Canadian resident taxpayers, essentially saying that if a Canadian had a personal use residence inside a corporation like this, there would be an imputed dividend to the shareholder based on the fair market rental value of the house. So imagine having taxable income and paying tax just for the privilege of living in your own house.
Suddenly, corporate structures became much less appealing to Canadian residents.
I take that as an early warning sign. The Canadians had an exit tax far before we in the United States acquired the entirely execrable, useless, and utterly counter-productive Section 877A. (Ah, but I am a fairminded man. I do not judge.)
So I think it reasonable to assume that at some point the Internal Revenue Service will wake up and announce that they have an entirely original idea and while it won’t be an exact copy of the Canadian method, at least it will rhyme with what the Canadians suffer under.

Bottom line

Foreign corporations probably work for estate tax protection. For now. Might not later...."

España: ventajas para la internacionalizacion, pese a Hacienda

2008-12-12T07:20:00.000-08:00

"Golpe al deseo de Hacienda de exigir 2.000 millones a grandes exportadoras", articulo publicado el 11-12-08 , por C. Cuesta / E. S. Mazo en Expansion (www.expansion.com):

La Agencia Tributaria contaba ya con obtener cerca de 2.000 millones de euros adicionales. Debían proceder de una gran actuación inspectora: la que anulaba en la práctica la gran mayoría de las deducciones por exportación aplicadas por las grandes empresas españolas.

Pero se ha encontrado con un serio obstáculo. Una resolución del Tribunal Económico Administrativo Central (TEAC), a la que ha tenido acceso EXPANSIÓN, acaba de asegurar que la Inspección «niega el derecho a la deducción por considerar que la inversión realizada en la constitución de filiales en el extranjero y adquisición de participaciones en sociedades extranjeras no está directamente relacionada con la actividad exportadora [...].

La resolución del Tribunal abre una importante vía de defensa legal frente a Hacienda
Sin embargo, la Inspección [...] está manifestando una apreciación subjetiva, carente de sustento legal, pues la ley exige una relación causal entre inversión y exportación, pero no que la exportación constituya el fin principal de la misma».

Algunas de las mayores empresas con fuerte implantación en el exterior han recibido actas en 2008 por culpa de esta contienda . «Mientras el deterioro de las ventas al por menor, con caídas superiores al 7%, ha llevado a muchas de las compañías a confiar en el exterior como tabla de salvamento frente a la crisis, la Agencia Tributaria ha decidido apretar las tuercas», señala uno de los directivos de una de las compañías exportadoras.

La internacionalización de las compañías se ha convertido, de hecho, en uno de los mecanismos de diversificación de riesgos y beneficios de las mayores entidades nacionales (Telefónica, Repsol, Endesa o Fenosa entre otras).

El punto de pelea entre las empresas y el Fisco por las deducciones por actividades de exportación en el Impuesto sobre Sociedades (que llegaron a ser de un 25% de los gastos ocasionados) partió de una circular de la Agencia –ver EXPANSIÓN de 3 de julio de 2008–.

El organismo antifraude señalaba en ese documento que «la mera implantación de empresas españolas en el extranjero no supone necesariamente una actividad exportadora [...] la mera implantación de empresas españolas en el extranjero, sin que exista una vinculación a la actividad exportadora, no es merecedora de la deducción por actividades exportadoras».

La resolución actual del TEAC rechaza ese planteamiento. Fuentes jurídicas consultadas destacan que el criterio, aunque podría ser cambiado en posteriores resoluciones, abre una importante vía de defensa legal frente a Hacienda.

Pero, además, la resolución en favor de las empresas tiene otro punto de interés. Se trata de una de las últimas que se emitió estando aún en su cargo el anterior presidente del Tribunal Económico Administrativo Central, Eduardo Abril.

La fecha de debate («fecha de sala») de esta resolución es de abril de 2008, cuando el cese de Abril se publicó en el BOE del 23 de mayo. La salida de Abril, de hecho, fue acompañada de versiones que apuntaban a un incremento del poder de la Agencia en el Ministerio.

España: La Agencia Tributaria entra 2 veces al dia en su vida

2008-12-07T07:27:00.000-08:00

"La Agencia Tributaria entra en su vida dos veces al día", articulo muy interesante publicado el 06-12-08 , por J. J. Marcos en Expansion (www.expansion.com):

No descansa ningún día del año. No tiene ninguna hora libre. Todos los días procesa 80 millones de datos y transacciones económicos. Es el Gran Hermano , la red informática de la Agencia Tributaria (AEAT), un referente a nivel mundial en la lucha contra el fraude.

Dado que en España hay algo menos de 42 millones de contribuyentes (incluyendo grandes empresas y actividad aduanera), todos los días cualquiera de los pagadores a la Administración aparece dos veces en estos ingenios informáticos. No es de extrañar que a las máquinas y aplicaciones de Hacienda las bauticen con nombres de conquistadores.

Una de ellas, Orellana, aglutina en un solo punto todas las conexiones de Internet de la AEAT y hace que, hasta la fecha, sea una de las pocas administraciones que nunca ha sucumbido a un ataque hacker. No está muy claro lo que pensaría el aventurero extremeño de esta aplicación pero, gracias a su protección, Hacienda no descansa.

Es la primera administración del mundo que asume la información del IVA mensualmente
Durante la jornada laboral, las operaciones suelen ser las habituales: declaraciones de la renta, consultas, domiciliaciones ... Después, la máquina realiza cruces de información en busca del fraude. No para. Realiza unas 12.000 de estas investigaciones al día. Cada vez más ajustadas.

Y es que el Gobierno ha adquirido ordenadores que dan titubeantes pasos en la inteligencia artificial. El sistema aprende, busca pautas de comportamiento en las personas que no declaran correctamente y afila sus inspecciones. Para ello, cuenta con datos de tarjetas de créditos, compras de activos, amarres de barcos, matriculaciones de coches y un interminable etcétera.

La AEAT también se ha pertrechado con una serie de robots que aceleran el tiempo de respuesta a tiempos que fraccionan en mucho el segundo.

La sede central de todo este entramado está ubicada en la calle Santa Magdalena de Madrid. Los 3.000 metros cuadrados de la tercera planta actúan como un cerebro de dimensiones titánicas desde donde se controla a unos 26.000 funcionarios de 500 oficinas distribuidas por toda España.

El edificio cuenta con protecciones sorprendentes. Recibe suministro de dos compañías eléctricas diferentes, con dos conexiones telefónicas separadas. "Hay que evitar el efecto excavadora", señala el subdirector de Explotación de la Agencia, José Luis Arufe, en referencia a accidentes y averías externos.

Además, la instalación tiene conexiones constantes y seguras con todas las entidades financieras, las administraciones con relación con los tributos y las aduanas, entre otros. Más aún, a 20 kilómetros, hay una réplica exacta de los ordenadores de la Agencia para que no se pierda información alguna.

En total, Hacienda acumula 3.500 millones de datos de sus contribuyentes. La información almacenada es la de unos 1.000 terabytes, una unidad de medida que viene del griego tera (monstruo) y que equivale a 10 elevado a la duodécima potencia. "Es como 400 millones de volúmenes de biblias que caben en menos de una habitación", estima Arufe.

Esta cantidad se va a ver exponencialmente aumentada. La caída en la recaudación que ha traído consigo la casi recesión española ha hecho que la inspección del fraude recobre importancia. El Fisco tendrá que controlar, por ejemplo, todos los depósitos en efectivo de cualquier entidad financiera a partir de 3.000 euros. La cantidad de información generada es imponente. Sin embargo, en la AEAT la desdeñan. "Lo que nos preocupa es la devolución mensual del IVA", añade el responsable informático de la Agencia.

Esta nueva operación, que aseguran que ningún país del mundo se ha atrevido a realizar, requerirá que se analicen un máximo de 17.000 millones de facturas al mes. Hacienda afirma que está preparada. "Es como en El Principito, somos una boa que se puede tragar un elefante", teorizó. A fin de cuentas, según las estimaciones de su personal, cada año la cantidad de información aumenta a un ritmo del 30%.

Desde la AEAT consideran que el grado de eficiencia alcanzado no es cuestión de la inversión de un año puntual, sino del acumulado desde finales de los años 70 en este sentido. De momento, se grata de la Agencia con mayor presupuesto del Gobierno. Para 2009 tiene dotados 1.208,98 millones. Eso sí, un 3% menos que en el presente ejercicio.

También tiene previsto el traslado de la sede a un edificio exclusivo, diseñado ex profeso para albergar este tipo de maquinaria pesada. La idea era que el traslado fuera en 2012, aunque "ahora, con la crisis, no se sabe", añade Arufe.

Menos personal, más recaudación

Los esfuerzos de la Agencia Tributaria contra el fraude se centran cada vez más en las grandes tramas, según destaca la última memoria del organismo, donde se detecta una reducción de la plantilla en 82 personas. La memoria constata que las inspecciones de contribuyentes investigados por los mecanismos selectivos tradicionales han pasado de 33.150 a 25.670. De este modo, las grandes tramas distraen el Gobierno del control de los asalariados (ver EXPANSIÓN del 13 de septiembre).

Al mismo tiempo, al defraudador detectado se le impone mayor cantidad de multas, al menos según los datos de la cantidad económica recaudada. Para 2009, la previsión que tiene la AEAT es la de recaudar 5.900 millones, un 3% más, aunque estas cifras se dieron antes de que el Gobierno aprobara las nuevas medidas antifraude.

International Bank Secrecy and Tax Evasion

2008-12-05T16:04:00.000-08:00

Very interesting article appearing in November 26, 2008 in International Tax Blog (http://intltax.typepad.com/intltax_blog/2008/11/foreign-bank-secrecy-tax-evasion.html) :

"Foreign Bank Secrecy & Tax Evasion

On July 17, 2008, in conjunction with a hearing regarding Tax Haven Banks and U.S. Tax Compliance, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the U.S. Senate released a report (the “Subcommittee Report”) that reads like a spy novel. The Subcommittee Report reviews the “global tax scandal” related to LGT Bank in Liechtenstein, and the “international tax scandal” related to UBS AG in Switzerland.

The LGT scandal erupted after a former employee of a Liechtenstein trust company provided tax authorities around the world with data on about 1,400 persons with accounts at LGT. The UBS AG scandal broke when the U.S. arrested a private banker formerly employed by UBS AG on charges of having conspired with a U.S. citizen and a business associate to defraud the IRS of $7.2 million in taxes owed on $200 million of assets hidden in offshore accounts in Switzerland and Liechtenstein.

LGT Bank in Liechtenstein
LGT Bank in Liechtenstein is owned and controlled by the royal family in Liechtenstein.

According to the Subcommittee Report:
LGT employed practices that could facilitate, and in some instances have resulted in, tax evasion by U.S. clients. These LGT practices have included maintaining U.S. client accounts which are not disclosed to U.S. tax authorities; advising U.S. clients to open accounts in the name of Liechtenstein foundations to hide their beneficial ownership of the account assets; advising clients on the use of complex offshore structures to hide ownership of assets outside of Liechtenstein; and establishing “transfer corporations” to disguise asset transfers to and from LGT accounts. It was also not unusual for LGT to assign its U.S. clients code words that they or LGT could invoke to confirm their respective identities. LGT also advised clients on how to structure their investments to avoid disclosure to the IRS . . . .

For many of its U.S. clients, LGT helped establish one or more Liechtenstein foundations. Under U.S. tax law, the IRS generally views Liechtenstein foundations as foreign trusts. U.S. persons with an interest in a foreign trust, including a Liechtenstein foundation, are required to disclose the existence of the trust to the IRS by filing Forms 3520 (Annual Return To Report Transactions With Foreign Trusts and Receipt of Certain Foreign Gifts) and 3520-A (Annual Information Return of Foreign Trust With a U.S. Owner). Financial penalties for failing to file these forms can be confiscatory.

The foundations provided strong secrecy protections and yet gave substantial control over the foundations to their beneficial owners. In one case, a U.S. citizen pretended to sell his home in New York to what appeared to be an unrelated party from Hong Kong. In fact, the buyer was a British Virgin Islands company with a Hong Kong address, and it was wholly owned by a Bahamian corporation which was, in turn, wholly owned by the U.S. citizen’s Liechtenstein foundation.

The foundations often would not name the grantor or his/her family members as beneficiaries. Instead, the foundation instruments would include a complex mechanism providing for the naming of beneficiaries. Despite these mechanisms, internal LGT documents were clear as to the the true beneficiaries of the foundation.

