IV SEMINÁRIO INTERNACIONAL

IV SEMINÁRIO INTERNACIONAL
Reforma Tributária e os Desafios da América Latina 4 de novembro de 2014

Programação – 04 de novembro de 2014
8h30: credenciamento 9h00 às 9h30: Abertura – Dr. Eurico Marcos Diniz de Santi – NEF (Núcleo de Estudos Fiscais) da FGV e Dr. Luís Rogério G. Farinelli – Machado Associados Advogados e Consultores Palestrantes: 9h30 às 10h00: Brasil – Dr. Júlio M. de Oliveira – Machado Associados Advogados e Consultores 10h00 às 10:30h: Argentina – Dr. Cristian Rosso Alba – Rosso Alba, Francia & Asociados 10h30 às 11h00: Coffee break 11h00 às 11h30: Chile – Dr. Jorge Espinosa – Espinosa e Asociados, Abogados y Consultores 11h30 às 12h00: Colômbia – Dr. Adrian Rodriguez – Lewin & Wills Abogados 12h às 13h30 Intervalo para almoço (livre) 13h30 às 14h: Dr. Marcus Senna – Diretor jurídico do grupo CCR 14h às 14h30: Venezuela – Dr. Juan Carlos Garanton – Torres, Plaz e Araujo 14h30 às 15h: Peru – César Luna-Victoria – Rubio Leguia Normand & Asociados 15h às 15h30: Estados Unidos – Dr. Miguel A. Valdés – Andersen Tax 15h30 às 15h50: Perguntas Encerramento: 15h50 às 16h: Dr. Luís Rogério G. Farinelli – Machado Associados Advogados e Consultores A partir das 16h: Lançamento do livro “Ética Concorrencial – reflexão, análise e perspectivas”

ARGENTINA

IV SEMINARIO DE LATAXNET
Reforma Tributaria y sus Desafíos en Latinoamérica ARGENTINA Por Dr. Cristian E. Rosso Alba

 Ley (B.O. 23/9/2013) Principales cambios: a) Gravabilidad de resultados por venta de acciones, participaciones sociales, títulos, y demás valores; y o b) Gravabilidad de dividendos y otras utilidades en dinero o especie (excepto acciones) distribuidos por sociedades, fideicomisos y fondos comunes de inversión

Decreto reglamentario 2334/14 (B.O. 7.2.14)
o Vigencia: Para el caso de la enajenación de acciones, cuotas o participaciones sociales, títulos, bonos y demás valores: para las transacciones cuyo pago se efectúe a partir del 23 de septiembre de 2013, inclusive En el caso de dividendos o utilidades: para aquellos puestos a disposición de sus beneficiarios, a partir del 23 de septiembre de 2013, inclusive Exenciones: títulos con cotización bajo normas CNV. Personas físicas del exterior (compraventa de acciones): aplica la alícuota efectiva del 13,5% o 15% sobre renta real para cualquier sujeto del exterior Imposibilidad de retención en caso de distribución de dividendos: la entidad pagadora deberá ingresar la retención, sin perjuicio de su derecho de exigir el reintegro

Profundización del intercambio de información (e.g. acuerdos
con Andorra, Aruba, Bahamas, etc.) En esta línea, se eliminó el concepto de “paraíso fiscal” por la diferenciación entre países cooperadores o no cooperadores a los fines de la transparencia fiscal. Evitar la doble imposición: se denunciaron tres convenios (España, Chile, Suiza). Prioridad: doble NO imposición. Caso Molinos. El interés de la Administración no apunta a evitar la doble imposición, sino al intercambio de información tributaria

Albania Cuba Isla de Man Nueva Zelanda Alemania Curazao Islandia Panamá Andorra Dinamarca Israel Países Bajos Angola Ecuador Italia Paraguay Anguila El Salvador Jamaica Perú Arabia Saudita Emiratos Árabes Israel Israel, Estado de Polonia Armenia Eslovaquia Japón Portugal Aruba Eslovenia Jersey Qatar Australia España Kenia Reino Unido Austria Estados Unidos Kuwait República Dominicana Azerbaiyán Estonia Letonia Rumania Bahamas Feroe Liechtenstein Rusia Bélgica Filipinas Lituania San Marino Belice Finlandia Luxemburgo Sint Maarten Bermudas Francia Macao Singapur Bolivia Georgia Macedonia Sudáfrica Brasil Ghana Malta Suecia Caimán Grecia Marruecos Suiza Canadá Groenlandia Mauricio Túnez Checa Guatemala México Islas Turcas y Caicos Chile Guernsey Moldavia Turkmenistán China Haití Mónaco Turquía Ciudad del Vaticano Honduras Montenegro Ucrania Colombia Hungría Montserrat Uruguay Corea del Sur India Nicaragua Venezuela Costa Rica Indonesia Nigeria Vietnam Croacia Irlanda Noruega Islas Vírgenes Británicas

BEPS: Plan de Acción Nº 13 (Master File, Country by Country Report, Local File).
Se espera en breve más reporting en precios de transferencia, a partir de la preocupación generada por la erosión de la base imponible y la dislocación de rentas. En función de ello, van a quedar manifiestas las diferencias entre países importadores y exportadores de capital. Se espera: elevado número de controversias / menor recepción de la Administración a mecanismos de solución de conflictos.

Como parte de una mayor fiscalización de precios de transferencia:
Operaciones triangulares. Exportaciones de commodities. Sexto método y contrapeso judicial. Estructuras fiduciarias internacionales, con puntos de contacto en Argentina por settlor, trustee o beneficiaries. Incremento de los pagos a cuenta: eg. Res. Gral AFIP 3577.

Milestone Treaty Shopping Case From Argentina’s Tax Court
Volume 72, Number 3 October 21, 2013 (C) Tax Analysts All rights reserved. Tax Analysts does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content. Milestone Treaty Shopping Case From Argentina’s Tax Court by Cristian E. Rosso Alba and Juan Marcos Rougès Reprinted from Tax Notes Int’l, October 21, 2013, p. 253

