La descarga está en progreso. Por favor, espere

La descarga está en progreso. Por favor, espere

Latin America Tax Executives Workshop 9 May 2012 Mexico City, Mexico.

Presentaciones similares

Presentación del tema: "Latin America Tax Executives Workshop 9 May 2012 Mexico City, Mexico."— Transcripción de la presentación:

1 Latin America Tax Executives Workshop 9 May 2012 Mexico City, Mexico

2 Page 2 1.Novedades fiscales en Estados Unidos, Europa, Centro América, Brasil, Colombia y otros países 2.Actualización de temas fiscales internacionales 3.Auditorias y Controversia Agenda

3 Estados Unidos 9 May 2012 Mexico City, Mexico

4 Page 4 Circular 230 disclaimer Any US tax advice contained herein was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions. These slides are for educational purposes only and are not intended, and should not be relied upon, as accounting advice.

5 Page 5 Agenda US Legislative update IRS thin capitalization challenges US Treaty update Planning considerations

6 Page 6 Legislative update

7 Page 7 Annual US federal budget process Begins when President submits a budget request to Congress for the coming fiscal year (beginning 1 October) Generally submitted in early February Details Administrations tax and spending policy recommendations and priorities Congress holds hearings on Presidents budget and develops its own budget resolution, a broad outline of spending limits and revenue targets If passed, the budget resolution sets the limits and thresholds for spending and tax bills for the coming year If not passed, the previous years resolution remains in effect

8 Page 8 Camp proposal – Overview On 26 October 2011 House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) released a discussion draft of an international tax proposal that reflects a reduction in the corporate tax rate to 25% and a form of a territorial tax regime The discussion draft was released as part of the Ways and Means Committees comprehensive tax reform effort and these elements are intended to be combined with other corporate and individual tax changes The discussion draft includes full statutory language and a detailed technical explanation The specific proposals included in the discussion draft generally are proposed to be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012

9 Page 9 Camp proposal - 95% deduction for certain CFC dividends The proposal generally would provide a 95% deduction for the foreign source portion of dividends received by a US corporation from its CFC No credit or deduction would be allowed for taxes (including withholding taxes) attributable to dividends eligible for the 95% deduction Foreign branches would be treated as CFCs for this purpose, and Treasury would be provided authority to provide similar treatment for partnerships or other flow- through entities At the election of the taxpayer, similar treatment would be provided for 10/50 companies

10 Page 10 Camp proposal - 95% Deduction for certain CFC dividends Transition rule deemed inclusion of accumulated foreign earnings In the last taxable year ending before January 1, 2013, the subpart F income of a specified 10-percent owned foreign corporation would be increased by the corporations accumulated deferred foreign income determined as of the close of such taxable year The inclusion of this subpart F income would be subject to an 85% deduction, for an effective tax rate of 5.25% No credit or deduction allowed for foreign taxes paid (or deemed paid) with respect to deductible portion Taxpayer could elect to pay tax liability in up to eight installments (including interest); certain events can accelerate payment of tax The accumulated foreign income so included would be subject to the 95% DRD when distributed, which at a 25% tax rate would represent an additional tax of 1.25%

11 Page 11 Camp proposal – Thin capitalization rule Scope: Would apply to any US corporation that is a US shareholder with respect to any foreign corporation that is part of the same worldwide affiliated group that includes the US corporation disallowance would apply if the US corporation fails to meet a relative leverage test and a percentage of adjusted taxable income test If the domestic corporation fails the relative leverage test and the percentage of adjusted taxable income test, the domestic corporations interest deduction is reduced by the lesser of the amount computed under each test Intra-group debt and equity disregarded Disallowed interest expense carried forward

12 Page 12 Camp proposal – Alternative options to prevent base erosion Option 1: Excess income from intangible assets Option 2: Current tax on low-taxed cross border foreign income Option 3: Subpart F treatment combined with reduced taxation

13 Page 13 Camp proposal What does this approach mean for US multinationals? What are the implications for foreign multinationals investing in the US?