At times, LGT would set up for the foundation what LGT has sometimes referred to as a “transfer corporation” to help disguise asset flows into and out of a foundation’s accounts. This transfer corporation acts as a pass-through entity that breaks the direct link between the foundation and other persons with whom it is exchanging funds, making it harder to trace those funds.

A strategy employed by LGT to enhance secrecy and client anonymity was to limit the ability of outside parties to trace client communications back to Liechtenstein. To achieve this objective, LGT not only instituted a policy of retaining client mail at the bank in Liechtenstein, or sending mail to locations outside of a client’s home jurisdiction, but also undertook efforts to minimize the ability of outside parties to trace telephone calls back to the bank and even the country itself. One LGT document, for example, providing information on how to contact a client, instructed that calls should be made only from public phone booths outside of Liechtenstein.

The Subcommittee Report stated:
These LGT accounts together portray a bank whose personnel too often viewed LGT’s role as, not just a guardian of client assets or trusted financial advisor, but also a willing partner to clients wishing to hide their assets from tax authorities, creditors, and courts. In that context, bank secrecy laws have served as a cloak not only for client misconduct, but also for bank personnel colluding with clients to evade taxes, dodge creditors, and defy court orders.

UBS AG
UBS AG of Switzerland is one of the largest financial institutions in the world, and has one of the world’s largest private banks catering to wealthy individuals. From at least 2000 to 2007, UBS made a concerted effort to open accounts in Switzerland for wealthy U.S. clients, employing practices that could facilitate, and have resulted in, tax evasion by U.S. clients. These UBS practices included maintaining for an estimated 19,000 U.S. clients “undeclared” accounts in Switzerland with billions of dollars in assets that have not been disclosed to U.S. tax authorities, and assisting U.S. clients in structuring their accounts to avoid U.S. tax reporting requirements.
UBS assured its U.S. clients with undeclared accounts that U.S. authorities would not learn about them, because the bank is not required to disclose them; UBS procedures, practices and services protect against disclosure; and the account information is further shielded by Swiss bank secrecy laws. In November 2002, for example, senior officials in the UBS private banking operations in Switzerland sent a letter to U.S. clients about their Swiss accounts which states in part:
“[W]e should like to underscore that a Swiss bank which runs afoul of Swiss privacy laws will face sanctions by its Swiss regulator … [I]t must be clear that information relative to your Swiss banking relationship is as safe as ever and that the possibility of putting pressure on our U.S. units does not change anything. . . .

The Subcommittee Report indicated that UBS also provided training to its client advisors on how to detect -- and avoid – surveillance by U.S. customs agents and law enforcement officers. A UBS training document provides a series of scenarios designed to train its personnel. An excerpt from one of the scenarios is as follows:

After passing immigration desk during your trip to USA/Canada, you are intercepted by the authorities. By checking your Palm, they find all your client meetings. Fortunately you stored only very short remarks of the different meetings and no names.
As you spend around one week in the same hotel, the longer you stay there, the more you get the feeling of being observed. Sometimes you even doubt if all of the hotel employees are working for the hotel. A lot of client meetings are held in the suite of your hotel.
One morning you are intercepted by an FBI-agent. He looks for some information about one of your clients and explains to you, that your client is involved in illegal activities.

Question 1: What would you do in such a situation?

Question 2: What are the signs indicating that something is going on?

The document does not indicate UBS’ preferred responses to these questions.
The Subcommittee Report is 110 pages long and has many more details of the practices and procedures of LGT and UBS. UBS is currently under investigation by the SEC, IRS, and Department of Justice."

China’s New Thin Capitalization Rules

2008-11-29T06:41:00.000-08:00

Excerpt from Practical China Tax and Finance Strategies by Peter Guang Chen (Deloitte Tax LLP, New York City). From http://www.wtexecutive.com/

Article 46 of China’s new Enterprise Income Tax Law (EITL) provides that a Chinese enterprise’s ability to deduct interest payments on borrowings from related parties is subject to a “prescribed standard.” However, the EITL, which became effective January 1, 2008, did not address what this “prescribed standard” would be. Without a clear answer on an acceptable debt-to-equity ratio in China, many financing and tax planning plans had to be put on hold, particularly for those multinational corporate groups doing cross-border intercompany financing of their subsidiary operations in China.
This important issue was addressed September 19, 2008 in a circular issued jointly by the Ministry of Finance (MOF) and the State Administration of Taxation (SAT) (Caishui [2008] 121). Entitled “Notice on the Tax Deductibility of Related Party Interest Payments,” the circular defines the “prescribed standard,” by setting out the debt-to-equity ratio for related party borrowings.
Circular 121 affects all companies in China that borrow from affiliated parties (such as a parent company or a brother-sister company).
Circular 121 provides two sets of debt-to-equity ratios for related party borrowings: one for financial institutions, another for all other
enterprises:
• For financial institutions, the debt-to-equity ratio cannot exceed 5:1; and
• For all other enterprises, the debt-to-equity ratio cannot exceed 2:1.
Any related party interest payment exceeding the specified ratios is not allowed as a deduction in the current or subsequent years on the borrower’s Enterprise Income Tax (EIT) return, unless an exception applies. Under the exception, interest expense may be deducted if the enterprise can produce supporting documentation demonstrating that the financing was at arm's length or that the effective tax rate of the borrowing entity is not higher than the tax rate of the domestic related party that receives the interest.

VAT at UCONN

2008-11-25T05:03:00.000-08:00

Posted by Ruth Mason on taxprof/typepad.com:

"Rita de la Feria (Centre for Business Taxation, Oxford) presented The Pitfalls of Accepted VAT Wisdom: Lessons from the EU Experience at Connecticut as part of its Tax Lecture Series. Rather than addressing whether the United States should adopt a value-added tax, de la Feria focused on what the United States could learn from the European experience.

VAT is the world’s fastest growing tax, with 130 countries applying it in some form. De la Feria noted the irony that although the United States is the only major industrialized country without a VAT, Michigan was the first jurisdiction to apply a VAT. While de la Feria noted that the allures of VAT include simplicity, ease of assessment and collection, and effectiveness in raising revenue, she cautioned that certain aspects of the European implementation of VAT have reduced these benefits. Among other recommendations, de la Feria warned that VAT exemptions and rate differentials designed to achieve progressivity or encourage consumption of merit goods have lead to extensive tax planning and difficult line-drawing problems in Europe.

Two cases decided in the British courts illustrate her point. In Jaffa Cakes, the court had to decide whether the popular British confection was a cookie or a cake. If a cake, it would fall under the VAT exemption for food, whereas cookies were subject to the standard rate of 17.5%. With a healthy dose of humor, de la Feria described the case as well as the court’s standard of review. The court declared that the distinction between cookies and cakes could be drawn by reference to what happens when they go stale: cakes go hard; cookies go soft. In another case, relying in part on the fact that Pringles only contain 40% potato, a court found that Pringles should not be subject to the higher rate of VAT applicable to (unhealthy) “potato crisps.” De la

Feria noted the perverse effect of the Pringles ruling: the more filler in the chip, the more likely the exemption!

REITS españoles

2008-11-24T08:01:00.000-08:00

"Hacienda impulsa los Reits", articulo publicado el 23-11-2008 , por Expansión.com:

El nuevo borrador del anteproyecto de ley que regula las sociedades cotizadas de inversión inmobiliaria, conocidas como SOCIMI (REIT por sus siglas en inglés), introduce importantes cambios para estimular su constitución, como la posibilidad de poder alcanzar participaciones superiores al 5% y la exención de tributar por la obtención de dividendos.

Estas y otras modificaciones introducidas por el Ministerio de Economía y Hacienda en el borrador redactado en octubre, de acuerdo con las aportaciones del sector, tratan de asegurar un efectivo desarrollo de estas sociedades como instrumento de impulso del mercado de arrendamientos de inmuebles.

El borrador del anteproyecto de Ley establece que toda SOCIMI debe tener como objeto social invertir en bienes inmuebles urbanos para alquiler
Por lo pronto, el nuevo texto "abre la mano" a la participación eliminando el límite del 5% en las participaciones por socio, dando así entrada a socios mayoritarios, así como la obligación de tributar por los cobros de dividendos. Por el contrario, estas sociedades ya no podrán estar exentas de tributación, aunque lo harán al 18% por el Impuesto sobre Sociedades, por debajo del 30% del tipo general.

Así pues, la nueva configuración de las SOCIMI rompe algunas de las reglas que venían caracterizando a este tipo de sociedades en otros países donde ya están instaladas, ya que habitualmente cuentan con límites de participación y están exentas de tributación.

Requisitos

Por lo demás, el borrador del anteproyecto de Ley establece que toda SOCIMI debe tener como objeto social principal la inversión en bienes inmuebles de naturaleza urbana para su arrendamiento y debe cumplir una serie de requisitos.

Entre ellos incluye que el 85% de los ingresos, excluidos los derivados de la transmisión de las participaciones y de los bienes, deberán provenir del arrendamiento de viviendas y de dividendos. Asimismo, deberán distribuir al menos el 90% de los beneficios en forma de dividendos a sus accionistas y al menos un 50% de las plusvalías por la venta de inmuebles y participaciones.

Además, los bienes adquiridos por la sociedad deberán ser en propiedad. Concretamente, se establece que estas sociedades deberán tener invertido, al menos, el 85% del valor del activo en bienes inmuebles de naturaleza urbana en alquiler.

Por último, el texto indica que las SOCIMI deberán tener un capital social mínimo de 15 millones de euros, mientras que la deuda que podrán contraer no deberá ser superior al 60% del activo de la entidad.

Brussels to close loopholes in tax evasion legislation

2008-11-14T17:44:00.000-08:00

"Brussels to close loopholes in tax evasion legislation"
Article published by Vanessa Houlder in London and Nikki Tait in Brussels in Financial Times (www.ft.com) on November 13 2008

Brussels will today step up the pressure on international tax-dodgers when it unveils proposals for bolstering the European Union's savings tax system.

The European Commission is expected to close some of the loopholes in the savings tax directive, the EU's flagship initiative against tax evasion which came into force three years ago.

The directive originally aimed to flush out tax evaders by requiring exchange of information between countries, or withholding tax on payments in third countries, such as Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Andorra.

But critics say the omission of trusts, foundations and companies from the legislation allowed evaders to sidestep the directive's intended effect.

The Commission acknowledged coverage had been not as wide as originally anticipated after it reviewed the directive's implementation this autumn. Officials proposed technical amendments in four main areas.

They admitted that the directive had dealt only with interest payments made for the immediate profit of individuals resident in the EU - giving people an opportunity to circumvent the rules by interposing another legal person or arrangement situated in a non-EU country.

A possible solution would be to ask "paying agents" - such as banks - to use the information already available to them under anti-money-laundering rules about the ultimate beneficial owners of outgoing payments.

But the proposed changes could be controversial. The European Policy Forum, an independent think-tank, said last week that it believed extending the directive would risk an own goal because it would impose a heavy compliance burden on member states' financially vulnerable banking sectors.

A highly critical report by the EPF said the directive had not fulfilled its original goals: "Member state governments have found the exchange of information model difficult to apply with a number of countries reporting long delays, inaccurate data and a range of problems centring on pursuing reports of interest income received by taxpayers in other countries."

It warned there was "a real danger that an extended directive would simply add to banks' cost base for little net benefit". The 1,243 leading banks in the EU and Switzerland would face an additional bill of nearly €700m ($877m, £587m) from an extension of the directive, the EPF calculated. That compared with initial compliance costs of €753m, with annual compliance costs of a further €693m.

The EPF said extending the directive's scope would be time-consuming, and that it would be costly for banks to be certain whether income received from a particular financial product fell within the directive's catchment area or not.

The higher compliance costs might force banks to withdraw credit facilities to businesses and households. "Given the relatively modest amounts raised by the directive to date and the fragile status of many banks across the EU . . this would appear to be a misguided policy -initiative."

Andorra open to foreign takeovers

2008-11-07T18:49:00.000-08:00

Andorra open to foreign takeovers
Article published by Mark Mulligan in Financial Times (www.ft.com) on November 7 2008

Andorra, the tiny Pyrenees principality, will on Friday open its borders to foreign takeovers as part of efforts to modernise the economy and shake off its image as a shady financial centre.