T Milestone Treaty Shopping Case From Argentina’s Tax Court
(C) Tax Analysts All rights reserved. Tax Analysts does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content. Milestone Treaty Shopping Case From Argentina’s Tax Court by Cristian E. Rosso Alba and Juan Marcos Rougès Cristian E. Rosso Alba is a partner and Juan Marcos Rougès is an associate with Rosso Alba, Francia & Asociados in Buenos Aires. T a milestone case regarding treaty shopping. In he Argentine National Tax Court recently decided regard, tax authorities can rely on numerous antiabuse provisions embedded in domestic tax law and tax treaties allowing them to challenge artificial arrangements,2 if the constitutional hierarchy (treaties rank above domestic legislation in Argentina) is observed. Recently, the tax court has analyzed all the above matters in the Molinos case.3 The controversial decision of the tax court, which upheld the Argentine Revenue Service’s (ARS) position, disregarded the tax exemption (provided under the Argentina-Chile income tax treaty) in the case of dividends distributed by a Chil- ean holding corporation to its Argentine shareholder. The tax court concluded that the international corporate structure of the group was tailored exclusively to benefit from the treaty’s provisions to ensure international double nontaxation. The tax court held that there had been an abuse of the treaty, and therefore, dividends received by the Argentine shareholder from should be taxed at a 35 percent rate. This article analyzes the relevant aspects of the tax court’s decision and the dispute between the ARS and Molinos Río de la Plata from the perspective of international tax law and Argentine tax standards (with special consideration given to the treaty). Molinos,1 the tax court, with the affirmative vote of two recently appointed judges, overlooked the benefits of the Argentina-Chile income tax treaty regarding dividends distributed from a Chilean holding company to an upper-tier majority shareholder, which was located in Argentina. The Chilean holding company, in turn, distributed dividends collected from lower-tier subsidi- aries located outside of Chile, taking advantage of the beneficial holding company status, applicable in Chile, called ‘‘plataforma fiscal.’’ While it is true that the interaction of domestic law, tax treaties, and international taxation norms some- times offers taxpayers opportunities to reduce their tax burden, it does not necessarily mean that those taxpayers are engaged in tax evasion. The limits are the law, as approved by the National Congress, and the business rationale of the taxpayer’s structuring, which sup- ports the nontax reasons underlying an international reorganization. In this scenario, the roles of companies and tax authorities are clear. Companies have an obligation to their investors to structure their affairs in a tax-efficient manner to legally optimize their tax burdens. Tax authorities, on the other hand, are required to scrutinize tax compliance and enforce existing tax laws. In this 2Oliver R. Hoor and Georges Bock, ‘‘The Misleading Debate About Corporate Tax Avoidance by Multinationals,’’ Tax Notes Int’l, May 27, 2013, p. 907. 3Molinos, Aug. 14, 2013, Chamber D, National Tax Court. 1Molinos Río de la Plata, Aug. 14, 2013, Chamber D, National Tax Court. TAX NOTES INTERNATIONAL OCTOBER 21, • 253

TAX NOTES INTERNATIONAL
FEATURED PERSPECTIVES Figure 1. Tax Status Without and With Argentina-Chile Tax Treaty (C) Tax Analysts All rights reserved. Tax Analysts does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content. Arg. Corp. Dividends taxed Arg. Corp. Dividends not taxed F Corp. Chile Corp. Background The Argentina-Chile treaty was signed in 1976 and remained in force from 1985 until 2012, when Argen- tina unilaterally denounced it, principally alleging abuse of benefits by Argentine taxpayers.4 The treaty provided that dividends could only be taxed by the source state,5 since the mechanism to avoid double taxation was the exemption method. Therefore, while the repatriation of profits from a Chil- ean subsidiary6 was not taxed in the hands of the Ar- gentine shareholder, in any other case, a 35 percent tax rate was applicable.7 (See Figure 1.) In December 2002, Chile enacted the Business Plat- form Law8 for tackling tax barriers to international investment. The regime enabled foreign investors to set up a platform company for channeling and managing investments in third countries, allowing them to tap into Chile’s advantages without having to pay Chilean tax on earnings from these overseas investments. Under domestic law, platform companies were not considered resident or domiciled in Chile and were only liable to the country’s taxes on income from Chil- ean sources, for example, dividends distributed by companies incorporated in Chile or capital gains from the sale of shares in those companies. Income generated abroad as a result of investments or services, or as capital gains from the sale of non-Chilean assets was not subject to any income tax, either on the income itself or on its remittance overseas. For different business reasons, some multinational corporations decided to use platform companies in order to manage their investments in different jurisdictions, and when jointly structured with an Argentine shareholder, double nontaxation could occur at the mo- ment of repatriation of benefits. (See Figure 2.) Figure 2. The Case Under Tax Court Scrutiny Arg. Corp. Dividends not taxed under tax treaty Chile Holding Foreign-source income not taxed under Chilean holding regime F Corp. TAX NOTES INTERNATIONAL Platform companies were challenged by the ARS, which said the treaty provisions could not apply, and therefore, dividends received by the Argentine shareholder should be taxed at a 35 percent rate. This crite- rion was different from the one used by the Chilean tax authorities,9 which argued that the treaty only focuses on the source of the income and the domicile of the entity that distributes the dividend — namely the location of incorporation and where it is recognized as a legal entity — and it is clear that sociedades de plataforma (platform companies) meet these standards for treaty entitlement. This is an important issue, since the 4The government gave two reasons for terminating the treaty. The first was a provision that prohibited Argentina from collect- ing personal asset tax from Chilean shareholders with interests in Argentine companies. The second was the alleged abuse of holding corporations to achieve double nontaxation. 5The treaty provided that dividends ‘‘would only be taxed by the state where the company, the distributor of the dividends, is domiciled.’’ 6As long as it is domiciled in Chile. 7Except for dividends distributed by local corporations, which are not taxed under Argentine law. Even so, an equalization tax could be applicable. 8Act (Chile). 9The Chilean competent authority ruled that despite their specific tax status, sociedades de plataforma are eligible for the benefits of the Argentina-Chile treaty; Oficios Nos y 5.66 de 2003 y 550 de 2008, from the Chilean Internal Revenue Service. 254 • OCTOBER 21, 2013