14 Page 14 IRS thin capitalization challenges

15 Page 15 Increased IRS focus on thin capitalization IRS challenges to disallow debt (thin capitalization) are more prevalent Important to establish appropriate debt level and have contemporaneous documentation regarding suitability of debt levels

16 Page 16 Thin capitalization – What can taxpayers do? Proper documentation and analysis Ensure appropriate and contemporaneous documentation of their debt/equity position and a full credit capacity analysis that documents their ability to borrow from third parties on similar terms Document business rationale for borrowing or new capital structure

17 Page 17 US Treaty update

18 Page 18 Treaty update Hungary, Switzerland, Luxembourg Treaty US Treaties/Protocols with Switzerland, Luxembourg and Hungary pending ratification in US Senate New US Hungary Treaty will have modern LOB clause and triangular provision (neither are in current US/Hungary Treaty) Treaty ratification status

19 Page 19 Treaty update US/Chile Treaty Signed 4 February 2010 (not entered in force) Dividend withholding tax rate 5% for dividends paid to company with 10% vote. 15% otherwise. Special rule for pensions. Interest 4% for interest paid to bank, insurance company, certain equipment sales and certain special situations 15% otherwise for 5 years 10% after 5 years Special provisions for interest associated with branches and back-to- back arrangements Royalties 2%/10% Special sourcing rule Limitation on Benefits (LOB) provisions Fiscally transparent entity provision

20 Page 20 US/Mexico Treaty Has modern Limitation on Benefits (LOB) Provisions Note: Different from other treaties relating to certain details in application Withholding rates: Dividends: 5% for dividends paid to companies with 10% vote; 10% otherwise 0% where corporate shareholder owns > 80% vote for 12-month holding period and meets certain treaty LOB provisions 0% for certain pension/retirement plan recipients Special provisions for Regulated Investment Company and Real Estate Investment Trusts Interest 4.9% - loans from banks and for interest from certain securities 10% - on interest where 4.9% rate requirements are not met and interest is paid by banks or arises from certain credit sales relating to sale of machinery and equipment 15% - all other Certain limited exceptions to withholding tax on interest Royalties – 10%

21 Page 21 Planning considerations

22 Page 22 Leveraged Dividend Mexico ROW US CO Dividend a Note US Co Mexico Group Finance Company Loan Dividend

23 Page 23 Hungarian Treaty Implications EU/NAFTA Public Expected result under old treaty Interest payments eligible for 0% interest WHT under the old US – Hungary Treaty Expected results under new treaty Where EU/NAFTA/EFTA is parent company Even if new treaty Limitation on Benefits (LOB) provisions are met, the triangular provision is expected to result in 15% US WHT assuming low combined Hungary/branch taxation Where other parent company is Likely to have no treaty benefits (US 30% WHT) unless Hungary meets treaty requirements as headquarter company, engaged in active trade or business (ATB) test or otherwise receives Competent Authority discretionary relief. Hungary US Sub Third- country branch interest loan

24 Page 24 Potential US Investment Structures Mexico US Co Third country ATB Co meeting US treaty LOB Loan Interest

25 Page 25 Preferred Share Financing Group Company US Mexico US 2 Sale / repurchase agreement Common Stock Preferred Stock

26 Europe 9 May 2012 Mexico City, Mexico

27 Page 27 Introduction Economic outlook in Europe is highly uncertain because of ongoing debt crisis European countries are implementing severe budget cuts and are looking for ways to increase tax revenue without hurting competitiveness EU continued focus on enhancing cooperation on tax policy and tax harmonization

28 Page 28 EU Developments – CCCTB Proposal EU 1 EU 4EU 3EU 2 One consolidated tax base Different tax rates Sharing mechanism based on allocation key (10% for sales, 45% for labor, 45% for assets) Common set of anti-abuse provisions Reduced compliance Reduced transfer pricing issues Automatic loss offset No tax costs on restructuring Participation exemption & PE exemption on 1/3 rd countries income subject to ETR condition (otherwise credit method applies) Status On 19 April 2012 the European Parliament approved an amended version of the draft CCCTB Directive of March 16, 2011. European Companies and European Cooperative Societies will have to apply the CCCTB system starting two years after the member states apply the CCCTB. After five years, all other companies (except for small and medium-sized enterprises, SMEs) would have to apply the CCCTB rules (SMEs could voluntarily opt in). If no unanimous decision is obtained for introduction, the enhanced cooperation procedure could apply (at least nine MSs need to vote in favor).

29 Page 29 The European Commission (the Commission) has commenced a fact-finding consultation to identify situations of double non-taxation. The consultation defines double non-taxation as cases of mismatch between the tax rules of two or more countries that leads to low/no taxation of certain activities, and is concerned with direct taxes. The press release accompanying the consultation provides that double non-taxation, deprives Member States of significant revenues and creates unfair competition between businesses in the Single Market. The consultation was issued on February 29, 2012 and asks for feedback on examples of transactions which lead to double non-taxation and for suggestions as to how they could be tackled. The consultation period will last until May 30, 2012, after which it is expected a summary of responses will be included within the intended Commission communication on good governance planned for Q4 2012. The OECD has also recently published a report titled, Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements: Tax Policy and Compliance Issues, which deals with double non-taxation. Although the OECD report is not directly linked to the Commissions consultation, most EU Member States are members of the OECD and 9 of the 27 EU Member States contributed to the preparation of the OECD report. It is interesting to note that the two reports were issued around the same time. Since direct taxation currently remains the competence of individual Member States and proposals by the Commission on tax matters require unanimous approval of all Member States, how and whether these proposals develop at all remains to be seen. It is very difficult at this stage to determine the extent to which any responses and the proposals may be progressed by the EU. Given the timing of the Commission consultation and OECD report, it appears double non taxation is currently an area of focus for a number of EU member states. EU Commission Consultation Double Non-Taxation