Under legislation passed in April, foreign investors will be allowed to control 100 per cent of companies in 200 designated sectors, while controls will be eased in core activities such as construction, tourism and retailing. Foreigners will be allowed to own 49 per cent of the capital in companies in these sectors, compared with 33 per cent at the moment.

Friday’s reforms follow the creation this year of companies’ register, to which local businesses will have to file regular accounts using international standards. There are also plans to introduce corporate tax of between 5 and 10 per cent, and value-added tax of 4 per cent.

At present, there are no direct taxes on companies and individuals in Andorra, making it a popular base for the wealthy from countries such as Spain, Portugal, France and the UK.

The changes are part of an effort to restructure the tiny economy, which relies on tourists – mainly skiers – for about 60 per cent of its E2.5bn gross domestic product. Global turbulence is expected to hit tourism hard, and Andorra has also seen a sharp downturn in construction activity, which accounts for about 10 per cent of GDP.

Juli Minoves, economic development minister, on Thursday described them as “important reforms, introduced at moment when they are most needed”.

However, the changes are also aimed at improving relations with Spain – which slaps a punitive 25 per cent tax on services provided by Andorran companies – and with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which has Andorra on its list of un-co-operative tax havens.

This classification has taken on sinister connotations since the 2001 terrorist attacks in the US, as the hunt for al-Qaeda put secretive tax havens under the spotlight as possible sanctuaries for financiers of terrorist groups.

This, added to a series of financial scandals, has increased the pressure from the US and European Union on micro-countries such as Andorra and Liechtenstein for more transparent banking and taxation.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

PD: in fact is 24% currently, not 25%

Ticklish issue of whether or not to migrate to another tax jurisdiction

2008-10-29T12:40:00.000-07:00

Financial Times (www.ft.com) has just published a very interesting article entitled "Ticklish issue of whether or not to migrate to another tax jurisdiction", wrote by Vanessa Houlder:

Amid this Autumn’s financial turmoil, WPP, the world’s second largest advertising group, unveiled big tax savings from a small but significant change in its corporate structure.

It joined a handful of businesses – Shire, United Business Media, Regus, Charter and Henderson – in moving its holding company and tax base out of the UK.
More companies could follow suit. Richard Lambert, director general of the CBI, recently told a conference “any independent director worth her salt” would be asking whether the company should move headquarters for tax reasons.

Ashley Almanza, chief financial officer of BG and chairman of the Hundred Group, the influential lobbyist, says factors such as the judicial framework, the benefits of agglomeration and reputational issues ensure that any decision to move would not be taken lightly. “There are powerful reasons to stay,” he says.

But companies with large overseas operations could make big savings by moving their tax base to small, business-friendly regimes such as Ireland or Luxembourg.

The classic emigration route is via an “inversion”: setting up an overseas holding company, typically in Ireland, that acquires the old UK company on a share-for-share basis.

The company is usually incorporated in Jersey to ensure no stamp duty is payable. The UK company then sells its foreign subsidiaries to the new Irish holding company.
Provided the activities are mainly trading in nature, the gains should be exempt from capital gains tax under the “substantial shareholding exemption”.

The main reason why an inversion would save tax lies in the “controlled foreign companies” (CFC) rules, under which the UK taxes offshore passive income, such as royalties and interest. By contrast, it normally only taxes foreign profits when dividends are paid back to the UK.

These CFC rules have been tightened in successive Budgets. That has curtailed the ability of companies to do international tax planning.

For some companies intending to expand their overseas operations, the UK’s CFC regime is a powerful incentive to move to a country such as Ireland that has no CFC rules.

Another powerful force driving some multinationals to change their domicile is a fear that the CFC rules will become even tougher.

This prospect was raised by the Treasury’s consultation, launched last year, on how to reform the taxation of foreign profits.

The Treasury is sympathetic to a longstanding business request to allow the tax-free repatriation of foreign dividends. But it fears this concession will be used to find new ways to avoid tax.

As a result, it is considering adopting tougher CFC rules. After an outcry, it told businesses in July that it had dropped proposals to sweep all their overseas income relating to intellectual property into the British tax net through a new “controlled companies” regime.

The Treasury is also considering tightening up on the ability of businesses to inject debt into their UK operations, reducing their taxable profits. It has proposed a worldwide debt cap, which would stop UK entities having more debt than required to finance the worldwide group.

This proposal worries some multinationals, although the Treasury has said it would set it aside when a group was cash-rich for a temporary reason, such as completing a sale.

Henderson, the fund manager, estimated changing its domicile would cost £4.5m. Smaller or less profitable businesses or those with significant tax losses are unlikely to make big tax savings by moving.

Moreover, inversions carry risks. There is ample scope for a political backlash against businesses avoiding tax, particularly when taxpayers are having to bail out the financial sector.

There is also a risk of a change in the tax regime in the new domicile. Ireland has underlined its commitment to preserving its low corporate tax rate, even though it has announced other tax rises.

Another risk could flow from a Revenue & Customs’ investigation into whether the control of a business has genuinely left the UK.

The costs and risks mean inversions are not a sensible option for all international companies. The UK continues to attract the lion’s share of headquarters set up in Europe, according to Oxford Intelligence research for Ernst & Young. Peter Lemagnen, its managing director, suggests that smaller companies are still being drawn to Britain but the tax regime is a deterrent for some larger, more sophisticated companies.

Historically, the UK won more than 40 per cent of headquarters investment in Europe; last year it fell to 30 per cent.

Philip Cox, chief executive of International Power, which owns power stations in 20 countries, says his group’s ability to compete will be severely hampered if foreign interest income is swept in the British corporate tax net. “For us, the treatment of overseas profits is critical. It can be a deciding factor on winning or losing a bid.”

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

Regulating Tax Competition in Offshore Financial Centers

2008-10-25T07:46:00.000-07:00

Regulating Tax Competition in Offshore Financial Centers

Craig M. Boise (Case Western Reserve University - School of Law) published this paper at Case Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-26

Here is the Abstract:

One of the more entrenched issues in international taxation over the last thirty years has been how to define and respond appropriately to harmful tax competition among nations, especially competition from offshore financial centers (OFCs). The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the European Union (EU) have both mounted initiatives seeking to regulate such competition, and OFCs have strongly objected to these initiatives as an abrogation of their sovereignty in tax matters. This paper provides an introduction to the debate over the regulation of international tax competition, beginning with an overview of the essential architecture of international taxation and the way that its structure creates problems for developed countries and opportunities for OFCs, and continuing with an assessment of the arguments asserted in favor of, and against, regulating tax competition.

The paper then examines how developed countries, through the OECD and EU, have defined international tax competition, and the efforts made by both organizations to regulate such competition. Finally, the paper draws on the way the OECD and EU dealt specifically with the twin touchstones of virtually all definitions of tax havens-low or no income taxation and bank secrecy-to suggest the direction that regulation of tax competition is likely to take in the future.

Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1266329

Schwidetzky: Musings on a German Tax Conference

2008-10-15T03:12:00.000-07:00

Walter D. Schwidetzky shares his interesting "Musings on a German Tax Conference" on http://taxprof.typepad.com/:

"I have recently returned from a German tax conference on the value added tax (19% in Germany). Some musings:

A big issue for the value added tax in Europe is people gaming the system. As there is not a uniform value added tax in Europe, people will often buy a product in a country with a lower value added tax and then bring it into the country where they live. With higher end items like cars, this has mostly been stopped, but for other items it is a common problem, especially for people living near borders.
German maximum income tax rates are high by US standards, in the low 40%’s for income above around 60,000 Euros (around $81,000 depending on exchange rates). Germans may, however, effectively deduct payments for medical insurance and mandatory pension contributions. As a consequence, the net effective rate of income tax in the US and Germany, especially for middle class families, may not be that different once medical insurance and pension contributions are taken into account. Most Germans do not think their tax rates are too high, at least judging by the comments of people at the conference (who are mostly high earners). However, Germany significantly lowered its income tax rates in 2000, and its economy has done significantly better since then, providing some possible evidence of a move from the right side of the Laffer curve to more in the middle. While Germany’s unemployment rate has come down as a result of the recent boom in exports, it remains stubbornly high, around 8%, 15% in the former East Germany. At the same time, Germany has a shortage of skilled workers. I have been told that most of Germany’s unemployed have few skills and often a limited capacity to develop them. I should add that many Germans feel that the reunification has created many of Germany’s economic problems, which have been tough to solve. The unemployment rate in the former West Germany is comparable to that of the U.S.

Most Americans have a somewhat romanticized view of universal health care. While few Germans would support moving away from universal health care, most would agree that their system is badly in need of repair. There is a bewildering array of some 300 health insurance companies, mostly private, though some at least have a state association. A minimum amount of health insurance is required. Most who can afford it buy upgraded private insurance to get better care and better service. If you have the standard insurance, and you want to see a doctor, you don’t make an appointment; you just show up and wait until the doctor sees you. Might be an hour, might be half of a day. An American friend of mine gave birth to her third child in Germany. Initially she was put in a room with 7 other women, which freaked her out as she was used to US standards. She and her husband paid extra for a semi-private room. (A digression: When she and her husband asked for a circumcision, the doctor responded: ”Half or whole?” Not a question they wanted to answer incorrectly…). Many young German hospital doctors by the hour make the same as the janitorial staff. As a consequence, large numbers of young doctors are leaving Germany for better paying jobs in the US, Switzerland, and England. I would rather be sick with good insurance in the US than in Germany, but if I was poor, I would rather be sick in Germany where at least I would get treatment.

Most Germans probably also have a greater sense of social obligation to those less fortunate than most Americans. Most Germans trust their government more than most Americans trust theirs. Governmental paternalism is much more accepted in Germany than the US. The reach of this would surprise many Americans, however. For example, free speech is not allowed nearly to the same extent in Germany as it is in the US. Also, Moslem women who want to teach school are not allowed to wear head scarves (which has the effect of preventing many from entering the teaching profession). Germans commonly feel that the scarf subjugates women and also feel that teachers’ religious views should not be obvious to students. These considerations trump religious freedom issues. The Church of Scientology is at risk of being outlawed in Germany, something that could not happen in the US. (I might add that there is some hypocrisy here. In Bavaria it is common to see crosses on the walls in courts and schools.) Last I checked, if you change abodes in Germany, you are required to register with the police. Name changes are generally not allowed.

Many of my liberal colleagues probably would prefer the German system to the US system. Having lived in Germany and experienced German paternalism first hand, I am more hesitant, but I don’t doubt the US and Germany could learn from each other. As Prof. Ted Seto pointed out in a recent posting on TaxProf, the US needs to pay more attention to how other countries do things. There is plenty we could learn."

Constitutional Restraints on Corporate Tax Integration

2008-10-13T13:12:00.000-07:00

Walter Hellerstein (University of Georgia School of Law), Georg Kofler (NYU School of Law) and Ruth Mason (University of Connecticut School of Law) published the report Tax Law Review, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=1101560

Here is the Abstract:

States that conclude that double taxation of corporate profits unacceptably distorts the choice of business form, the debt and equity capitalization of companies, and the character and timing of profits distributions may adopt integrated corporate tax regimes, but states almost always limit such re gimes to domestic dividends¿those paid by a corporation taxable in the state to a shareholder also taxable in the state. In contrast, states generally deny double tax relief to cross-border dividends. Failure to extend relief to cross-border dividends distorts locational investment decisions.

Although restricting double tax relief to domestic dividends does not violate international tax nondiscrimination rules, more stringent nondiscrimination rules govern state taxation in the European Union and the United States. Member states of those common markets may not constitutionally prefer domestic commerce over cross-border commerce, and that constitutional constraint limits EU and U.S. states' ability to confine double tax relief to domestic dividends. This symposium paper establishes the basic framework for taxation of cross-border dividends, closely analyzes and compares constitutional challenges to states' failure to extend double tax relief to cross-border dividends in Europe and the United States, and identifies the principal policy considerations emerging from the nascent cross-border dividend jurisprudence in the European Court of Justice.

2008-10-09T07:31:00.000-07:00

What Problems and Opportunities are Created by Tax Havens?

Dhammika Dharmapala (University of Connecticut) published this paper.

Here is the Abstract:

Tax havens have attracted increasing attention from policymakers in recent years. This paper provides an overview of a growing body of research that analyzes the consequences and determinants of the existence of tax haven countries. For instance, recent evidence suggests that tax havens tend to have stronger governance institutions than comparable non haven countries.