The Importance of Substance
FEATURED PERSPECTIVES Argentina-Chile tax treaty was patterned after the An- dean Pact (Pacto Andino) model convention, which (unlike the OECD model tax convention) does not re- quire that the company under discussion be liable to taxes in its country of incorporation. Let’s recall that under the OECD model convention, a company entitled to treaty protection is any taxable unit that is treated as a body corporate according to the tax laws of the contracting state where it is organized. In this context, Molinos de Chile y Río de la Plata Holding SA was constituted and registered as a platform company before the Internal Revenue Service of Chile as Molinos Río de la Plata, the owner of percent of the shares. In 2004 Molinos Río de la Plata transferred to the platform company all the shares of Alimentos del Plata SA, Molinos Overseas SA, Moli- nos de Uruguay SA (companies incorporated in Uru- guay), and Molinos de Peru SA (a company incorporated in Peru). The practical effect of the incorporation of Molinos de Chile y Río de la Plata Holding SA and of the subsequent transfer of shares from Molinos Río de la Plata to the platform company was that all the dividends paid to the company were not subject to Argen- tina’s income tax. The ARS challenged Molinos Río de la Plata’s tax scheme on the grounds that Molinos de Chile y Río de la Plata Holding SA had acted as a conduit company for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the provisions of the treaty. Local general antiabuse rules are applicable: Although there is no general antiavoidance rule in the treaty, local GAARs could apply. Substance over form — the holding company was not considered the beneficial owner of the dividends received from foreign corporations: The beneficial ownership standard is an implicit requirement for tax treaty benefits to apply. The tax court determined that the holding entity acted as a conduit company to avoid paying taxes on repatriation. No substance in Chile: No trade or business was per- formed by the Chilean holding company. Absolute control: Molinos Río de la Plata had percent of the capital of Molinos de Chile y Río de la Plata Holding SA, and the court regarded this fact as negative. Foreign-source income vs. Chilean-source income: The tax court said that while foreign-source income received by the holding company (which is not subject to tax in Chile) was immediately distributed to Argentina, Chilean-source income (which is taxable) was never distributed. This fact pattern of dividend distributions was seen as negative. No evidence of the business purpose of the corporate structure: The tax court said there was no evidence that the 2003 group restructuring was part of a sound business strategy. In short, the tax court applied the beneficial ownership standard, even though it was not included in the Argentina-Chile treaty, in order to consider Molinos de Chile y Río de la Plata Holding SA a conduit company and, consequently, to declare that the dividends received by Molinos Río de la Plata Holding SA from should be taxed at a 35 percent rate. (C) Tax Analysts All rights reserved. Tax Analysts does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content. Tax Court Decision As noted above, the tax court ruled against the taxpayer. It said the structure was abusive and therefore treaty benefits did not apply, based principally on the following considerations: Interpretation of tax treaties — abuse of the treaty provisions: The purpose of the treaty is to avoid double taxation, not to create situations of international double nontaxation. Tax planning admittedly re- duces corporate global costs, but double nontaxation is not a goal of the treaty. The plataformas fiscal tax status could not be envi- sioned and addressed by the treaty’s negotiators (1976): The treaty could not apply to situations that could not have been in the minds of the negotiators, since the holding company regime was introduced in late 2002. Treaty abuse by one of the contracting states — unilateral amendment by the Chilean government: Even though Chile has the authority to grant tax ex- emptions on dividends, the 2002 holding company regime modified the facts and legislation that were taken into account to negotiate the treaty. This unilateral decision could be challenged by Argen- tina because it leads to a situation that was not intended by the treaty — double nontaxation. The Importance of Substance The substance of this decision — the first one by the tax court directly related to the alleged abuse of the Argentina-Chile treaty — is evident if we consider that in 2012 Argentina denounced similar treaties (those with Switzerland and Spain) on the grounds of treaty abuse by taxpayers. While Argentina has the power to unilaterally de- nounce a treaty that it thinks may be outdated or lead to double nontaxation, it cannot overlook a treaty while it is in force. In that case, a denouncement should work prospectively, not retroactively. The decision of the tax court to apply the beneficial ownership concept to the interpretation of the facts of this case is questionable, since the Argentina-Chile treaty (which follows the Andean Pact model) does not include such a provision. The beneficial ownership concept — provided for in the OECD and U.N. model treaties — is an antiabuse rule designed to preclude treaty shopping by agents, nominees, or conduit companies for the benefit of a resident of a third state. TAX NOTES INTERNATIONAL OCTOBER 21, • 255

FEATURED PERSPECTIVES It would be inconsistent with the purpose of the treaty to grant relief or exemption when a resident of a contracting state, other than through an agency or nominee relationship, acts as a conduit for another person who effectively receives the benefits of the income concerned. While this general standard is in compliance with the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,10 and avoids the automatic and illegitimate application of concepts and rules, going beyond the treaty wording — such as the requirement to comply with the beneficial ownership standard — would not be valid under the Argentina-Chile treaty. We agree, however, on the importance of substance, as well as the need for a taxpayer to have clear and documented business reasons to validly profit from a tax treaty. We believe that the ruling has highlighted that taxpayers must be able to provide evidence show- ing the economic grounds for the implemented corporate structure in order to prove that the Chilean holding company has not been incorporated for the sole purpose of benefiting from the treaty. This issue depends on the evidence collected during the controversy, and despite questions from the tax court, it is a factual issue that is not clear from the decision itself. Despite reaching the same conclusions, the opinions from the tax court judges are on different grounds, namely, that there has been abusive treaty shopping by the taxpayer. While one focuses more on the inability of the treaty norms to cope with the platform company issues — a highly questionable argument, since the courts may not fix, by interpretation, the treaty wording — the second one concentrates more on the lack of evidence regarding appropriate substance. However, no clear standards have been determined by the tax court. The court should have focused on whether there was an actual place of effective management in Chile, meaning that control of Molinos de Chile y Río de la Plata Holding SA was exercised in Chile. In this regard, we found no elaboration in the decision on questions such as whether: the majority of the company’s directors were residents in Chile, and their material salaries were borne by that company; important company decisions were made in Chile by the board of directors; the company’s headquarters were located in Chile, where the company oversees local and foreign investments; and the company had an economic and business rationale to be located in Chile. In fact, if a holding company is used solely for gain- ing access to the benefits of a treaty, without a business rationale, there are reasonable chances for the structure to fail altogether and be regarded as fictitious, and therefore not able to obtain the treaty benefits pursued. Proper and sufficient evidence of this standard, and the previous standards, is essential for the controversy to succeed. For one tax court judge, some indications of the lack of substance are: exclusive distributions, to the Argentine shareholder, of dividends collected from non-Chilean sources (distribution from the lower-tier Chilean companies did not occur); the Argentine company having full control of the Chilean company; dividends collected from outside Chile flow through the Chilean company to the Argentine shareholder; all of the companies are engaged in the same business: dividends collected from Uruguayan sub- sidiaries are triggered by similar activities to that of the Argentine company; there is no evidence of the business reasons for contributing the Uruguayan and Peruvian entities to the Chilean holding company; and the limited managing powers of the Chilean entity. At least the first four standards are questionable. The policy on dividend distribution should not be relevant for treaty entitlement purposes. Having a majority shareholder in Argentina does not impair the business reasons that a lower-tier holding company may have to act as such — overseeing and managing its investments — if it has effective management in its jurisdiction of incorporation. The ‘‘identical business of the group companies’’ standard is unclear, since the Argentine originating company would have a functional paradigm of origination, while the Uruguayan affiliate would have one of commer- cialization. Each company is required to comply with the arm’s-length standard in their jurisdiction of incorporation. The tax court’s decision — with substantially different arguments used by each judge to disregard the tax treaty benefits — again raised the question of what appropriate substance is in order to be eligible for treaty benefits. According to the tax court, Molinos de Chile y Río de la Plata Holding SA did not meet those standards and qualified as a conduit company. The Federal Court of Appeals will have the next word. ◆ (C) Tax Analysts All rights reserved. Tax Analysts does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content. TAX NOTES INTERNATIONAL 10Law (Argentina). 256 • OCTOBER 21, 2013