30 Page 30 Denkavit claims, Amurata claims, Aberdeen claimsdifferent names for the same opportunity: Claims for the refund of WHT levied on dividends received by a EU shareholder on the grounds of EU law; the different names retrace the history of ECJ decisions. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued several decisions (e.g. Denkavit of December 14, 2006, Amurta of November 8, 2007, Aberdeen Property Fininvest Alpha Oy of June 6, 2009) in cases where a non-resident investor suffered a higher tax burden on dividends received compared to comparable resident investor. In essence the ECJ held that it is contrary to the free movement of capital under Article 56 EC (now Article 63 of the Lisbon Treaty), if EU member states impose a higher level of WHT on dividends paid to non-residents on their portfolio investments compared to distributions made to comparable resident shareholders, and where WHT credit cannot be utilized. The free movement of capital would also generally benefit to non EU investors. Opportunities of reclaims exist notably for Foreign pension funds and regulated collective investment vehicles. EU Commission has brought infringement proceedings against almost all EU member states that have imposed dividend WHT and the above ECJ cases suggest that WHT refund claims may be successful (see also French update) Source State Company Holding Shareholder S WHT Shareholder R Dividends No taxation Residence State Dividends EU Withholding Tax Reclaims

31 Page 31 Financing structures Country overview Regular debt push down / leverage remains possible for example Czech Republic (subject to 4:1 debt to equity thin cap rules and substance doctrine) France (subject to thin cap rules (both an arms length and thin cap limitation (1.5:1 debt to equity or 25% of net adjusted income before tax) alternatively the group ratio can be used) and business purpose test) Germany (subject to 30% EBITDA limitation) Italy (subject to 30% EBITDA limitation and business purpose test) Poland (subject to 3:1 debt to equity thin cap rules) Russian Federation (subject to 3:1 debt to equity thin cap rules and maximum deductible interest rate is 14.85% for Ruble and 6.6% for other loans) UK (subject to thin cap rules (arms length test) and WWDC) N.B. Consider transactions to increase the leverage capacity (by increasing equity /EBITDA)

32 Page 32 Financing structures Tax efficient structures Foreign Low taxed entity interest free/hybrid loans HoldCo with I/C receivable allocated to a (deemed) branch Parent Low Tax Holding Company Subs I/C loan I/C loan Parent Holding Company Subs interest free / hybrid loan Parent Holding Company Subs Branch I/C loan

33 Page 33 Financing structures Effective use of interest withholding tax Profile OpCo A has existing loans payable or needs new financing attracting interest withholding tax that effectively can not be credited at the FinCo level Anticipated benefits OpCo B should be able to claim a full credit for interest withholding tax if the loan is routed through an appropriate location, for example Italy, UK and, under specific circumstances, Belgium loan interest HoldCo Finco OpCo B with tax capacity Belgium/Italy/UK Parent interest OpCo A With debt and WHT that cannot be reduced to 0% loan

34 Page 34 Location of group IP and related management can be critical to allocation of global supply chain profits under transfer pricing principles. Traditional IP structures have focused on separation of IP ownership in a low-tax jurisdiction (or reverse hybrid) from a principal company subject to tax locally. IP planning is typically combined with deferral strategies to result in reduced global ETR. Numerous favorable regimes in European jurisdictions with varying degrees of complexity associated with structuring and ruling process Special tax regimes are emerging designed to attract jobs through ownership and development of IP and R&D activities, e.g., patent/innovation boxes. Focus on beneficial ownership and anti-abuse rules is increasing. IP Structures General considerations

35 Page 35 Belgium 0%–6.8% or even excess patent income deduction (which can be used to offset other income) Applies from 2008 Hungary 9.5%/5% 5% from 2013 Applies from mid-1990s France Max 15.5% (i.e., 15% plus a 3.3% surtax when applicable), minus eligible R&D expenses and depreciation allowances Applies from 1971 Spain 30% on 50% of the gross income = maximum 15% effective rate Applies from 2008 UK Patent box – 10% Expected to apply from 2013 Netherlands Innovation box – 5% Applies from 2007 Ireland 12.5%, however, effective rates of 1%–3% possible Applies from 2009 Luxembourg Broad IP regime: 0.3%–5.76% Applies from 2008 IP Structures EU IP Regimes