Most importantly, tax havens provide opportunities for tax planning by multinational corporations. It is often argued that tax havens erode the tax base of high-tax countries by attracting such corporate activity. However, while tax havens host a disproportionate fraction of the world's foreign direct investment (FDI), their existence need not make high-tax countries worse off. It is possible that, under certain conditions, the existence of tax havens can enhance efficiency and even mitigate tax competition. Indeed, corporate tax revenues in major capital-exporting countries have exhibited robust growth, despite substantial FDI flows to tax havens.

Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1279146

The Impact of Taxes on Internet Purchase Behavior

2008-10-05T07:51:00.000-07:00

No Longer a Tax Haven? The Impact of Taxes on Internet Purchase Behavior

Peng Huang (Georgia Institute of Technology) and Nicholas H. Lurie (Georgia Institute of Technology) published this study on September 2008.

Here is the Abstract:

Using the online transaction data of 88,814 U.S. households in 2006, we analyze how local tax rates affect online purchasing behavior. Although earlier survey-based research has found that consumers who live in high-tax localities are more likely to shop online, our transaction-based data show the opposite. We find that higher local tax rates are associated with lower online expenditures, reduced transaction frequency, and a lower probability of making an online purchase. A disaggregate analysis shows that increased sales tax does not significantly boost demand from tax avoiding retailers but significantly lowers demand for online retailers that collect tax. In addition online shoppers are more than twice as sensitive to tax as traditional store shoppers. Finally, we document that tax losses from Internet sales are more moderate than previously estimated.

Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1266432

The Role of Offshore Financial Centers in Regulatory Competition

2008-09-27T07:38:00.000-07:00

The Role of Offshore Financial Centers in Regulatory Competition

Andrew P. Morriss (University of Illinois) published this paper at U Illinois Law & Economics Research Paper No. LE07-032.

Here is the Abstract:

Offshore financial centers are criticized for everything from facilitating money laundering to lax regulation. Yet these jurisdictions play an important positive role in the international legal system that is rarely recognized by providing a different type of competitor in the market for law. Offshore financial centers like the Cayman Islands and the Isle of Man exert an important discipline on democratically-constrained onshore jurisdictions by allowing firms and individuals to route around rent-seeking legislation and by innovating in the creation of legal rules to lower transactions costs.

The paper discusses examples of this including captive insurance entities and foreign finance subsidiaries. Even more importantly, offshore financial centers are well-positioned to discipline autocratic regimes, by undermining autocrats' efforts to prevent alternative centers of power from arising. Fully understanding how offshore finance centers affect the global competition among states for economic activity is crucial for addressing current policy debates over measures like the European Union's Savings Directive and the proposed U.S. Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act.

Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1275390

International Tax-Shelter Plot Thickens; Mogul Sues UBS

2008-09-18T10:16:00.000-07:00

International Tax-Shelter Plot Thickens; Mogul Sues UBS
Posted by Dan Slater on September 17, 2008

"Back in May, the Feds unsealed an indictment against a former UBS banker, Bradley Birkenfeld, for allegedly helping one of the world’s richest men, Igor Olenicoff, evade taxes on $200 million held in Swiss and Liechtenstein bank accounts. When Birkenfeld pleaded guilty, a month later, he explained that he participated the alleged scheme to help Olenicoff evade taxes. “I was employed by UBS,” said Birkenfeld, “I was incentivized to do this business.”

Yesterday, the UBS-Olenicoff plot thickened, when Olenicoff, a billionaire property developer, sued UBS and nearly a dozen current and former executives of the bank in federal court in Santa Ana, Calif. Here’s the NYT report.

The suit reportedly accuses UBS, a small Swiss firm, and two private firms based in Liechtenstein and their employees of luring Olenicoff into becoming a client and a participant in a deceptive investment scheme intended to cheat the IRS of millions in taxes. The suit also contends that Birkenfeld, the former UBS banker, received a large settlement from UBS after complaining that it had encouraged its private bankers to violate U.S. tax laws.

The suit claims that UBS turned over Olenicoff’s name to the IRS, a move that would have been surprising for a Swiss bank that follows a centuries-old tradition of banking secrecy. Olenicoff is accusing the defendants of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, among other things.
UBS said it had not seen the complaint and thus could not comment upon it.
In December, notes the Times, Olenicoff pleaded guilty to criminal charges of tax evasion and lying on his tax returns, all in connection with his offshore private banking accounts. He agreed to pay $52 million in back taxes.

Using tax to lure business away from London

2008-09-17T18:07:00.000-07:00

"London rivals 'cherry picking' business"
An article published by Vanessa Houlder in Financial Times on September 10 2008

London's rivals are using tax to lure business away from the City, a leading City policymaker has warned.

Stuart Fraser, chairman of policy at the City of London Corporation, said the government must fight back by tackling the uncertainty and complexity of Britain's tax regime.

He warned that rival jurisdictions were "cherry picking" London's most lucrative activities. He cited Switzerland's attempt to attract wealth managers and hedge funds and a move by Paris to attract private equity firms. "They are very keen on taking us on. What they want is our business". He called for greater clarity and predictability in the UK tax system. "People need certainty. They want to be confident that if they stay here the system will not change."

His comments follow recent decisions by Krom River, a London hedge fund to move to Zug in Switzerland and five large companies to shift their holding companies to Ireland or Luxembourg. Mr Fraser said the corporate moves were symptomatic of the dissatisfaction with the tax system, although the establishment of "brass plate" operations abroad did not pose an immediate threat to jobs or the City.

The UK still attracts the largest number of headquarter functions of any European country, but its share fell from over 40 per cent to 30 per cent last year, the lowest figure yet recorded by Oxford Intelligence, which compiles data for Ernst & Young's European Investment Monitor. Peter Lemagnen, director, said the relocation trend primarily affected larger companies where there was scope for significant tax savings.

Some advisers warned that a continued exodus of holding companies from Britain would damage the City.

Peter Wyman, global head of policy and regulation at PWC, the professional services firm, said that shareholder pressure for tax savings meant that "a slow trickle is likely to become a faster trickle if not a flood". He said the likely impact of more relocations was "a mixed picture, conceivably over time a big loss". "Undoubtedly, if you move your headquarters somewhere other than London you are likely to get an increased amount of advice from where you are now based."

Chris Morgan, an international tax partner at KPMG, the professional services firm, said it was inevitable that over time financial services would move to the country where the company was managed and controlled. "I think they should be incredibly worried about it."

James Bullock, a partner at McGrigors, the law firm, said that if the trend for headquarter relocations continued, the City was likely to lose out. "It is all about key relationships. If board and strategic directors are in Switzerland, the partners [of accountancy and law firms] will want to be there too."

The Irish government has already told companies considering relocations it wants to see "real substance" in its investment, rather than merely "brass plate" operations.

Corporate tax cut in UK has little impact, but low VAT raises reputation

2008-09-09T18:16:00.000-07:00

Rate cut has little impact on global ranking
Article published by Vanessa Houlder in Financial Times (www.ft.com) on September 8 2008.

This year’s cut in the corporate tax rate has failed to push the UK decisively up the international rankings, according to a new survey that shows Britain’s efforts to improve its tax competitiveness have been blunted by similar efforts elsewhere.

The UK now has the 20th lowest corporate tax rate of the 27 European Union member states, a slight improvement for businesses on last year’s 21st position, according to the survey by KPMG, professional services firm.

The UK’s struggle to close the gap with smaller European competitors is likely to fuel criticism from businesses and opposition politicians.

KPMG said: “This continued downward pressure on worldwide and European corporate tax rates will add to the pressure on the UK authorities to address the UK’s perceived lack of competitiveness on tax.”

The impact of April’s 2 percentage point cut to 28 per cent was tempered by cuts elsewhere, which pushed average global and European corporate tax rates down by 1 percentage point. The UK’s corporate tax rate remains higher than the global average of 25.9 per cent and the EU average rate of 23.2 per cent.

But the UK is facing tough competition for holding companies from smaller low-tax European rivals, particularly Ireland, Luxembourg, Switzerland and the Netherlands, as demonstrated by recent moves out of the UK announced by Shire, UBM, Henderson, Charter and Regus.

These moves recently sparked an angry exchange between Alistair Darling and George Osborne, shadow chancellor, who called for a cut in the rate to 25 per cent which “would go some way towards undoing the damage the government has done by failing to keep pace with European tax rates”.

Mr Darling rejected Mr Osborne’s criticisms of the competitiveness of the business tax system as “wrong”.

Chris Morgan, head of international corporate tax at KPMG, said the relocation of headquarters was not driven by concern about the tax rate although bringing down tax rates was an important long-term objective. The argument was instead focused on the question of whether foreign profits should be taxed in the UK, he said.

The intensity of international tax competition was underlined by the finding that – for the first time since 1994 – no country in the 106-strong sample had raised rates. Competition has been particularly intense in the EU over the past 10 years, moving average corporate tax rates from the highest to the lowest of any group of countries in the OECD.

The relationship between tax rates and overall competitiveness is complex, with many other factors including political stability, infrastructure, access to new markets and a skilled labour force playing an important role. Sue Bonney, KPMG’s head of tax said: “Undoubtedly, the corporate tax rate is an important factor for businesses but it is far from the only factor.”

Big industrialised countries such as the UK typically have much higher rates than small countries. Countries such as Malta, Luxembourg and Switzerland have far lower effective rates than their headline rates as a result of exemptions and special rulings.

In May, Mr Darling acknowledged the challenge facing the tax regime, saying “Business does have a choice. Business is increasingly mobile. Tax rates have to be globally competitive.”

The UK’s corporate rate cut ensured that it continued to have a lower rate than Germany at 29.5 per cent, preserving the Treasury’s goal of having the lowest rate in the G7.

Low VAT raises reputation

Britain has the fourth lowest rate of value added tax in the EU, according to KPMG which said this relatively low rate underpinned the business-friendly reputation of the indirect tax system .

Britain’s 17.5 per cent VAT rate is well below the average in the EU of 19.49 per cent, in contrast to its position on corporate taxes. KPMG said this was in line with the “generally accepted idea” that indirect taxes compensate for reduced corporate tax yields.

This notion was partly supported by the contrast between the EU’s low corporate tax rates and its high VAT rates. Against a global average indirect tax rate of 15.7 per cent, the EU’s average rate was 19.49 per cent.

The UK’s relatively low rate, together with its stability over recent years, helped secure the UK top position in a KPMG survey of the best countries in the world to deal with from an indirect tax perspective.

The survey found that indirect tax rates have remained relatively stable, in contrast to the declines in corporate tax rates. KPMG said if indirect tax yields were compensating for declining corporate tax yields, this was being achieved by widening the indirect tax base and applying rules more strictly.

A Multilateral Solution for the Income Tax Treatment of Interest Expenses

2008-09-01T05:08:00.000-07:00

Michael J. Graetz (Yale; moving to Columbia in '09) has posted A Multilateral Solution for the Income Tax Treatment of Interest Expenses on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Recent developments - including greater taxpayer sophistication in structuring and locating international financing arrangements, increased government concerns with the role of debt in sophisticated tax avoidance techniques, and disruption by decisions of the European Court of Justice of member states' regimes limiting interest deductions - have stimulated new laws and policy controversies concerning the international tax treatment of interest expenses. National rules are in flux regarding the financing of both inbound and outbound transactions.

Heretofore, the question of the proper treatment of interest expense has generally been looked at from the perspective of either inbound or outbound investment. As a result, the issues of residence countries' limitations on interest deductions on borrowing to finance low-taxed, exempt or deferred foreign source income, on the one hand, and of source countries' restrictions on interest deductions intended to limit companies' ability to strip income from a higher-tax to a lower-tax country, on the other, have generally been treated as separate issues. A fundamental contribution of this essay is to demonstrate their linkage and to call for a multilateral solution that would address both of these problems.

The complexity, the incoherence, and the futility of countries acting independently to limit interest deductions are now clear. Worldwide allocation of interest expense by both source and resident countries would eliminate a host of problems now bedeviling nations throughout the world - problems that have produced varying, complex, and inconsistent responses among different countries, responses that frequently may result in zero or double taxation. Given the flexibility of multinational corporations to choose where to locate their borrowing and the difficulties nations have in maintaining their domestic income tax bases in the face of such flexibility, achieving a multilateral agreement for the treatment of interest expense based on a worldwide allocation should become a priority project for both source and residence countries.