COUNTRY DIGEST (C) Tax Analysts All rights reserved. Tax Analysts does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content. Albania Amended Tax Laws Take Effect The Albanian parliament recently enacted a number of tax amendments that entered into force on January 1. The standard corporate income tax rate was increased from 10 percent to 15 percent. Also, when computing their taxable profits, banks now can deduct impairment loans (bad debt provision expenses) registered in accordance with international financial reporting standards without being subject to a cap. Previ- ously, the tax deduction was capped at an amount determined according to the regulations of the Bank of Albania. Companies’ cash transactions valued at more than ALL 150,000 (about $1,437) now are nondeductible for corporate income tax purposes. Previously, the threshold was ALL 300,000 (about $2,890). Also, the flat 10 percent personal income tax rate was converted into progressive rates for employment income as follows: less than ALL 30,000 (about $287.50): 0 percent;  ALL 30,001 to ALL 130,000 (about $1,246): 13 percent; and over ALL 130,000: 23 percent. Other kinds of personal income (dividends, rental income, capital gains, interest, and so on) remain subject to the 10 percent income tax rate. Foreign employees of contractors and subcontractors working on hydrocarbon projects will no longer be exempt from personal income tax. The VAT exemption that applies to contractors and subcontractors involved in oil extraction activities now will be restricted to the research phase of hydrocarbon operations. The supply of goods and services for the development phase of hydrocarbon operations will no longer be VAT exempt. Also, as of April 1, supplies of medicines and medi- cal services will be VAT exempt. Previously, VAT applied to those supplies at the rate of 10 percent. Under the previous rules, a penalty of 5 percent per month (or portion thereof) applied when a taxpayer submitted a self-correction of an original tax return, with a ceiling of 25 percent of the outstanding liability. This penalty has been revoked. Finally, the deadline to appeal a preliminary tax ad- justment made after an audit was extended to 15 calendar days from the date of notification of the adjust- ment (as opposed to the previous five calendar days). Slim Gargouri, chartered accountant, Sfax, Tunisia Argentina Government Reveals Main Focus of International Tax Audits The Argentine government has disclosed the target of upcoming tax audits relating to international transactions through a series of measures implemented over the past few weeks by the Argentine Revenue Service (AFIP). The first regulation, General Resolution 3577/14 (GR 3577), which set up a new advance tax payment mechanism to penalize triangular international transactions, was justified by, among other reasons, the need to bring Argentine law into line with the OECD’s ac- tion plan to address base erosion and profit shifting, published on July 19, The new measures have also instituted a registry for related and deemed-related parties, as well as new reporting obligations, the amendment of the previous blacklist of tax havens by means of a new white list of TAX NOTES INTERNATIONAL 1As of January 17, the Addressing Base Erosion and Profit Shifting report was available at reports.htm. JANUARY 27, • 303

ARGENTINA countries considered to be cooperative for tax information exchange purposes, and the fine-tuning of reporting obligations relating to foreign trusts, which now face more detailed filing obligations. Following is a brief summary of the recent regulations. The concept of ‘‘affiliated party’’ included in this broad definition includes both actual and deemed related parties.2 Within 10 days of the occurrence of affiliation, the Argentine entities that are required to join in the registry must provide the name and country of residency of the affiliated party and the type of affiliation. The dis- solution of an affiliation must also be reported. The deadlines for enrollment in the registry are April 1 or July 1, depending on the size of the taxpayer. (C) Tax Analysts All rights reserved. Tax Analysts does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content. GR 3577 The new advance payment mechanism established by GR 3577 will be enforced by the Customs Author- ity. The new withholding tax, which is creditable against the annual income tax burden, applies to triangular exports (that is, when the country where the in- voice is addressed differs from the country of destina- tion of the exported products). The new regime applies to exports taking place from January 7 onward. (Prior coverage: Tax Notes Int’l, Jan. 20, 2014, p. 206.) The rate is 0.5 percent of the taxable value as de- fined for the payment of customs taxes, or 2 percent if the invoices were issued to buyers located in countries considered to be uncooperative in the exchange of tax information. The advance payment is considered to be a payment of income tax and should therefore be re- flected in the relevant tax returns. Failure to make the advance tax payment will result in suspension from the customs registries and the application of interest. It should be noted that a predicted overpayment of the annual income tax is not grounds to request immu- nity from the new advance payment. In fact, taxpayers subject to this regime may not cite exclusion from another advance payment mechanism implemented through GR 830 as cause to be excluded from the new one. In that sense, taxpayers with net operating losses corresponding to the fiscal year in which the exports take place may face a new tax burden and are now evaluating — and in some cases filing — legal actions. Finally, the new regime introduces another penalty as part of a more complex (delayed) procedure for re- questing a refund of VAT input credits associated with exports. VAT refund requests related to triangular exports will be excluded from the general procedure for export VAT refunds contained in Title I of (AFIP) GR and will instead be subject to Title IV of GR 2000, which is more time consuming and has a higher tax burden. 2GR 1122/01, implementing section 15.1 of the Income Tax Law, establishes that affiliation exists when: an individual or corporation owns all or most of another entity’s equity; two or more individuals or corporations have a common holder for all or most of their equities; the same individual or corporation owns all or most of the equity of one or more entities and significantly in- fluences one or more of the other entities; the same individual or corporation has significant con- current influence; an individual or corporation owns the necessary votes to make corporate decisions or prevail in the shareholders’ or partners’ meeting of another entity; two or more individuals or corporations have common directors, officers, or administrators;  an individual or corporation is the exclusive agent, distributor, or licensee for the purchase and sale of assets, services, or rights of the other; an individual or corporation provides another with copyright or know-how that constitutes the basis of its operations; an individual or corporation owns an interest, with another, in entities with no legal capacity (for example, condominiums, joint ventures, noncorporate groups, and so on) through which it exercises significant influence on prices; an individual or corporation agrees with the other on preferential contractual conditions as compared with those agreed upon with third parties under similar circumstances (for example, volume discounts, financing, and deliveries on consignment); an individual or corporation substantially participates in the formation of corporate policies, the supply of raw materials, and/or the production and/or marketing of another; an individual or corporation undertakes a significant activity only in relation to another entity, or exists only in relation to the other entity (for example, as the sole GR 3572 GR 3572 creates, as of January 3, a registry of affiliated parties; Argentine taxpayers must report in the registry their affiliation with entities located in Argen- tina or abroad. (Prior coverage: Tax Notes Int’l, Jan. 6, 2014, p. 41.) For that purpose, the definition of the term ‘‘affiliation’’ follows that in GR 1122/2001, which governs transactions that are subject to transfer pricing scrutiny. supplier or client);  an individual or corporation substantially provides the funding necessary to carry out another’s business (for example, loans or guarantees for financing provided by a third party);  an individual or corporation bears the burden of losses or the expenses of another; the directors, officers, or administrators of an entity receive orders from or proceed in favor of another; or  the management is given to an individual or entity holding a minority interest in the capital stock (through agreements or special circumstances or situations). 304 • JANUARY 27, 2014 TAX NOTES INTERNATIONAL