36 Page 36 IP Structures Principal/patent box structure Intended tax treatment: Taxable profits of IPCo may be subject to a low effective tax rate under patent or innovation box regime. Amortization could also be available in addition to or as an alternative to patent/innovation box. IPCo may also be able to qualify for R&D tax credits. OpCo is typically subject to tax on a margin commensurate with functions under OECD transfer pricing principles. Considerations: Structure aligns legal and economic ownership of IP with location of key business functions. Specific supply chain structure depends on business requirements and features of patent/ innovation box regime. US considerations including taxation of outbound transfer of IP. Parent HoldCo IPCo/ Principal Local OpCos Customers Sales Contract manufacturer Sales/ sublicenses Contract manufacturing agreement

37 Page 37 IP Structures UK – migration of IP to foreign branch Intended tax treatment: There is no UK taxation on allocation of intangible assets to Foreign Branch. Foreign Branch can potentially qualify for exemption from UK tax where anti- diversion requirements met. Foreign Branch may be subsequently incorporated as a subsidiary of UK OpCo with gain on transfer of intangible assets deferred into shares. Considerations: Foreign Branch should be responsible for managing the intangible assets although possible for some business functionality to remain in the UK. Genuine commercial transaction requirement must be met for post- 2002 intangible assets. Allocation of intangible assets UK OpCo Parent Foreign Branch Intangibles and related business functions Foreign Principal

38 Centro America Actualización Tributaria en Centroamérica, Panamá y República Dominicana

39 Page 39 2012 en Resumen País Reformas fiscales significantes para el 2012 Costa Rica La Reforma Fiscal Integral (Proyecto de Solidaridad Tributaria) no fue aprobada. (vicios de constitucionalidad en el proceso de aprobación). Otros proyectos: - Fortalecimiento de la gestión tributaria - Transparencia fiscal - Manejo Eficiente de las Finanzas Públicas Guatemala Se aprobaron 2 reformas fiscales relevantes en el primer trimestre del 2012 El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Honduras y Rep Dom. No se esperan reformas relevantes para el 2012. Estos países aprobaron reformas significativas en el 2010 y 2011

40 Page 40 Tendencias de Política Fiscal y Recaudación en la Región Aprobación de normas de precios de transferencia En vigencia: Panamá, El Salvador, República Dominicana, Honduras (2013) y Guatemala (2013) En proceso: Costa Rica y Nicaragua Equiparación de tarifas de impuestos de retención por pagos al exterior Firma de tratados para evitar la doble imposición Incremento en la cantidad y nivel de agresividad de auditorías fiscales Enfoque en deducibilidad de gastos por pagos al exterior Precios de transferencia Presentación electrónica de declaraciones

41 Page 41 Guatemala: Nueva Normativa en Materia Fiscal

42 Page 42 Se aprobaron 2 reformas tributarias: 1.Ley Anti-Evasión II (Decreto 4-2012 del Congreso) Publicada el 17 de febrero de 2012. Vigente desde el 25 de febrero de 2012 2.Ley de Actualización Tributaria (Decreto 10-2012 del Congreso. Publicada el 5 de marzo de 2012. Impuesto Sobre la Renta con vigencia desde el 1 de enero de 2013

43 Page 43 Principales cambios: Simulación Fiscal/Sustancia Sobre forma Se sanciona la simulación fiscal, cuando se encubre el carácter jurídico del negocio que se declara, dándose apariencia de otro de distinta naturaleza o se declare falsamente lo que en realidad no se ha convenido. Impuesto de Timbre El pago de dividendos o utilidades está afecta al pago de timbres fiscales, indistintamente de su forma de pago e independientemente de que se emita documento o se realice la operación contable. Facturas especiales y retenciones por pagos locales Requisitos adicionales para deducción de gastos Aspectos generales del Decreto 4-2012 Ley Anti-Evasión II

44 Page 44 Rentas de fuente guatemalteca Residentes Rentas de actividades lucrativas Régimen sobre las Utilidades de Actividades Lucrativas (25%) Régimen Opcional Simplificado sobre Ingresos de Actividades Lucrativas (5% hasta US$3,850 mensuales y 7% sobre el excedente) 5% sobre renta imponible hasta US$38,500 anuales US$1,875 base + 7% sobre excedente de US$38,500 Rentas de capital inmobiliario Rentas de capital mobiliario Ganancias y pérdidas de capital Rentas provenientes de loterías, rifas, sorteos, bingos o eventos similares 10% en general 5% para dividendos Rentas de trabajo Rentas de capital, ganancias y pérdidas de capital Resumen ejecutivo de la Ley de Actualización Tributaria Decreto 10-2012 del Congreso de la República