A Multilateral Solution for the Income Tax Treatment of Interest Expenses

2008-08-30T12:48:00.000-07:00

Proffessor Michael J. Graetz has writed A Multilateral Solution for the Income Tax Treatment of Interest Expenses on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Recent developments - including greater taxpayer sophistication in structuring and locating international financing arrangements, increased government concerns with the role of debt in sophisticated tax avoidance techniques, and disruption by decisions of the European Court of Justice of member states' regimes limiting interest deductions - have stimulated new laws and policy controversies concerning the international tax treatment of interest expenses. National rules are in flux regarding the financing of both inbound and outbound transactions.

Heretofore, the question of the proper treatment of interest expense has generally been looked at from the perspective of either inbound or outbound investment. As a result, the issues of residence countries' limitations on interest deductions on borrowing to finance low-taxed, exempt or deferred foreign source income, on the one hand, and of source countries' restrictions on interest deductions intended to limit companies' ability to strip income from a higher-tax to a lower-tax country, on the other, have generally been treated as separate issues. A fundamental contribution of this essay is to demonstrate their linkage and to call for a multilateral solution that would address both of these problems.

The complexity, the incoherence, and the futility of countries acting independently to limit interest deductions are now clear. Worldwide allocation of interest expense by both source and resident countries would eliminate a host of problems now bedeviling nations throughout the world - problems that have produced varying, complex, and inconsistent responses among different countries, responses that frequently may result in zero or double taxation. Given the flexibility of multinational corporations to choose where to locate their borrowing and the difficulties nations have in maintaining their domestic income tax bases in the face of such flexibility, achieving a multilateral agreement for the treatment of interest expense based on a worldwide allocation should become a priority project for both source and residence countries.

Did Blacklisting Hurt the Tax Havens?

2008-08-27T07:45:00.000-07:00

Did Blacklisting Hurt the Tax Havens?

Robert T. Kudrle (University of Minnesota) publish this paper atPaolo Baffi Centre Research Paper No. 2008-23

Here is the Abstract:

Purpose - This paper tests the widely-held assumption that blacklisting, such as that practiced by the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) and the FATF (Financial Action Task Force), affects the volume of financial activity associated with a tax haven.

Design/Methodology/Approach - ARIMA (autoregressive integrated moving average) analysis is used to explore changes across eight measures of in banking-associated activity that occurred when a tax haven was placed on, or removed from, one FATF and two OECD blacklists.

Findings - The results are highly varied. Most importantly, no substantial and consistent impact of blacklisting on banking investment in and out of the tax havens was found across 38 jurisdictions.

Practical implications - The role of "speech acts" - unconnected with other developments in the havens or foreign policy measures beyond rhetoric - may not be as important for tax haven investment as previously thought.

Originality/Value - No rigorous and comprehensive study has previously been done of this important question.

Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1243695

US Tax Holidays

2008-08-15T16:56:00.000-07:00

Posted by Nanette Byrnes, from Business Week. (http://www.businessweek.com/careers/managementiq/archives/2008/08/tax_holidays.html )

It’s August, so you may be on vacation. But for an awful lot of corporations operating in the US, every day is a tax holiday. So says a report out today by the US General Accounting Office highlighting the number of US- and Foreign-controlled companies that have claimed zero tax liability in recent years.

The GAO’s study was ordered up by Senator Carl Levin, Democrat from Michigan and chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. Its conclusions focus on the fact that large foreign corporations are more likely to avoid taxes than US companies.

Like most of these studies, the GAO’s report looks at taxes as accounted for on the corporate income statement, not the cash taxes actually paid. (By that measure, 42 of the companies in the S&P500 had an actual tax rate of less than 10% over the past 5 years, another 58 paid less than 16%, and neither group paid anything like the statutory corporate tax rate of 35%).

According to the GAO, in recent years the gap in the number of US and foreign companies enjoying a tax free year has significantly narrowed. Though the authors didn’t go into exactly how both groups are sidestepping the tax man, they did indicate that transfer pricing looks to be a culprit. Transfer pricing is how much one part of a company charges another for something.

In a 2003 story on corporate taxes, we dug up and example of how this worked for hotel chain Hyatt.:
In one U.S. tax court case that is still pending, the IRS accused hotelier Hyatt International of paying too little for the Hyatt brand and other services provided by its U.S. parent. The IRS alleges that from 1976 to 1988, various Hyatt companies underreported income by $100 million because of those lowball fees. In an October, 1999, ruling on some aspects of the case, U.S. Tax Court Judge Joel Gerber ruled that the $10,000 one-time fee International had paid for each hotel bearing the Hyatt name was far too low. Hyatt declined to comment because the broad case is ongoing.

Tax economist Martin Sullivan, thinks half of the sharp drop in the foreign tax rates of U.S. multinationals — from 49.6% in 1983 to 22.2% in 1999 – is the result of similar shifting of income from foreign countries with a higher tax rate to those with lower rates.
Beyond shedding some light on the impact of transfer pricing, the report also shows:
• Fewer large foreign-controlled companies are paying no taxes today than in the past. That figure has declined since its 2001 peak of more than 50%.

• More US companies (large and small) reported zero tax liability in 2005 (the most recent year included) than foreign-controlled companies.

• 72% of foreign-controlled companies reported no tax liability some time between 1998 and 2005, while 55% of US-controlled companies did so.

• The biggest tax breaks come from deductions for salary and wages, and from a category called “other” that includes travel expenses, legal fees, and insurance, as well as dividends paid on stock owned by employee stock ownership plans.

The Rise and Fall of Chinese Tax Incentives and Implications for International Tax Debates

2008-06-28T16:58:00.000-07:00

Jinyan Li (York University) published in the Florida Tax Review, Forthcoming CLPE Research Paper No. 5/2008, the paper "The Rise and Fall of Chinese Tax Incentives and Implications for International Tax Debates".

Here is theAbstract:

China had no foreign direct investment (FDI) before 1979. Now, it is one of the world's largest recipients of FDI. China has been generous to a fault in granting tax incentives to foreign investors. As of January 1, 2008, however, these FDI-specific incentives are abolished or phased o ut. What explains the rise and fall? Were the tax incentives not effective in attracting FDI and promoting China's economic growth? What are the implications of the Chinese experience for international tax debates? This article examines these questions.

SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1087382

Taxing the 'Not-So-Rich' Rich

2008-06-18T16:21:00.001-07:00

Taxing the 'Not-So-Rich' Rich

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_24/b4088081624555.htm

Many of America's affluent, squeezed already, worry they will be burdened with higher taxes

by Jane Sasseen

This Issue

June 16, 2008

Banks vs. Consumers

Previous IssueNext Issue

The Grunskis: He fears his $147,000 salary will be taxed at a higher rate Brad Swonetz/Redux

Obama has pledged to boost taxes only on the wealthy Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

McCain won't be able to extend Bush cuts without Congress' help Jim Young/Reuters

Story Tools

post a comment

e-mail this story

print this story

order a reprint

digg this

save to del.icio.us

By any measure, Dr. Howard Hammer and his wife, Hope, have a comfortable life. Hammer, 40, has built a thriving practice as an ear, nose, and throat specialist, while Hope, 39, has switched to part-time work as a real estate lawyer after years at a big firm in order to spend more time with Arielle, 7, and Matthew, 9. Home is a four-bedroom house in the Philadelphia suburbs, and between them, they bring in over $300,000 a year. "We can't complain," he says. "We're certainly not struggling."

But are they wealthy? That's far more debatable. Hammer, who feels the same pressures squeezing Americans up and down the income ladder, says he's anything but. Ever-rising prices for gas, health insurance, and other expenses are hitting hard, as are the $3,000-a-month mortgage and the $2,000 he still pays monthly to whittle down his $160,000 medical school debt. A six-year residency gave Hammer a delayed start saving for retirement, so he worries if he's stashing enough in his 401(k). By the time the couple contributes to the children's college fund, there's little extra at the end of the month.

The Hammers and their like may have more to worry about come January. As he criss-crossed the U.S. battling Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination, the presumptive winner, Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.), talked up plans to cut taxes for the middle class. To pay for the expansive new programs he's offered voters, Obama has pledged to boost taxes only on the wealthy. Recently in Indianapolis, Obama promised to save the average family $2,500 in annual health-care premiums. "That's real relief, but we can only pay for this if we finally roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans, who don't need them and weren't even asking for them," he said.

Such rhetoric leaves Hammer steaming. "I don't mind paying my fair share, but people act like they're just talking about Bill Gates," he says. "We would definitely feel a hit if our taxes went up." Although a year ago he would not have considered voting Republican in November, now he's not so sure: "Do you vote your heart, or do you vote your wallet?"

Just what does it mean to be wealthy these days? When it comes to raising taxes, it's far from clear exactly where the line will be drawn. While Obama has said only couples making more than $250,000 will pay more, many analysts believe that number could change. "Rates at the top end are going up, but what does that mean for those making $200,000, $225,000, or $250,000?" asks Anne Mathias, the head of Washington policy research for the Stanford Group, an investment advisory firm.

Like Hammer, many facing higher taxes don't consider themselves part of the exalted crowd. They have good incomes, to be sure, particularly compared with the median household income of $48,200. Of the 149 million households filing federal income taxes for 2006, some 3% reported income between $200,000 and $500,000; fewer than 1% claimed income above half a million dollars.

But many also live in high-cost areas with expenses to match—and feel burned by talk of "taxing the rich" that doesn't recognize that $250,000 stretches a lot further in the South or the Midwest than in Manhattan or Silicon Valley. "There is a huge difference between what politicians define as rich and what many Americans would call middle class," says Patrick Anderson, CEO of the Anderson Economic Group and co-editor of The State Economic Handbook.

The soaring deficit, along with the fact that the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010, provide much of the impetus for the coming fight over high-end taxes. If Washington doesn't act, tax rates on income, capital gains, dividends, and other areas will return to the higher rates in effect before the cuts were enacted in 2001 and 2003. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), the presumptive GOP Presidential nominee, has said he would extend the cuts for everyone, while Obama says he'll maintain them for all but the wealthiest. If Obama wins, some taxes could go up as soon as 2009.

Taxing the 'Not-So-Rich' Rich

2008-06-18T16:21:00.000-07:00

Taxing the 'Not-So-Rich' Rich

by Jane Sasseen, from Business Week (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_24/b4088081624555.htm)

Many of America's affluent, squeezed already, worry they will be burdened with higher taxes

By any measure, Dr. Howard Hammer and his wife, Hope, have a comfortable life. Hammer, 40, has built a thriving practice as an ear, nose, and throat specialist, while Hope, 39, has switched to part-time work as a real estate lawyer after years at a big firm in order to spend more time with Arielle, 7, and Matthew, 9. Home is a four-bedroom house in the Philadelphia suburbs, and between them, they bring in over $300,000 a year. "We can't complain," he says. "We're certainly not struggling."

But are they wealthy? That's far more debatable. Hammer, who feels the same pressures squeezing Americans up and down the income ladder, says he's anything but. Ever-rising prices for gas, health insurance, and other expenses are hitting hard, as are the $3,000-a-month mortgage and the $2,000 he still pays monthly to whittle down his $160,000 medical school debt. A six-year residency gave Hammer a delayed start saving for retirement, so he worries if he's stashing enough in his 401(k). By the time the couple contributes to the children's college fund, there's little extra at the end of the month.

The Hammers and their like may have more to worry about come January. As he criss-crossed the U.S. battling Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination, the presumptive winner, Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.), talked up plans to cut taxes for the middle class. To pay for the expansive new programs he's offered voters, Obama has pledged to boost taxes only on the wealthy. Recently in Indianapolis, Obama promised to save the average family $2,500 in annual health-care premiums. "That's real relief, but we can only pay for this if we finally roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans, who don't need them and weren't even asking for them," he said.

Such rhetoric leaves Hammer steaming. "I don't mind paying my fair share, but people act like they're just talking about Bill Gates," he says. "We would definitely feel a hit if our taxes went up." Although a year ago he would not have considered voting Republican in November, now he's not so sure: "Do you vote your heart, or do you vote your wallet?"

Just what does it mean to be wealthy these days? When it comes to raising taxes, it's far from clear exactly where the line will be drawn. While Obama has said only couples making more than $250,000 will pay more, many analysts believe that number could change. "Rates at the top end are going up, but what does that mean for those making $200,000, $225,000, or $250,000?" asks Anne Mathias, the head of Washington policy research for the Stanford Group, an investment advisory firm.