AUSTRALIA Failure to meet the obligations contained in GR 3572 will result in the application of penalties in accordance with the Tax Procedure Act. Panama, Paraguay, the Philippines, Qatar, Turk- menistan, the United Arab Emirates, Vatican City, Venezuela, and Vietnam. (C) Tax Analysts All rights reserved. Tax Analysts does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content. GR 3576 In line with Decree 589/2013, published on May 30, 2013, AFIP has finally published on its official website the list of countries deemed as cooperative jurisdictions (the white list), as anticipated by GR (of December 31, 2013). (Prior coverage of Decree 589/2013: Tax Notes Int’l, June 10, 2013, p. 1051; prior coverage of GR 3576: Tax Notes Int’l, Jan. 20, 2014, p ) According to the new list, cooperative jurisdictions are those that have signed with Argentina a tax information exchange agreement or a tax treaty that contains a broad information exchange clause, or that have entered into negotiations with Argentina for a TIEA or a tax treaty containing an information exchange clause. Some countries formerly included in a blacklist contained in the Income Tax Law Regulatory Decree have now been included as cooperative, while others previously excluded from the blacklist are not on the new white list (for example, Bulgaria, Fiji, Saudi Arabia, and Taiwan). The following countries are deemed to be cooperative under three categories included in the new white list: Countries that have signed income tax treaties with Ar- gentina: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Countries that have signed TIEAs with Argentina or the OECD’s Multilateral Convention on Mutual Adminis- trative Assistance in Tax Matters: Albania, Andorra, Anguilla, Aruba, Austria, Azerbaijan, the Baha- mas, Belize, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Curaçao, the Czech Repub- lic, Ecuador, Estonia, the Faroe Islands, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Greenland, Guatemala, Guernsey, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Italy, Japan, Jersey, Kazakhstan, Lat- via, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Montserrat, Morocco, New Zealand, Nigeria, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, St. Martin, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, Turks and Caicos, Ukraine, the United States, and Uruguay. Countries currently negotiating an income tax treaty or TIEA with Argentina: Angola, Armenia, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, Hondu- ras, Israel, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, Macau, Macedonia, Mauritius, Montenegro, Nicaragua, GR 3538 Finally, in connection with the regime implemented in 2012 through GR 3312, which broadened the scope of the registration and reporting obligations to target foreign trusts and other equivalent foreign structures that have a substantial nexus with an Argentine party, GR 3538 includes the obligation to submit to AFIP a PDF file containing supporting documentation for the registered operations, as well as the trust contracts and any amendments of transactions registered from Janu- ary 1, 2013, onward. Cristian E. Rosso Alba and Lucía Ibarreche, Rosso Alba, Francia & Asociados, Buenos Aires Australia NEWS ANALYSIS ATO May Allow Large Companies to Manage Own Compliance A draft document prepared by the Australian Taxa- tion Office (ATO) that appeared on January 15 (it is not clear whether the release of the document was au- thorized) suggests that the ATO may outsource some audit activities by allowing large public companies to use their own auditors to sign off on the companies’ tax affairs. The proposal has prompted considerable attention and discussion, with some critics adopting colorful lan- guage — putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop and putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank, for example — to describe the plan. It is probably not a coincidence that the idea of outsourcing to accounting firms tasks that traditionally were viewed as fundamental ATO activities follows the appointment in late 2012 of a commissioner of taxation who was, for the first time, from outside the public service ranks of the ATO. To the surprise of many, the left-leaning Labor government in power at the time appointed, with effect from 2013, a candidate from the private sector, a former partner in charge of the New South Wales Tax and Legal Division of KPMG. The proposal set out in the discussion draft, euphe- mistically labeled the ‘‘external compliance assurance process,’’ would be available to large public companies with turnover between AUD 100 million and AUD 5 billion. A qualifying company would be able to use (at its own cost) the services of its external private-sector audit firm to verify to the ATO that the company is TAX NOTES INTERNATIONAL JANUARY 27, • 305

Modificaciones con efectos tributarios en Chile Jorge Espinosa S. 2014

REFORMA TRIBUTARIA Nuevos Sistemas del Impuesto de Primera Categoría:
La principal novedad de la Reforma Tributaria (Ley ), es la introducción, a partir del 01 de enero de 2017, de dos regímenes “principales” tributación entre los cuales los contribuyentes deben optar y que poseen características disimiles entre si. De esta forma se establece un sistema de Renta Atribuida cuya principal característica es que los Impuestos Finales, esto es el Impuesto Global Complementario e Impuesto Adicional, determinan en base devengada y el sistema de Integración Parcial se mantiene de cierta forma las condiciones actuales en cuanto a que los impuestos Finales se determinan en base percibida.

Renta Atribuida Tasa de Impuesto: Año comercial 2014: 21% Año comercial 2015: 22,5% Año comercial 2016: 24% Año comercial 2017: 25%

Renta Atribuida: Letra A) art. 14 Efectos Principales: A Nivel de Impuesto Global Complementario A nivel de Impuesto Adicional Atribución entre los socios y accionistas EI, EIRL y las Agencias, Sucursales o Establecimientos Permanentes. S.A., SpA, SRL y otros (deber de informar)

Sistema de Integración Parcial: Letra B) art. 14. Tasa de Impuesto: Año comercial 2017: 25,5% Año comercial 2018: 27%

Sistema de Integración Parcial: Letra B) art. 14. Efectos Principales: A Nivel de Impuesto Global Complementario. A nivel de Impuesto Adicional. Efectos en Convenios de Doble Tributación.

Relaciones entre ambos sistemas Régimen General: Los Empresarios Individuales, las EIRL, Comunidades y SRL éstas últimas compuestas sólo personas naturales residentes y/o domiciliados en Chile, a falta de acuerdo expreso en contrario tendrán el régimen de renta atribuida. Las S.A., SpA y cualquier otro tipo de sociedad donde uno de sus participes es una persona natural o jurídica sin domicilio ni residencia en Chile, a falta de acuerdo, se regirán por el sistema de integración parcial.

Relaciones entre ambos sistemas Opción por régimen y permanencia: Sociedades nuevas: 60 días desde inicio de sus operaciones. Sociedades antiguas: 3 últimos meses del año comerciales anterior (2016). Permanencia mínima en un régimen por 5 años.

Relaciones entre ambos sistemas Requisitos de la opción del régimen: EI, EIRL, Agencias, Sucursales y Establecimientos Permanentes: Declaración. Comunidades: Declaración unánime. SRL y SpA: Declaración y Escritura Pública acuerdo unánime. Sociedades Anónimas: 2/3 de los accionistas en JEA reducida a Escritura Pública y Declaración.

Relaciones entre ambos sistemas Grupos Empresariales: Cuando la matriz esta bajo sistema de integración parcial y las filiales bajo renta atribuida (“transparencia”). Cuando la matriz esta bajo renta atribuida y las filiales en régimen de integración parcial. Cuando en filiales hay distintos regímenes.