45 Page 45 Rentas de fuente guatemalteca No Residentes Rentas de actividades lucrativas Régimen sobre las Utilidades de Actividades Lucrativas (25%) Régimen Opcional Simplificado sobre Ingresos de Actividades Lucrativas (5% hasta US$3,850 mil mensuales y 7% sobre el excedente) 3% noticias, películas, otras proyecciones. 5% dividendos, pasajes, fletes, seguros y reaseguros, telefonía, energía eléctrica. 10% intereses (excepto entidades bancarias con EP) 15% regalías, sueldos, pagos a deportistas y artistas, honorarios, asesoramiento, comisiones. 25% otras no especificadas Con establecimiento permanente Sin establecimiento permanente Normas de precios de transferencia en transacciones con partes vinculadas Resumen ejecutivo de la Ley de Actualización Tributaria Decreto 10-2012 del Congreso de la República

46 Brazil

47 Page 47 Brazil Tax Stimulus Package (enacted April 04 th 2012) 1)Digital Inclusion Program 2)Broad Band Special Tax Regime (REPNBL-Redes) 3)REPORTO 4)Automotive Industry Innovation Incentive Program (INOVAR-AUTO) 5)Temporary Payroll Exemption for IT industries

48 Page 48 Brazil Most significant changes in the Transfer Pricing legislation 1)Minimum requirement for the application of the Brazilian uncontrolled price method (PIC). 2)The minimum statutory gross profit margin required when applying the Resale Price Method (PRL), for the import of goods, services or rights, range from 20% to 40% depending on the companys industry. 3)FOB price as basis for the PRL calculation. 4)New transfer pricing method for import/export of commodities traded publicly. 5)Changes to the deductibility of interest.

49 Page 49 Brazil Frequently amendments in the Financial Tax (IOF) Loans with maturity date greater than 5 years, subject to IOF at 6% over the principal amount of the loan, otherwise zero Recent case law Profits vs. dividends Goodwill amortization – recent case law on in-house goodwill

50 Page 50 Brazil – acquisition structuring Structure description US Corp creates a new Brazilian entity (SPV) or uses an existing entity for the acquisition Potential benefits Potential claim for the tax deduction of goodwill Discussion of tax/accounting treatment of goodwill vis-à-vis IFRS changes Potential debt push down on acquisition Subject to certain limitations, including thin cap rules/ limitations Merger of SPV into Target to trigger goodwill tax amortization US Corp SPV USA Brazil Target Downstream merger Consolidation regime

51 Page 51 Brazil – interest on net equity (INE) Structure description Foreign Co contributes Foreign HoldCo to Brazilian Co in exchange for shares Potential benefits Increase of the interest on equity basis for future distributions INE distributions are deductible (at 34%) at Brazilian Co (provided that the statutory limitations are observed) INE payments to Foreign Co subject to a 15% WHT (25% if paid to a low tax jurisdiction) Business purpose of transaction and exit strategy Foreign HoldCo (TBD) Foreign Co Brazilian Co Capital contribution LATAM subsidiaries

52 Colombia 9 May 2012 Mexico City, Mexico

53 Page 53 Colombia Propuesta de Reforma Tributaria Actualizaciones Actualización en control de cambios – deuda Otras actualizaciones Tratados para evitar la doble tributación

54 Page 54 Reforma Tributaria - Propuestas ISR Reducción de tasa ISR – Tarifa hasta del 27% Gravamen a las ventas indirectas de acciones colombianas Dividendos Revisión de la tarifa impositiva en las zonas francas Bancarización de transacciones para poder deducir erogaciones Reformas al impuesto al patrimonio Colombia

55 Page 55 Actualización en control de cambios Eliminación de prohibición de deudas con partes relacionadas Intereses WHT No deducibilidad en renta presuntiva Cláusula de no discriminación Colombia

56 Page 56 Otras actualizaciones GMF – eliminación al 2018 Deducción por investigaciones en ciencia y tecnología Colombia

57 Page 57 Tratados Colombia Tarifas LEY DOMESTICAESPAÑACHILESUIZAMÉXICO* Beneficios empresariales 33%0% Dividendos0% ó 33% 0%, 7% ó 33%0% ó 15% 0% Si fueron tributados por la sociedad Intereses 14% ó 33% (Intereses sobre créditos obtenidos en el exterior) 0% con bancos 10% demás escenarios 5% banco o compañía de seguro - 15% demás casos. 0% con bancos 10% demás escenarios 5% banco o compañía de seguro - 10% demás casos. Regalías Películas cinematográficas 33% - Licenciamiento de software/explotación programas de computador 26.4% 10%