Like Hammer, many facing higher taxes don't consider themselves part of the exalted crowd. They have good incomes, to be sure, particularly compared with the median household income of $48,200. Of the 149 million households filing federal income taxes for 2006, some 3% reported income between $200,000 and $500,000; fewer than 1% claimed income above half a million dollars.

But many also live in high-cost areas with expenses to match—and feel burned by talk of "taxing the rich" that doesn't recognize that $250,000 stretches a lot further in the South or the Midwest than in Manhattan or Silicon Valley. "There is a huge difference between what politicians define as rich and what many Americans would call middle class," says Patrick Anderson, CEO of the Anderson Economic Group and co-editor of The State Economic Handbook.

The soaring deficit, along with the fact that the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010, provide much of the impetus for the coming fight over high-end taxes. If Washington doesn't act, tax rates on income, capital gains, dividends, and other areas will return to the higher rates in effect before the cuts were enacted in 2001 and 2003. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), the presumptive GOP Presidential nominee, has said he would extend the cuts for everyone, while Obama says he'll maintain them for all but the wealthiest. If Obama wins, some taxes could go up as soon as 2009.

By "wealthiest" Obama means married couples earning more than $250,000; for a single taxpayer, the equivalent income would be roughly $200,000. Today, taxpayers making that much fall into the top two federal income tax brackets, paying rates of 33% or 35%. Their rates would revert to the 36% and 39.6% top rates used in 2000. The same households would also see a bump up in the rates they pay on capital gains and dividends, both of which now stand at 15%.

Austan Goolsbee, Obama's top economic advisor, points out that only a relatively small number of high-end earners would be tapped, while the majority of Americans would see their taxes fall or remain the same. "Income growth in that group has been extremely rapid, while it's been stagnant for everyone else," says Goolsbee. "It's hard to argue they face the same struggle to get by."

Yet for many close to that $250,000 cusp, what sounds like a lot of money often doesn't feel like it. "Depending on where you live, $250,000 is middle class, at best," says Michael Ginn, 49, a longtime media executive who lives with his wife, Dafne, 34, and 3-year-old daughter, Erin, in the New York suburb of Pelham; their second daughter is due in July. Though his income has topped $300,000 for more than a decade, Ginn says he's never felt so stretched. With the cost of everything from health insurance to upkeep on his 90-year-old home surging, even as he takes on new expenses for his growing family, Ginn can't stash away anything near what he once did for retirement, let alone save for college. "We're just dog paddling now," he says. He argues that if Washington is going to raise high-end taxes, then the local cost of living should be taken into account.

STILL NOT ENOUGH
Yet limiting tax hikes to the $250,000-and-up set probably won't pump enough money into the U.S. Treasury to pay for new spending programs and deal with the ballooning deficit, even when combined with proposed corporate tax increases. Analyst Daniel Clifton of Strategas Research Partners has tallied some $350 billion in promised new annual spending by Obama. He has outlined plans to pay for new programs without increasing the deficit, but budget analysts are skeptical. "Targeting just a fraction of the population [for an increase] is not going to generate the revenues they need," says Roberton Williams, an ex-Congressional Budget Office staffer now with the independent Tax Policy Center. Adds Clifton: "They are going to have to find a way to get more from the middle class."

That prospect has many well below the $250,000 threshold convinced that they, too, could be coughing up more to Uncle Sam. Ken Grunski, the CEO of international cell phone provider Telestial, lives with his wife and two young children in San Diego—a pricey area where, he points out, plumbers make upwards of $90,000. Grunski brings home $147,000 a year; enough to live in a modest three-bedroom house, but no more. Every time he hears politicians talk about targeting high-end earners, he feels like he's right in their sights. "I'm resigned to having my taxes go up, but we're not living extravagantly here," he says.

Obama could lose support if too many people who see themselves as stretched members of the middle class get tagged as wealthy. "If they draw the line in the wrong place, they risk alienating an important constituency," says Mathias. That's a prospect McCain, who has lost no opportunity to remind voters that he would cut taxes while the Democrats would raise them, would be only too happy to exploit. Yet even if McCain is elected, analysts say taxes at the top end will probably rise. With the Democrats likely to wield a stronger grip on Congress after the election, there's little chance they'd agree to a renewal of all the Bush cuts. "People think the President can just extend the cuts, but he can't," says Stanford Group's Mathias. All of which explains why Mathias has been warning her clients that the next couple of years "will be a very bad time to be rich." Whatever, precisely, that means.

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

2008-05-28T07:58:00.000-07:00

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

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

Here is the Abstract:

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

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

The New Global Hunt for Tax Cheats

2008-05-27T18:55:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. States Lead the World in High Corporate Tax Rates

2008-03-24T03:24:00.000-07:00

The Tax Foundation has recently published the report U.S. States Lead the World in High Corporate Taxes:

"America's political leadership is finally waking up to the fact that the tax rates businesses face in the U.S. are way out of step with our major economic competitors. Last year, for example, Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel proposed cutting the federal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 30.5 percent. While a 5 percentage point cut in the federal corporate tax rate may sound significant, it may not be sufficient to meaningfully improve the competitiveness of the United States.

Currently, the average combined federal and state corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 39.3 percent, second among OECD countries to Japan's combined rate of 39.5 percent.1 Lowering the federal rate to 30.5 percent would only lower the U.S.'s ranking to fifth highest among industrialized countries.

More recently, other members of Congress—including Sen. John McCain and Congressman Eric Cantor—have released proposals to cut the corporate rate even deeper to 25 percent. While this lower rate would improve the U.S.'s international ranking and competitiveness, that improvement would be mitigated by the high corporate tax rates imposed by many states.
Many states impose state corporate income taxes at rates above the national average of 6.6 percent. Iowa, for example, imposes the highest corporate tax rate of 12 percent, followed by Pennsylvania's 9.99 percent rate and Minnesota's 9.8 percent rate. When added to the federal rate, these states tax their businesses at rates far in excess of all other OECD countries.

When compared to other OECD countries:
24 U.S. states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than top-ranked Japan.
32 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than third-ranked Germany.
46 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than fourth-ranked Canada.
All 50 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than fifth-ranked France.

Thus, if lawmakers are serious about making the U.S. corporate tax system more competitive internationally, corporate tax rates will have to be reduced both in Washington and in state capitals. State officials should be champions of substantial cuts in the federal corporate tax rate because there is only so much they can do to improve their own competitiveness. After all, even corporations that operate in the three states that do not impose a major state-level corporate tax—Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming—still shoulder a higher corporate tax rate than fifth-ranked France and 24 other OECD countries because of the 35 percent federal corporate rate.
The U.S. is among eight countries with extra corporate tax rates imposed by state or local levels of government. While the burden of these state-level taxes is somewhat lessened because they can be deducted from federal taxes, they do add a second layer of tax and also add considerable complexity for multi-state and multi-national businesses.

Some 44 states impose a traditional corporate income tax, with rates ranging from a low of 4.63 percent in Colorado to 12 percent in Iowa. Three states—Michigan, Texas, and Washington—impose a variant of a gross receipts tax in which businesses pay tax on their gross sales rather than their net profits.2 Ohio is currently transitioning from a traditional CIT to a gross receipts-style tax but now it has both. And, as mentioned above, three states do not have a state-level corporate tax.

Table 1 shows that when the state rates are combined with the federal rate (and accounting for federal deductibility), states are effectively imposing a corporate tax rate which ranges from 35 percent to 41.6 percent. Indeed, 16 U.S. states impose a combined corporate tax rate of more than 40 percent, which is at least 12 percentage points higher than the OECD average of 27.6 percent.

Assuming that no state cuts its business taxes in the next year, the U.S. federal rate would have to be cut to 20 percent in order to bring the combined federal-state rate down to the middle of the OECD pack. But Washington does not bear the entire blame for America's eroding tax competitiveness, nor does it shoulder the entire responsibility for fixing it. State officials also have to be cognizant of the fact that they are not only competing against each other for investment and jobs, but against the rest of the world. The emerging low-tax countries in Europe and Asia benefit from the U.S. remaining a high-tax country.

In just the past two months, at least six countries have announced plans to cut their corporate tax rates: Canada, Hong Kong, Korea, South Africa, Spain and Taiwan. In an interview in the Korea Times, Choi Kyung-hwan, a member of the new Administration's Presidential Transition Committee, said, "The corporate income tax reduction is not a matter of choice, but a matter of life and death for Korea in an increasingly globalized business environment.''
In a refrain that is equally applicable to the U.S., Choi went on to say, "Hong Kong and Singapore, which impose significantly lower corporate taxes than Korea, have further slashed taxes recently to draw more foreign investors. Also, France currently levies a 34.4 percent corporate income tax but plans to reduce the tax to as low as 20 percent. Unless Korea cuts corporate taxes, we will not be able to win over multinational firms."3

A growing body of academic research indicates that foreign direct investment (FDI) can be quite sensitive to the corporate tax rates imposed by a state or country. One recent study of the effects of corporate income taxes on the location of foreign direct investment (FDI) in the United States found a strong relationship between state corporate tax rates and FDI—for every 1 percent increase in a state's corporate tax rate FDI can be expected to fall by 1 percent.4
A new study of income tax rates in 85 countries by economists at the World Bank and Harvard University found a strong effect of both statutory and effective corporate tax rates on FDI as well as entrepreneurship. For example, the average rate of FDI as a share of GDP is 3.36 percent. But a 10 percentage point increase in the statutory corporate rate can be expected to reduce FDI by nearly 2 percentage points.5

In the end, the key to improving America's business tax competitiveness is a partnership between federal and state lawmakers to work toward the common goal of lowering the overall business tax burden in the U.S. Otherwise, the U.S. will continue to fall behind in the global tax race simply by standing still.

See Table 1

Notes
1. Because of the federal deductibility of state and local taxes, the effective "tax cost" of the average state rate is 35 percent less than 6.6 percent, or 4.3 percent. This rate is then added to the 35 percent federal rate to give an overall rate of 39.3 percent. In the appendix table, each state's rate is reduced by 35 percent before being added to the federal rate.
2. In 2007, Michigan's Single Business Tax rate was 1.9 percent, Texas's Franchise Tax rate was 1 percent, and Washington's B&O Tax rate was 0.484 percent. For the sake of comparison, these gross receipts rates have been converted into an effective corporate income tax rate. We did this by using federal corporate income tax collection data to determine the tax base in the state. Based upon Michigan Department of Revenue statistics, 65 percent of gross receipts taxes are paid by corporations; the remainder is paid by non-corporate businesses. Therefore, to determine the amount of replacement revenue needed to be raised by a corporate income tax, we multiplied the current amount of gross receipts tax collected by each state by 65 percent. This replacement amount was then divided by the base to create an effective CIT rate. These effective CIT rates have not been included in the state average. If they were to be averaged in, the overall state average rate would rise to 7.4 percent, which would give the U.S. an overall rate of 39.8 percent and, thus, higher than Japan.
3. Lee Hyo-sik, "Corporate Tax Cut Key to Economic Recovery," Korea Times, February 11, 2008.
4. Claudio A. Agostini, "The Impact of State Corporate Taxes on FDI Location," Public Finance Review 2007; 35; 335. http://pfr.sagepub.com/content/abstract/35/3/335
5. Sineon Djankov, Tim Ganser, Caralee McLiesh, Rita Ramalho, and Andrei Shleifer, "The Effect of Corporate Taxes on Investment and Entrepreneurship," National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 13756, January 2008. http://www.nber.org/papers/w13756

Attached Files: U.S. States Lead the World in High Corporate Taxes, PDF, 48.8 KB by Scott A. Hodge

Liechtenstein probe likely to boost Singapore

2008-03-07T18:39:00.000-08:00

Liechtenstein probe likely to boost Singapore
Article published by John Burton in the Financial Times (www.ft.com) on March 3 2008.

Singapore, the world’s fastest growing private banking centre, could be the main beneficiary from the Liechtenstein tax evasion investigation, according to the global head of Société Générale’s private banking business.

“Because of what happened in Liechtenstein, we will see a higher flow of funds into Singapore,” said Daniel Truchi, who previously headed SG Private Banking’s Asian operations from Singapore. “The momentum is accelerating.”

Liechtenstein lays plans for more transparency - Aug-15The recent events in Liechtenstein are “sort of like an earthquake for European private banking” because “it undermines client confidence” and its effects will be felt in other European wealth management centres, including Switzerland and Luxembourg, Mr Truchi said.