Beneficios especiales para la pequeña y mediana empresa: Exención del Impuesto Adicional: Por servicios pagados al exterior por concepto de publicidad y el uso y suscripción de plataformas de servicios tecnológicos de internet, salvo que exista relación entre las partes o se remesen a un paraíso fiscal. Para empresas cuyos ingresos promedio en los últimos 3 años no superen las Unidades de Fomento.

Contribuyentes de las letras A) y B) del art. 14 con ingresos del giro hasta UF podrán: Sujetos a la letra A) podrán deducir hasta un 20% de la RLI que se mantengan invertida en la empresa. Sujetos a la letra B) podrán deducir hasta un 50% de la RLI que se mantengan invertida en la empresa. El limite de deducción son UF. Reinversión= RLI – Retiros o distribuciones Esta opción se debe comunicar al SII El contribuyente no puede poseer ni explotar derechos sociales, cuotas de FI o FM, ni acciones. Además sus inversiones en renta fija no podrán exceder del 10% de sus ingresos.

REFORMA TRIBUTARIA Enajenación de acciones y/o Derechos sociales. Vigencia desde 01 de enero de 2017 El mayor valor se determina en base a la diferencia entre el precio de venta y el valor de adquisición reajustado. Si las acciones o derechos están sujetas al régimen de la lera A) del art. 14 (rentra atribuida), se debe disminuir del mayor valor las sumas correspondientes a utilidades atribuidas propias que le correspondan al vendedor que no hayan sido retiradas de la empresa al cierre del ejercicio anterior a la fecha de venta debido que estas rentas ya completaron su tributación. Del monto destinado a esta disminución se deben descontar los retiros efectuados por el vendedor en el año de la venta. Si entre la fecha de adquisición y la fecha de venta hay menos de 1 año, el mayor valor quedará gravado con el Impuesto de Primera Categoría y el Impuesto Global Complementario o Impuesto Adicional según corresponda. El mayor valor podrá ser reconocido por el contribuyente en base percibida o devengada a su elección.

REFORMA TRIBUTARIA Enajenación de acciones y/o Derechos sociales.
Si entre la fecha de la compra y la venta hay un plazo superior a un año, el mayor valor determinado se grava únicamente con el Impuesto Global Complementario o Impuesto Adicional. El mayor valor podrá ser reconocido por el contribuyente en base percibida o devengada a su elección. Si el contribuyente esta sujeto al Impuesto Global Complementario y reconoce el mayor valor en base devengada, podrá tomar 2 opciones: Reconocer todo mayor valor en el año de la operación Distribuir el mayor valor durante todo el periodo en que las acciones o derechos estuvieron en su poder con un máximo de 10 años. En este caso el contribuyente procederá a re liquidar su IGC por cada año, asignando la parte el mayor valor que le corresponda como resultado de dividir el mayor valor por la cantidad de años que las acciones o derechos estuvieron en su poder.

REFORMA TRIBUTARIA Enajenación de acciones y/o Derechos sociales.
El enajenante puede compensar las utilidades con las perdidas sufridas por operaciones en un mismo ejercicio . Si las enajenaciones se efectúen a partes relacionadas, al cónyuge, ascendientes o descendientes hasta el 2° grado de consanguinidad, independiente del plazo existente entre la adquisición y la venta, el mayor valor quedará sujeto al Imp. de Primera Categoría e Imp. Global Complementario o Adicional según corresponda. Los contribuyentes que no estén sujetos a Impuesto de Primera Categoría en base a renta efectiva y el mayor valor determinado por estas operaciones dentro de un ejercicio comercial sea inferior a 10 UTA, se considerará como un ingreso no renta. En caso que se supere el monto señalado la totalidad del mayor valor quedará sujeta a las normas generales.

REFORMA TRIBUTARIA Normas especiales
Información sobre Inversiones en el Extranjero: n°1 Letra E) art. 14 Sólo contribuyentes acogidos a letras A) y B) art. 14 Monto, tipo y porcentaje de participaciones de sus inversiones en el exterior Destino de los fondos País destinatario de la inversión La declaración se efectúa el 30 de junio de cada año. La no presentación de la declaración jurada implicará que dichas sumas tengan la tributación del art. 21. Si hay inversiones en paraísos fiscales o países considerados como de baja o nula tributación se deberá además informar el estado de las inversiones, sus aumentos o disminuciones y el destino que las entidades extranjeras le otorgan a los fondos.

REFORMA TRIBUTARIA Normas especiales Trust: n°2 Letra E) art. 14.
Toda persona que sea Constituyente o settlor, Beneficiario, Trustee o administrador deberá informar anualmente. Nombre, fecha de creación y país de origen, residencia tributaria y la identificación tributaria del Trust. Nombre, domicilio, país de residencia para efectos tributarios y la identificación tributaria del Constituyente o settlor, Beneficiario, Trustee o administrador. Si la obtención de beneficios esta sujeta a la voluntad del trustee o a otra condición y si existen varias calidad o tipos de beneficiarios.

Artículo 41 G: Control de Rentas Pasivas en el exterior Las empresas o entidades con domicilio o residencia en Chile que, directa o indirectamente, controlen entidades extranjeras deberán considerar como devengadas o percibidas la proporción que les corresponda según su participación social, las rentas pasivas percibidas o devengadas por dichas entidades en el exterior. Se considera también una entidad controlada cuanto ésta se encuentra en un país o territorio considerado como de baja o nula tributación según el art. 41 H. No estarán obligados a reconocer como devengadas las rentas pasivas cuando en el ejercicio respectivo las rentas no excedan de Unidades de Fomento.

Artículo 41 G: Que entiende por rentas pasivas Utilidades percibidas o devengadas por la entidad extranjera controlada, salvo que provengan de una sociedad operativa cuyo giro no sea obtener rentas pasivas Intereses y capitales mobiliarios, salvo que provengan de una entidad bancaria o financiera regulada y no domiciliada en paraísos fiscales según los art. 41 D y 41 H Regalías Rentas de Capitales por bienes o derechos Arrendamiento de inmuebles, salvo que sea el giro principal de la entidad controlada

Artículo 41 G: Que entiende por rentas pasivas Rentas por bienes inmuebles, salvo que hayan sido utilizados para la generación de rentas distintas de aquellas consideradas rentas pasivas. Rentas por derechos de uso de derechos o bienes que sean generados de las rentas pasivas. Rentas por operaciones con partes relacionadas (según art. 41 E) domiciliadas en Chile y siempre que la renta sea un gasto deducible y se trate de una RFE o siendo Renta de fuente chilena tenga una tributación menor al 35%. Se presume que todas las rentas obtenidas por una entidad domiciliada o residente en un país, territorio o jurisdicción considerado como régimen fiscal preferencial, tienen el carácter de rentas pasivas

Artículo 41 H: países o territorios con régimen fiscal preferencial. Serán aquellos que cumplan al menos dos de las siguientes condiciones: Cuando la Tasa efectiva sobre los ingreso de fuente extranjera será inferior a 17,5% (50% de la tasa del art. 58). No tengan con Chile un Convenio de intercambio de información para fines tributarios. En el territorio no posee reglas que permitan fiscalizar los precios de transferencia que en general se ajsuten a las recomendaciones de la OECD