58 Page 58 Colombia Tarifas (cont.) LEY DOMESTICAESPAÑACHILESUIZAMÉXICO* Ganancia de capital (Venta de acciones) 33%0% 0% cuando tuvo < de 20% del capital en un periodo de 12 meses previo a la enajenación - 17% demás casos. 0% 0% cuando tuvo < de 20% del capital en un periodo de 12 meses previo a la enajenación - 20% demás casos. Consultoría, Servicios técnicos y asistencia técnica 11% ó 10%10% Servicios generales 0% prestados desde el exterior 33% prestado en Colombia 0% sin EP 33% con EP 0% sin EP 33% con EP 0% sin EP 33% con EP 0% sin EP 33% con EP * El tratado celebrado con México aún no está vigente

59 Page 59 Colombia – Cuentas en participación México Colombia Suiza K $ CP Asociante Asociado 50% Beneficios empresariales

60 Actualización de temas internacionales

61 Page 61 1. Tratados para evitar la Doble Tributación 2. Resolución Miscelánea 3. Lineamientos Artículo 6 4. OCDE 5. Casos Internacionales 6. Precedentes Mexicanos


63 Page 63 Tratados fiscales firmados o renegociados en el 2011 y 2012 1. Tratados para evitar la Doble Tributación PaísTratado en vigorRegalíasInteresesDividendosE.P. Servicios Bahrein × 10%4.9% - 10% × Colombia 10%5% - 10% × Hungría × 10% 5% - 10% - 15% × India × 10% × Kuwait 10%4.9% - 10% × LituaniaN/D Panamá × 10% 5% - 7.5% × Perú 15% 10% - 15% × Reino Unido × 10%5% - 10% - 15%15% Sudáfrica × 10% 5% - 10% × Suiza × 10%5% - 10%5% - 15% Uruguay×10% 5%×

64 Page 64 a) Definición intereses Hay definiciones que remiten a la legislación local y otros son particulares de sus tratados. b) Ganancias de capital El país fuente es que mantiene el derecho de gravar las ganancias. Excepciones c) E.P. por servicios La mayoría de tratados son consistentes con el modelo de la OCDE. Sin embargo, algunos tratados consideran que existe E.P. para casos en que se prestan servicios excediendo 183 días. Algunos casos de estudio son: Bahréin, Colombia, Hungría, India, Kuwait, Panamá, Perú, Sudáfrica y Uruguay. d) Reglas anti-abuso 1. Tratados para evitar la Doble Tributación: Tendencias:

65 Page 65 1. Tratados para evitar la Doble Tributación: a) Intereses - Ejemplos de definición en tratados: PaísDefinición Países Bajos El término intereses, empleado en el presente Artículo, significa los rendimientos de créditos de cualquier naturaleza, con o sin garantías hipotecarias o cláusulas de participación en los beneficios del deudor, y especialmente las rentas de fondos públicos y bonos u obligaciones, incluidas las primas y premios unidos a estos títulos. Las penalizaciones por mora en el pago se consideran como intereses a los efectos del presente Artículo. Con respecto al párrafo 4 del Artículo 11, se aclara que el término intereses incluye los siguientes tipos de ingreso: a.Comisiones relacionadas con cantidades dadas en préstamo; b.Pagos que se efectúen con motivo de la apertura o garantía de créditos, así como pagos con motivo de la aceptación de un aval; c.Pagos derivados de contratos de factoraje; d.Ingreso derivado de la enajenación de créditos; e.Ingreso derivado de instrumentos financieros cuando exista una deuda subyacente; f.Ingreso derivado de la enajenación con descuento de títulos valor que representen deuda. Suiza El término intereses empleado en el presente Artículo, significa los rendimientos de crédito de cualquier clase, con o sin garantías hipotecarias o cláusula de participación en los beneficios del deudor y, especialmente, las rentas de valores públicos, bonos u obligaciones, incluidas las primas y premios unidos a dichos valores, bonos u obligaciones, así como el ingreso que la legislación fiscal del Estado Contratante de donde procedan los intereses asimile a los rendimientos de las cantidades dadas en préstamo.