Singapore will attract more money because its bank secrecy and trust laws governing inheritance are among the tightest in the world, Mr Truchi said. Those who break Singapore bank secrecy laws are subject to harsher punishments than applied in Switzerland. Singapore also has no laws against international tax evasion.

Singapore has introduced new rules on bank secrecy and trusts in the past few years in consultation with the global private banking industry as the south-east Asian city-state has identified wealth management as a growth industry.

Singapore could receive a significant boost as money flows from Europe.

“Switzerland’s private banking business is 10 times bigger than Singapore’s but if we see 10 per cent of those funds moving from Switzerland, it will double the amount of assets managed in Singapore,” Mr Truchi said.

However, Singapore is under growing pressure from the European Union to ease its secrecy rules to help catch tax evaders. The issue has emerged as the main stumbling block in a trade pact being negotiated between Singapore and the EU.

“Singapore is not a tax haven. We are a low-tax country but not a tax haven. The situation that arose in Liechtenstein cannot happen here,” said George Yeo, the Singapore foreign minister, after meeting his German counterpart last week to discuss the issue.

Singapore’s bank secrecy laws are “very important” to Singapore’s development as an international finance centre but “we do not condone drug money or terrorism money or money laundering. These are crimes,” Mr Yeo said.

Mr Truchi said that Singapore is unlikely to bow to EU pressure in the near-term as it seeks to expand its private banking business.

Transparency and Trust, by Freedman

2008-02-02T03:19:00.000-08:00

Judith Freedman (from Oxford University) has posted Financial and Tax Accounting: Transparency and Truth, in Tax and Corporate Governance (Springer, 2008), on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

In the USA there have been calls for greater conformity between the rules producing tax accounts and those used for financial reporting purposes. A number of benefits are claimed for this so-called 'book-tax conformity', including reduced compliance costs and better opportunities for monitoring. In Europe, the debate around use of the financial accounts for tax purposes has arisen from a different conceptual starting point as well as differences in surrounding circumstances. Linkage between tax and financial accounts is common in Europe, although it takes varying forms. This does not result in complete book-tax conformity, however, and recent developments in accounting may be increasing divergence rather than reducing it. Despite the strong arguments in favour of conformity, there are also good reasons for some divergences, meaning that the most likely outcome in any system, whatever the starting point, is partial convergence. The problem with a hybrid outcome of this kind is that, at the point of divergence, there can be conceptual confusion and difficulties in integrating and managing two conceptually very different rule systems. Clarity of the relationship between the rules and improved accounting disclosure requirements might be more important than convergence, and might be achieved with less distortion to either tax or financial accounting. The current UK position is used to illustrate these points.

Tax Havens and the Struggle for Global Tax Regulation

2008-01-02T13:29:00.000-08:00

Sharman, J.C.. "Tax Havens and the Struggle for Global Tax Regulation" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston Marriott Copley Place, Sheraton Boston & Hynes Convention Center, Boston, Massachusetts, Aug 28, 2002

Abstract: In 1998 the OECD launched a campaign to prevent 'harmful' international tax competition practised by tax havens luring away capital and accompanying tax revenue from large industrialised states. Subsequently the OECD has sought to compel tax havens to eschew this 'tax poaching' in a struggle crucially shaped by normative factors inhibiting the use of economic sanctions and side-payments. The OECD has instead employed a rhetorical strategy of argument and 'naming and shaming' to secure tax havens' compliance, attacking their reputation for financial probity and diminishing their attractiveness as investment destinations. In response, tax havens have sought to appropriate and reverse arguments put into play by the OECD to delegitimate the campaign.

In policy terms, the tax competition initiative exemplifies how core states can set and impose standards regulating the global economy. Theoretically, it provides an explanation based on the interaction of rationalist and normative factors, whilst also advancing our understanding of argument and rhetoric.

The Costs of International Tax Cooperation

2007-11-03T17:05:00.000-07:00

Tsilly Dagan (Bar-Ilan University) published this 2002 article at Michigan Law and Economics Research Paper No. 02-007; and U of Michigan Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 13

Here is theAbstract:

This Article discusses the three levels of international tax (the unilateral, the bilateral and the multilateral). It describes the seemingly appealing arguments (based on cooperation) advocating neutrality, double taxation prevention, and harmonization. A closer look at these arguments, however, reveals that pursuing these goals often brings about completely different and sometimes undesirable results. While acknowledging the potential benefits of inter-nation cooperation for some, this article highlights the (sometimes hidden) costs of such cooperation for others. Thus, domestic interest groups tend to win or lose from adopting an (elusive) cooperative strategy as the unilateral mechanisms of their countries; developing countries tend systematically to lose tax revenue when they enter into the (more cooperative and thus seemingly benign) bilateral treaty regime; finally, the emerging multilateral regime, promoted as an all-benefiting cooperative strategy, also creates potential losers both among and within nations.

Based on this analysis, the paper argues that cooperation serves as a useful rhetorical tool that supports a certain contingent policy choice, but obscures other, potentially important, considerations and alternatives. Identifying the winners and losers of cooperative policies is necessary in order to evaluate such polices. Cooperation cannot be and is not the ultimate goal in international tax policy.

Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=315373 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.315373

Uncertain Taxes in China

2007-08-28T18:15:00.000-07:00

There is a very interesting article entitled "China's Uncertain Tax Positions" posted by chinalawblog.com:

"Donald Compton of Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP just had published a nice introduction to some of the tax issues likely to confront multinational companies doing business in China. The article is entitled, "China: Determining Uncertain Tax Positions In China," [free subscription may be required] and its focus is on what such companies need to do to comply with Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48.

The introduction to the article nicely summarizes the article itself:
By now many multinational companies have begun the process of addressing how Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48 ("FIN 48") will apply to their global business. The challenge in understanding the FIN 48 implications for tax planning and local country compliance issues in foreign jurisdictions will be significant. FIN 48 requires companies to ascertain, evaluate, and conclude on discrete tax risks. Companies must not only account for the interest and penalties on these conclusions, but must also adhere to a new disclosure regime.

Companies may not have the wherewithal to fully appreciate the implications of their tax posture due to many factors, including lack of knowledge, time constraints, resource constraints, quality of the past compliance filings, and insufficient mechanisms to gather data. Many issues, including documentation, transfer pricing, arbitrary enforcement and inconsistent interpretation by regulators, are common in many jurisdictions, although each jurisdiction may have its own particular twist.
For companies operating in China, the tax planning environment creates another level of complex Uncertain Tax Positions ("UTPs") analysis. This complexity arises because many companies have negotiated at the provincial and local levels to reduce the national statutory rate, plus there are numerous local incentive regimes. This article provides the author's perspective on UTPs in China and suggests some areas that companies currently or potentially operating in China should consider."

Harnessing the Costs of International Tax Arbitrage

2007-07-01T12:52:00.000-07:00

Professor Adam H. Rosenzweig (from Washington University) has postes Harnessing the Costs of International Tax Arbitrage, 26 Va. Tax Rev. 555 (2007). Here is the abstract:

The issue of international tax arbitrage has proven a difficult and intractable one. Rather than try to minimize costs of the arbitrage or prevent “abuse” of the laws of a particular regime, the United States should also consider affirmatively bearing some of the costs of the international tax arbitrage transaction to further the policy of international vertical equity and shift the incentives in the worldwide regime that led to the rise of the arbitrage in the first place.

Harnessing the costs of international tax arbitrage transactions will not always be the appropriate response to each particular arbitrage transaction. Depending on the circumstances, the traditional responses may be sufficient, a fundamental change to the underlying United States domestic tax law may be appropriate or a worldwide consensus on harmonization in a particular area may arise. Harnessing the costs of the international tax arbitrage should be considered, however, when such responses prove inadequate. At a minimum, in adopting such an approach the United States would provide some level of subsidy for investment in developing countries at little to no cost to the current international tax regime. At best, however, harnessing the costs of international tax arbitrage could place of the issue of international tax arbitrage back on the international scene, restart stalled international tax discussions and potentially move towards a greater worldwide consensus, not only on the international tax arbitrage itself but on the larger issue of the role of international vertical equity in the worldwide tax regime. In a second-best world, United States unilateral action in harnessing the costs of international tax arbitrage may be the first step towards a first-best solution.

IBM under the wire tax break

2007-06-09T16:34:00.000-07:00

Big Blue’s Under-the-Wire Tax Break
Posted by Peter Lattman, from http://blogs.wsj.com/

It looks like IBM’s tax lawyers are earning their keep. Just two days after they used a complex corporate tax loophole to save an estimated $1.6 billion, the IRS moved to close the loophole down. Here are stories from the WSJ and NYT.

On May 29, IBM said it had structured a $12.5 billion stock repurchase to take advantage of overseas earnings without making them subject to stiff U.S. corporate tax rates. Because they’re designed to make an end around IRS section 367(B) covering U.S. taxes on repatriated earnings, tax lawyers call these deals “Killer B” transactions.

Two days later, the IRS announced plans to issue regulations making companies pay U.S. taxes when they buy back their stock, even if the shares are purchased by an international subsidiary. It said the planned ban on the practice would take effect that day.

Stewart Lipeles, a tax attorney with Baker & McKenzie, told the WSJ it looked like the IRS rushed out a notice after it caught wind of IBM’s “Killer B.” The IRS won’t say.

Intercompany Loans and Profit Shifting

2007-04-21T07:33:00.000-07:00

Intercompany Loans and Profit Shifting – Evidence from Company-Level Data
Thiess Buettner (Ifo Institute for Economic Research and CESifo) and Georg Wamser (Ifo Institute for Economic Research) published this paper on March 2007 at CESifo Working Paper Series No. 1959.

Here is the Abstract:

This paper is concerned with tax-planning strategies of multinational corporations. A theoretical analysis discusses the choice of the capital structure in a setting where intercompany loans can be used to shift profits to low-tax countries. Empirical evidence is provided using micro-level panel data of virtually all German multinationals made available by the Bundesbank. This comprehensive dataset allows us to exploit differences in taxing conditions of almost eighty countries during a period of nine years.

The empirical results confirm a robust impact of tax-rate differences within the multinational group on the use of intercompany loans, supporting the profit-shifting hypothesis. However, the implied tax-revenue effects are rather small, suggesting that costs related to adjusting the capital structure for profit-shifting purposes are substantial.

Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=981120

Which Countries Become Tax Havens?

2007-04-20T07:08:00.000-07:00

Which Countries Become Tax Havens?
Dhammika Dharmapala (University of Connecticut) and James R. Hines Jr. (University of Michigan) published this paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) in December 2006.

Here is the Abstract:

This paper analyzes the factors influencing whether countries become tax havens. Roughly 15 percent of countries are tax havens; as has been widely observed, these countries tend to be small and affluent. This paper documents another robust empirical regularity: better-governed countries are much more likely than others to become tax havens. Using a variety of empirical approaches, and controlling for other relevant factors, governance quality has a statistically significant and quantitatively large impact on the probability of being a tax haven. For a typical country with a population under one million, the likelihood of a becoming a tax haven rises from 24 percent to 63 percent as governance quality improves from the level of Brazil to that of Portugal.

The effect of governance on tax haven status persists when the origin of a country's legal system is used as an instrument for its quality of its governance. Low tax rates offer much more powerful inducements to foreign investment in well-governed countries than elsewhere, which may explain why poorly governed countries do not generally attempt to become tax havens - and suggests that the range of sensible tax policy options is constrained by the quality of governance.

Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=952721

Mason on Tax Discrimination in the EU

2007-04-16T13:08:00.000-07:00

Proffessor Ruth Mason (UConn) has published an interesting report entitled In Search of Internal Consistency: Tax Discrimination in the EU, 46 Colum. J. Trans. L ___ (2007), on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The European Union was created to bind the countries of Europe together economically to prevent future wars. Rigorous enforcement of EU nationals' fundamental economic freedoms before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has furthered economic integration. The fundamental freedoms prohibit tax discrimination—harsher tax treatment of cross-border economic activities than purely internal activities. Critics of the ECJ argue that the Court's broad interpretation of the EC freedoms causes it to find tax discrimination where there is none. This tendency encroaches upon the sovereignty of EU member states and hampers their ability to pursue economic policy goals. In contrast, based upon a survey of all the ECJ's tax discrimination decisions, this Article offers a more nuanced critique that shows the ECJ's errors in tax discrimination cases go in both directions. In addition to finding discrimination where there is none, the Court also sometimes fails to recognize discrimination. The Court's failure to recognize tax discrimination undermines the economic integration of Europe and abridges EU nationals' personal rights.