Artículo 41 H: países o territorios con régimen fiscal preferencial. La legislación no permiten solicitar información a sus administrados ni entregar la información a terceros. Aquellos que gravan únicamente las rentas de fuente nacional Aquellos territorios considerados por la OECD o la ONU, como regímenes preferenciales para fines tributarios

REFORMA TRIBUTARIA Normas Anti elusivas: Código Tributario. Vigencia 01 de octubre de 2015. Articulo 4 Bis Establece la supremacía de la sustancia por sobre la forma. Se consagra la buena fe del contribuyente respecto de la manera en que realiza sus operaciones El SII tiene la carga de la Prueba para determinar abuso o simulación. Artículo 4 Ter. Hay abuso cuando mediante actos o negocios jurídicos.: Se evita total o parcialmente el Hecho Gravado. Se disminuye la Base Imponible Posterga o difiera el nacimiento de una obligación tributaria. No existen mas efectos que los tributarios.

REFORMA TRIBUTARIA Normas Anti elusivas: Código Tributario
Artículo 4 Ter. Continuación. Con todo se reconoce la “economía de opción de contribuyente” cuando los efectos de los actos jurídicos sean consecuencia de la Ley Tributaria. Artículo 4 Quater. Simulación. Hay simulación cuando los actos disimulan la configuración de un hecho gravado del impuesto o la naturaleza de los elementos constitutivos de la obligación tributaria o su verdadero monto data de nacimiento.

Artículo 4 Quinquies. Procedimiento El SII debe citar al contribuyente para que entregue información sobre sus operaciones El Director posee un plazo de 9 meses desde la contestación del contribuyente para analizar si procede o no realizar un requerimiento. En caso afirmativo el Director respectivo deberá concurrir a un TTA con el objeto que declare un acto constitutivo de abuso o simulación. Para que proceda la solicitud las diferencias de impuestos deben ser superiores a 250 UTM. El contribuyente posee un plazo de 90 para efectuar sus descargos. Durante el transcurso del procedimiento se suspenden los plazos de prescripción.

Artículo 4 Quinquies. Procedimiento La resolución del TTA debe ser fundada señalando el monto del impuesto adeudado, los interés y mutas correspondientes. La sentencia es apelable (15 días). Contra la sentencia de segunda instancia procede los recursos de casación en la forma y casación en el fondo.

Artículo 26 Bis. Procedimiento de consulta El contribuyente tiene la posibilidad de efectuar una consulta al SII para determinar si sus operaciones pueden ser constitutivas de alguna de la circunstancias de los artículos 4° bis, 4° ter y 4° quater. El SII tendrá un plazo de 30 días para despachar la respuesta, la cual será vinculante para el SII sólo respecto de las operaciones descritas por el contribuyente y solo respecto de ese contribuyente. En caso que dentro de los 30 días el SII no entregue su respuesta la solicitud del contribuyente se entenderá rechazada.

Artículo 100 Bis. La persona natural o jurídica respecto de quien se acredite haber diseñado o planificado los actos, contratos o negocios constitutivos de abuso o simulación, según lo dispuesto en los artículos 4° ter y 4° quáter de este Código, será sancionado con multa de hasta el 100% de todos los impuestos que deberían haberse enterado en arcas fiscales, de no mediar dichas conductas indebidas, y que se determinen al contribuyente. Con todo, dicha multa no podrá superar las 100 unidades tributarias anuales. Para estos efectos, en caso que la infracción haya sido cometida por una persona jurídica, la sanción señalada será aplicada a sus directores o representantes legales si hubieren infringido sus deberes de dirección y supervisión.

Artículo 100 Bis. Para efectos de lo dispuesto en el presente artículo, el Servicio sólo podrá aplicar la multa a que se refieren los incisos precedentes cuando, en el caso de haberse deducido reclamación en contra de la respectiva liquidación, giro o resolución, ella se encuentre resuelta por sentencia firme y ejecutoriada, o cuando no se haya deducido reclamo y los plazos para hacerlo se encuentren vencidos. La prescripción de la acción para perseguir esta sanción pecuniaria será de seis años contados desde el vencimiento del plazo para declarar y pagar los impuestos eludidos.”.

PRECIOS DE TRANSFERENCIA
Operaciones objeto de Precios de Transferencias. Para los efectos de esta ley, el Servicio podrá impugnar los precios, valores o rentabilidades fijados, o establecerlos en caso de no haberse fijado alguno, cuando las operaciones transfronterizas y aquellas que den cuenta de las reorganizaciones o reestructuraciones empresariales o de negocios que contribuyentes domiciliados, o residentes o establecidos en Chile, se lleven a cabo con partes relacionadas en el extranjero y no se hayan efectuado a precios, valores o rentabilidades normales de mercado (art. 41 letra E)

Métodos establecidos para los Precios de Transferencia Método de Precio Comparable no Controlado: Método de Precio de Reventa: Método de Costo más Margen: Método de División de Utilidades: Método Transaccional de Márgenes Netos: Métodos Residuales:

Obligados a Presentar Declaración Jurada: 30 de junio. Contribuyentes pertenecientes al segmento de Medianas y Grandes Empresas que al 31 de diciembre del año respectivo posean operaciones con partes relacionadas en el exterior. Contribuyentes que sin tener el carácter de mediana o gran empresa posean operaciones con personas domiciliadas o residentes en paraísos fiscales. Contribuyentes que efectúen operaciones con partes relacionadas en el exterior por montos superiores a $ o su equivalente en moneda extranjera. Otros Existencia de APA´s Ajustes correlativos

FATCA Propósito: Fiscalizar que los contribuyentes de Estados Unidos denominados (US Person) o Entidades Norteamericanas (US Entity), realicen el pago de impuestos por las ganancias obtenidas en otros países, derivadas de inversiones financieras. US Person: personas naturales que se encuentren en alguna(s) de las hipótesis siguientes: (i) ser ciudadanos norteamericanos; (ii) ser residentes en los Estados Unidos; (iii) ser titular de una “green card”; US Entity: las sociedades anónimas y las sociedades de personas constituidas en Estados Unidos; (ii) las sucesiones y fideicomisos estadounidenses Vigencia: A partir del 01 de julio de 2014

FATCA Modalidad: Acuerdo “tipo B”
Las entidades financieras, luego de registrarse ante la administración tributaria (IRS), deberán remitir directamente a dicho servicio la información de las cuentas o productos financieros mantenidos por contribuyentes norteamericanos en Chile, cuyos saldos en cuenta corriente superen los USD Con el propósito de resguardar las normas chilenas sobre secreto bancario y otras similares, concernientes a la protección de datos privados, las entidades financieras deberán requerir autorización por escrito de las personas cuya información corresponda reportar. En caso que el cuentacorrentista se niegue a dar su autorización, la institución financiera sólo deberá reportar información agregada del valor de las cuentas, el monto de los pagos hechos y recibidos, y asimismo el número total de estos

COLÔMBIA

Por: Adrián Rodríguez P. arodriguez@lewinywills.com
IV Seminario Internacional Reforma Tributaria y sus Desa1os en America La6na E l C a s o d e C o l o m b i a Por: Adrián Rodríguez P. Noviembre 4 de 2014

Panorama Macroeconomico
En los úl6mos 15 años, el Presupuesto General de la Nación (PGN) viene en constante Incremento: La tendencia con6nuará: Atención del CONFLICTO armado (y luego de la PAZ), el crecimiento de la red de INFRAESTRUCTURA del país, EDUCACIÓN y demás compromisos sociales del Gobierno.