66 Page 66 PaísDefinición Hungría No le serán otorgados los beneficios del presente Convenio a un residente de un Estado Contratante, si la autoridad competente del otro Estado Contratante determina que dicho residente lleva a cabo actividades empresariales activamente en el otro Estado y que el establecimiento o adquisición o mantenimiento de dicha persona y la conclusión de sus operaciones tiene como uno de sus propósitos principales la obtención de beneficios bajo el presente convenio. Panamá Cláusula de limitación de beneficios integral. Suiza Las disposiciones de los Artículos 10, 11 y 12 no aplicarán con respecto a ningún dividendo, interés o regalía pagada bajo, o como parte de, un acuerdo abusivo (conduit arrangement). El término acuerdo abusivo significa una transacción o serie de transacciones estructuradas de tal forma que un residente de un Estado Contratante que tenga derecho a los beneficios del Convenio reciba un elemento de ingreso derivado del otro Estado Contratante pero dicho residente pague, directa o indirectamente, todo o una parte sustancial de dicho ingreso (en cualquier momento y de cualquier forma) a otra persona que no es un residente de ninguno de los Estados Contratantes y que, de recibir dicho elemento de ingreso directamente del otro Estado Contratante, no tendría derecho, bajo un Convenio para la eliminación de la doble imposición entre el Estado del que esa otra persona es residente y el Estado Contratante en el que se origina el ingreso, o de alguna otra forma, a los beneficios relacionados con ese elemento de ingreso que son equivalentes a, o más favorables que, aquellos disponibles bajo el presente Convenio disponibles para un residente de un Estado Contratante; y el propósito principal de dicha estructuración sea el obtener los beneficios del presente Convenio. Las autoridades competentes, bajo el procedimiento amistoso, podrán acordar sobre los casos o circunstancias en donde la estructuración de un acuerdo abusivo tiene como objeto principal el obtener los beneficios de conformidad con el presente párrafo. 1. Tratados para evitar la Doble Tributación: c) Reglas Anti-Abuso – Ejemplos:


68 Page 68 2. Resolución Miscelánea Acuerdo Amplio de Intercambio de Información (I.2.1.1.) Integrado Separado Acuerdo multilateral Fideicomiso (I.3.1.9.) / A. en P. (I.3.17.1.) Actividades empresariales Transparencia fiscal / no E.P. Registro bancos (I.3.17.2 y II.3.9.1) Residencia re-aseguradoras (I.3.1.10.) Otros

69 Page 69 2. Resolución Miscelánea Acuerdo Amplio de Intercambio de Información AcuerdoPaíses IntegradoAlemania, Australia, Austria, Barbados, Bélgica, Brasil, Canadá, Chile, China, Corea, Dinamarca, Ecuador, España, Estados Unidos, Finlandia, Francia, Grecia, Hungría, India, Indonesia, Irlanda, Islandia, Israel, Italia, Japón, Luxemburgo, Noruega, Nueva Zelandia, Países Bajos, Panamá, Polonia, Portugal, Reino Unido, República Checa, República Eslovaca, Rumania, Rusia, Singapur, Sudáfrica, Suecia, Suiza, Uruguay SeparadoAntillas Neerlandesas, Bahamas, Bermuda, Estados Unidos de América, Isla del Hombre, Islas Caimán, Islas Cook, Islas Jersey, Acuerdo multilateral


71 Page 71 3. Lineamientos aplicación artículo 6 1.No tiene fuerza legal 2.¿Qué es un impuesto? 3.¿Qué es un impuesto sobre la renta? 4.¿Qué es un impuesto sobre la renta pagado respecto de ingresos por los que se está obligado al pago de ISR en México? 5.No toca problemas fundamentales del artículo 6

72 Page 72 México Entidad B Entidad A Regalías Mezcla: ISR 30%: Crédito: A pagar: 200 60 (60) 0 Canastas: A B ISR 30%: Crédito: A pagar: 100 30 (10) 20 100 30 (50) 0 Paga: 100 Retención: 10 Paga: 100 Retención: 50 México País Z Regalías 3. Lineamientos aplicación artículo 6 Ejemplo 1

73 Page 73 México Subsidiaria C Subsidiaria A México País Z Dividendo Paga: 100 ISR: 10 90 Paga: 100 ISR: 50 50 Holding Subsidiaria B Subsidiaria D Dividendo 3. Lineamientos aplicación artículo 6 Ejemplo 2: Holding paga ISR a via crédito:

74 Page 74 México No REFIPRE REFIPRE Dividendo REFIPRE No REFIPRE Dividendo No REFIPRE Dividendo Artículo 213: Dividendos ingresos pasivos Se acumulan en México ¿Crédito a todos los niveles corporativos? 3. Lineamientos aplicación artículo 6 Ejemplo 3: REFIPRE