This Article is the first to identify the Court's method of review in tax discrimination cases, the comparable internal situation test (CIST), as a principal contributor to the Court's difficulty in tax cases. Instead of CIST, the Article proposes that the ECJ borrow a method developed by the U.S. Supreme Court for tax cases arising under the Commerce Clause: the internal consistency test (ICT). Adoption of this simpler method should enable the ECJ to make more coherent tax decisions, which will promote economic efficiency and integration of the European common market.

Lecture on VAT in the European Union

2007-04-15T04:07:00.000-07:00

Here are the lecture by Prof. Dr. Michael Tumpel, made April 11, 2007.

Listen to Prof. Tumpel's Lecture:

Introduction:
Download the MP3

Lecture:
Download the MP3

Q & A:
Download the MP3

In Praise of Tax Havens: International Tax Planning and Foreign Direct Investment

2007-04-05T07:19:00.000-07:00

In Praise of Tax Havens: International Tax Planning and Foreign Direct Investment
Qing Hong (University of Toronto) and Michael Smart (University of Toronto) published this paper for the CESifo (Center for Economic Studies and Ifo Institute for Economic Research)CESifo Working Paper Series No. 1942

Here is the Abstract:

The multinationalization of corporate investment in recent years has given rise to a number of international tax avoidance schemes that may be eroding tax revenues in industrialized countries, but which may also reduce tax burdens on mobile capital and so facilitate investment. Both the welfare effects of and the optimal response to international tax planning are therefore ambiguous.

Evaluating these factors in a simple general equilibrium model, we find that citizens of high-tax countries benefit from (some) tax planning. Paradoxically, if tax rates are not too high, an increase in tax planning activity causes a rise in optimal corporate tax rates, and a decline in multinational investment. Thus fears of a "race to the bottom" in corporate tax rates may be misplaced.

Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=976577

Institutional Culture, Actor Interests, and Tax Cooperation in the OECD, IMF and United Nations

2007-03-12T13:32:00.000-07:00

Webb, Michael. "Institutional Culture, Actor Interests, and Tax Cooperation in the OECD, IMF and United Nations" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association 48th Annual Convention, Hilton Chicago, CHICAGO, IL, USA, Feb 28, 2007
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript

Abstract: The OECD is the most prominent and most widely studied international institution in international tax diplomacy, but it is not the only one. This paper compares the approaches taken by the OECD, the IMF, and the United Nations to international taxation, particularly corporate taxation and developing countries.

The IMF provides so-called "technical assistance" on taxation to developing countries, assistance that is heavily influenced by tax theory developed by academic economists and that helps constitute states and state-society relations in developing countries. Various agencies within the UN have developed a Model Tax
Treaty that is more favorable to developing countries than the OECD Model, and they providetechnical and diplomatic assistance to developing countries on tax issues. The paper argues that some similarities and differences in the approaches taken by these institutions can be accounted for by the interests of their memberstates (which in turn are shaped by societal interests, especially those of transnational taxpayers), but that the culture, norms and traditions of the institutions also matter.

The Future of Offshore

2007-03-02T13:48:00.000-08:00

Sharman, Jason. "The Future of Offshore" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association 48th Annual Convention, Hilton Chicago, CHICAGO, IL, USA, Feb 28, 2007 http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p180572_index.html

Abstract: Since the turn of the century Offshore Financial Centres (OFCs), or tax havens, have been roiled by various challenges from the G7 states and international organisations including the OECD, the EU and the FATF. Collectively these interventions, premised on combatting tax evasion and money laundering, have tended to erode tax havens' traditional attractions for non-resident investors: secrecy and light regulation.Currently the pace of change has slowed enough to make a preliminary assessment of what impact these changes have had on the 'offshore world'as a whole, not just individual tax havens. Conventional wisdom, often supported by those in tax havens themselves, is that as tax havens' traditional attractions have been weakened, this decade has and will continue to be lean times.

However, there is some evidence that the pessimism concerning the future of OFCs is considerably overdone. This paper will provide a preliminary assessment of the future of offshoreusing recently published IMF studies of 42 OFCs, interview data from 15 such jurisdictions, and a ten year survey of the commercial investment press, to lay the foundations for a larger project along the same lines.

Did the OECD Attack on Tax Havens Have Measurable Effects?"

2007-03-02T13:38:00.000-08:00

Kudrle, Robert. "Did the OECD Attack on Tax Havens Have Measurable Effects?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association 48th Annual Convention, Hilton Chicago, CHICAGO, IL, USA, Feb 28, 2007

Abstract: The 1998 OECD Report, Harmful Tax Competition, essentially declared war on jurisdictions with practices that most member governments regarded as abusive. The declaration was followed by a set of actions that many have viewed as severely undermining the credibly of the organization with friends and foes alike. The negative reactions of the largely small and weak states classified as ?tax havens? caused a rethinking and a change of tactics within the OECD. This resulted in a rather abrupt change in approach: the replacement of unilateral demands by a kinder, gentler cooperative approach that created the impression for many that the OECD was incompetent, weak, or both. This paper will employ interrupted time series data analysis of tax haven activity to evaluate claims about the effectiveness of the project in changing the location and volume of international investment and the implied changes of tax revenue by other states.

A Level Playing Field and the Space for Small States

2007-03-02T13:36:00.000-08:00

Vlcek, William. "A Level Playing Field and the Space for Small States" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association 48th Annual Convention, Hilton Chicago, CHICAGO, IL, USA, Feb 28, 2007

Abstract: In the course of producing a project against tax competition, the OECD has insisted on the establishment of a level playing field. The subjects of this project are predominantly small states with offshore financial centres and few alternatives available to achieve economic development. This paper reflects upon the broad parameters of the OECD's concern with tax competition and its proposed method to resolve the issue.

The following argument is an interrogation of the meaning embedded within the term 'level playing field' as used in the debate over international tax competition. It outlines some of the broad consequences that an OECD success with implementing the project holds for small economies. The conclusion reached is that a level playing field in the global political economy is a mirage with more substance for some states than for others.

Forex rules in China real estate ownership

2007-02-24T18:53:00.000-08:00

I encourage readers to have a look a this article entitled "Foreign Ownership Of Real Estate In China/China's New Forex Rules" writed by Steve Dickinson, from chinalawblog.com:

"In July 2006, the Chinese government issued rules prohibiting foreign individuals and companies from directly owning commercial real estate in China. Just this month, China's State Administration of Foreign Exchange ("SAFE") issued new foreign exchange rules. In my experience dealing with real estate investors here in Shanghai and elsewhere in China, both of these rules are misunderstood.

The Opinion on Regularizing and Managing the Entry of Foreign Capital into the Real Estate Market ("Opinion") requires foreign participation in commercial real estate investment be through a Chinese commercial entity. This means foreign companies and individuals can own real estate in China only through a Foreign Invested Enterprise (FIE), such as a Wholly Foreign Owned Entity (WFOE) or through an Equity or Contractual Joint Venture (JV). Residential property not for personal use is considered commercial real estate and its ownership is similarly restricted. This is true even if the residential property is not rented to third parties.
This rule applies to all of China. The ramifications of this new rule are clear: foreign individuals and foreign companies can buy commercial real estate in China only if they do so in the name of a Chinese corporation (such as a WFOE or JV) established for this purpose. This is a clear and inflexible rule. It also is not actually a change in Chinese law, just a reaffirmation by opinion of what has always been the case.

The opinion has one limited exception to its no foreign ownership rule and that is for residential real estate as a personal residence. This exception is limited to Representative Offices or to foreign individuals who have been legally resident in China for at least one year while employed or as a student. These foreign individuals are limited to one residence. There are somewhat less restrictive rules for residents of Hong Kong and Taiwan.

Following on the Opinion, the relevant authorities issued detailed rules on foreign exchange issues related to the foreign individual purchase and sale of real estate. These rules were issued on September 1, 2006 as the Notice on Various Issues Relating to the Management of Foreign Exchange in Connections with the Regularization of the Real Estate Market ("Forex Notice"). The Forex Notice recognizes that most individual purchasers of real estate in China will be using foreign exchange form their home country for the purchase. These rules require proof of the real estate purchase in China, proof of identity, and proof of residence for at least one year. The exchange of funds must be made at the real estate buyer's bank, with the fund directly transferred to the seller's bank. No cash can be withdrawn.

The Forex Notice also provides rules for converting Renminbi (RMB) proceeds from a real estate sale by foreign individuals. The Forex Notice provides that RMB proceeds can be converted to foreign exchange if the foreign individual provides an application, a copy of the sales agreement, and proof of payment of all taxes related to the property and the sale.

The local tax offices with which I have discussed this tell me "all taxes" means any capital gains tax resulting from the sale and all taxes accrued during the foreign individual's ownership of the property, including the stamp taxes due on rental payments and individual income tax on any income earned from the property. Without proof of payment of taxes, conversion of foreign exchange will not be permitted. One of the tax officers with whom I discussed this told me that taxes are not a major issue in foreign exchange conversion since the sale itself would not be approved absent proof of payment of taxes.

I am aware of many foreign residents in China who are going to be facing a very unpleasant reality when they try to sell their China properties. Many foreign owners of real estate in China ignore the requirements of Chinese individuals income tax law and fail to file the appropriate tax return. Since taxes are owed on income earned from real property, the Chinese government will not approve the property's sale until the tax issue is resolved. This is another example of China starting to take a very serious approach to tax compliance.

I am also aware of a number of foreign residents who are violating Chinese law by buying more than one property. They tell me they feel safe in doing so because the Chinese government does not effectively track foreign real estate ownership. These people are taking large and unnecessary risks. The risk is unnecessary because all they need do to buy multiple properties legally is to form a WFOE and make the purchases through it. I view the risks as huge because I fully expect China to have effective tracking mechanisms in place before most of these people are able to sell.
This month, SAFE also issued new rules concerning the conversion of foreign exchange to RMB, called the Method for Management of Foreign Exchange by Individuals ("Forex Method") and the Detailed Rules on the Method for Management of Foreign Exchange by Individuals ("Detailed Rules"). The new system works as follows:
a. Individuals can freely convert foreign exchange to RMB up to an annual limit of $50,000 US.
b. When individuals exceed the $50,000 US annual limit, they must obtain permission for the exchange, which permission is automatic, provided the individual provides proof the exchange is for a specific and legitimate purpose.
c. The Forex Method provides that a foreign individual's sale and purchase of real estate is a legitimate purpose and should be processed according to existing rules. Section 21 of the Detailed Rules provides that such transactions should be processed according to the Forex Notice discussed above.

Accordingly, the new Forex system established this month has no impact on the purchase and sale of real estate in China by foreign individuals. Despite this, many people who contact me incorrectly believe the new rules imposed an absolute limit on foreign exchange conversion or prohibit foreign exchange conversions for buying real estate. The new rules are actually a liberalization of the old rules, not an attempt to impose new restrictions.

For those wishing to learn more on China real estate, mark May 3 and 4 on your calendar as both Steve and I will be speaking in San Francisco on those days at a seminar on China real estate investments. Steve will be speaking on China's new real estate regulations and I will be moderating a session on China's second tier cities. More information on this seminar will be forthcoming shortly."

Corporate Tax Policy and International Mergers and Acquisitions - Is the Tax Exemption System Superior?

2007-02-05T07:40:00.000-08:00

Corporate Tax Policy and International Mergers and Acquisitions - Is the Tax Exemption System Superior?

Johannes Becker (University of Cologne) and Clemens Fuest (University of Cologne and CESifo (Center for Economic Studies and Ifo Institute for Economic Research) published this paper at CESifo Working Paper Series No. 1884

Here is theAbstract:

In this paper we ask whether recent claims that the US government should switch from the tax credit system to the exemption system are justified. We study corporate taxation in a model where international capital flows are either greenfield investment projects or acquisitions of existing firms, and where investment is motivated by either cost reduction or market entry reasons. The paper asks how corporate taxation affects the international allocation of capital under different double taxation regimes. We find that the standard view on international taxation only prevails in the case of cost driven greenfield investment. In all other cases the deduction system is no longer optimal from a national perspective and the foreign tax credit system fails to ensure neutrality. However, the desirability of the tax exemption system has to be qualified. We show that the cross border cash flow tax system dominates the exemption system in terms of optimality properties.

Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=959991