75 Page 75 4. OCDE


77 Page 77 4. OCDE Reporte Marzo 2012 – Hybrid Mismatch arrangements: Tax Policy and Compliance Issues 1.Ejemplos: Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements Definición: Estrategias que explotan diferencias en tratamiento fiscal de instrumentos, entidades y/o transferencias entre dos o más países. Resultado: Doble deducción de intereses Deducción sin acumulación correspondiente Doble crédito de ISR pagado en el extranjero 2.Temas de política fiscal 3.Opciones de Combate

78 Page 78 A Co. Entidad Híbrido B Co. Intereses 4. OCDE Ejemplo 1: Entidad Híbrido Préstamo Consolidación Fiscal Doble deducción

79 Page 79 A Co. B Co. Capital para A Co. 4. OCDE Ejemplo 2: instrumento Híbrido Deuda para B Co. Deducción / no acumulación Instrumento

80 Page 80 A Co.B Co. Préstamo 4. OCDE Ejemplo 3: Transferencia Híbrido Doble crédito por ISR pagado por SPV SPV compra - venta Repo

81 Page 81 4. OCDE Temas de Política Fiscal Recaudación (pérdida) Competencia (pymes vs multinacionales) Eficiencia Económica (internacional más beneficioso que doméstico) Transparencia (público) Equidad (capital vs. empleo)

82 Page 82 4. OCDE Opciones de Combate A.Unificación de legislación fiscal de países (no es posible) B.Reglas anti-abuso (sustancia sobre forma; razones de negocio etc). C.Reglas anti-abuso específicos (no permitir deducción si sujeto a un ISR menor en el otro país). D.Reglas anti-abuso enfocadas a Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements (Tratamiento fiscal doméstico depende del tratamiento fiscal en el extranjero). Opción D es preferible


84 Page 84 5. Precedentes Internacionales: Canadá: Caso Velcro – Beneficiario efectivo Suiza: A… A/S v.s. Swiss Federal Tax Administration India: Caso Vodafone - anti-abuso España: Caso DSM - EP

85 Page 85 VIBV VHBV (i) Migración a Antillas Holandesas 5. Precedentes Internacionales A. Beneficiario Efectivo: Velcro Canadá VCI Canada Residente fiscal en Países Bajos (ii) Cesión contrato 90% de regalías Regalías Contrato de Licencia

86 Page 86 Gobierno: VHBV = agent, nominee o conduit Corte: Prévost Car: i.Posesión ii.Uso iii.Control iv.Riesgo Fondos se mezclaron con otros fondos utilizados en su negocio en general 5. Precedentes Internacionales A. Beneficiario Efectivo: Velcro Canadá (parte 2)

87 Page 87 5. Precedentes Internacionales B. Beneficiario Efectivo: A… A/S v.s. Swiss Federal Tax Administration DK Suiza Total Return Swap: - Dividendos + Aumento Valor LIBOR Dividendo 0% ? Corte: Beneficiario Efectivo

88 Page 88 5. Precedentes Internacionales C. Venta indirecta de acciones: Vodafone: India HK Cay Co. Enajenación Gobierno: Venta Cay Co. = venta indirecta de activos de fuente en India Corte: No está permitido gravamen extra- territorial No hay tratado India – H.K. Cambio de ley propuesta 2012 (retro-activo) H.K. en país con tratado (13(5))? Vodafone India

89 Page 89 5. Precedentes Internacionales D. DSM – España - EP Suiza Maquila España Contrato de manufactura en consignación MP Tercero Venta de bienes entrega de bienes


91 Page 91 Establecimiento Permamente Deducibilidad limitada de gastos a prorrata viola las cláusulas de No discriminación de los TDIs. Casos de Precios de Transferencia Caso IVA transportación aérea de carga 6. Precedentes Mexicanos:

92 Controversia

93 Page 93 Qué se está auditando en México. Cumplimiento del requisito de las deducciones para ISR Deducción de pérdida por la segregación de los elementos de la propiedad. Deducción de pérdidas provenientes de operaciones financieras derivadas. Acumulación de depósitos bancarios

94 Page 94 Qué se está auditando en México. Utilización de la tasa del 0% para efectos de IVA Deducción de gastos a prorrata realizados en el extranjero Inversiones en REFIPRES Business Restructuring para efectos de Precios de Transferencia

95 Page 95 Qué se está auditando en México. IEPS en telecomunicaciones IDE Regalías incrementables. IVA por adquisición de productos por parte de maquiladoras. Acumulación de estímulos fiscales para la base del ISR

Descargar ppt "Latin America Tax Executives Workshop 9 May 2012 Mexico City, Mexico."

Presentaciones similares

Anuncios Google