El PGN2015 6ene gastos no ﬁnanciados por COP $12,5B: El deﬁcit del PGN 2015 – 2018 se es6ma en COP $50B (sin ajustes).

La caida del precio del petróleo ha erosionado materialmente los ingresos de la Nación: Otros factores que contribuyen a esta tendencia a corto plazo, internos: SEGURIDAD, AMBIENTAL, COMUNIDADES, OPERATIVOS; externos: MEXICO.

La Regla Fiscal en Colombia, desde 2012 En reforma cons6tucional de 2011, con vigencia a par6r de Colombia adoptó una Regla Fiscal, para logar en una década el saneamiento de las finanzas públicas. La Regla Fiscal limita la capacidad de endeudamiento del Gobierno imponiendole que el déficit entre el ingreso estructural y el gasto estructural no supere 2.3% del PIB en 2014, 2.3% del PIB en 2018, y el obje6vo final de 1% en 2022. En consecuencia el déficit presupuestal en exceso NO puede financiarse con endeudamiento, sino que debe financiarse con ingresos del Estado.

Desafio Corto Plazo Aumentar el Recaudo Tributario
Polí;cas Fiscales más agresivas en contra de la evasión: Lucha frontal contra el uso de paraisos fiscales; Ampliación acelerada red de intercambio de información; TIEAs FATCA OECD por requerimiento de otros miembros, AUTOMATICO (2017) Entre otras acciones, Adopción temprana de B E P S, buscando membresía OECD; Cambio 180o en polí6ca fiscal internacional respecto de la negociación de Tratados para evitar la doble tributación.

En la Ley de Reforma Tributaria de 2012, vigentes desde 2013 : Entre otras, la adopción de normas generales y específicas en contra del abuso tributario: GAAR de amplio espectro, se define por primera vez “Abuso Tributario”; Nuevas reglas reorganizaciones más estrictas (aportes, fusiones y escisiones); Cambio en las normas de residencia para individuos y sociedades; Nueva regla de POEM para gravar sociedades offshore administradas desde Colombia; Nuevo régimen domésaco de PE; Nueva regla de capitalización delgada, “Thin‐Cap”; • ISR 33% vs. CREE 9% (8% 2016) + ISR 25% las deducciones de la base para CREE. = 34%, en adición a una limitación en

En el Proyecto de Reforma Tributaria de 2014, vigente desde 2015, se propone : Extensión por 4 años del impuesto “temporal” a los Movimientos Financieros a tarifa del 0.4%; Nuevo Impuesto “temporal” (4 años) al Patrimonio (mayores de USD $500K, aprox.) a tarifas entre 0.2% y 1.5%; Nuevo Impuesto de Normalización, 10% 2015, 15% 2016 y 20% 2017; Sobretasa de CREE de 3% + CREE 9% + ISR 25% = 37%, en adición a una limitación en las deducciones de la base para CREE; y Anuncio en exposición de mo6vos de futura adopción de régimen de transparencia ana‐diferimiento (“CFC Rules”), para ciertas rentas pasivas cómo dividendos, intereses y regalías de vehículos oﬀshore controlados por el contribuyente.

3 Desafios de Polí6ca Fiscal a Largo Plazo
Enderezar el régimen tributario de orden nacional, haciendolo más “universal” y “sencillo,” con el obje6vo de buscar un aumento del recaudo via una poli6ca restric6va de incen6vos desorganizados que han erosionado la base gravable, remplazando con esto actuales impuestos an6‐tecnicos temporales que se volvieron permanentes. Modernización de la ges6ón tributaria en materia de auditorias, potencializando el impacto y eficiencia de las mismas, facultando a las autoridades de impuestos para terminar controversias an6cipadamente (bajo ciertos supuestos) –como se ha venido haciendo ocasionalmente–, aumentando certeza y disminuyendo proliferación de controversias y li6gios tributarios. Avanzar en la protección de los derechos y garanmas fundamentales de los contribuyentes dando efecto efec6vo a las acciones de la Defensoría del Contribuyente, y adoptando mecanismos que disminuyan la exposición a conductas corruptas “hoy aisladas pero presentes,” y a la confirmación automá6ca de decisiones en auditorias oficiales sin la seria consideración de las razones y pruenas aportadas por el contribuyente.

O b r i g a d o !

A D R I A N R O D R I G U E Z P . Pracace Areas: O&G; M&A; Tax, Interna;onal Tax and Tax Controversies; and Interna;onal Investment. Mr. Rodriguez is a partner with LEWIN & WILLS and the co‐head of the Tax group. He ﬁrst joined the Firm in 1995 and has over 20 years of experience in the ﬁelds of Interna6onal Corporate Taxa6on, Interna6onal Investments and in Mergers and Acquisi6ons. Mr. Rodriguez is well recognized for his experience in tax law with an emphasis in M&A, interna6onal tax planning, restructurings and reorganiza6ons, and interna6onal business transac6ons, with a heavy involvement in the O&G industry. He advises domes6c and interna6onal clients on new and ongoing business opera6ons in Colombia and La6n America in a variety of industries and projects, with emphasis on interna6onal and domes6c corporate taxa6on, outbound and inbound cross‐border investment projects, and related M&A, Interna6onal Investments and Corporate laws issues. Mr. Rodriguez is licensed for the prac6ce of law in Colombia (95’) and in the States of New York (03’) and Illinois (03’) in the United States of America. He holds LL.M. degrees from both New York University in the United States of America in Interna6onal Taxa6on (02’), and Universidad del Rosario in Colombia in Colombian Taxa6on (95’), and a J.D. degree from Universidad de los Andes in Colombia. Over his 20 yrs. of experience, Mr. Rodriguez has wrixen many ar6cles on taxa6on and has par6cipated as speaker and panelist in many events in Colombia and abroad. Previously Held Posiaons: Sidley Aus;n, New York (Associate, 07’‐09’); Baker & McKenzie, Chicago (Associate, 02’‐04’); and Arthur Andersen, Colombia (Associate, 93’‐95’).

A new tax framework for Colombia
10 YEARS March 18, 2013, yr.10 – No. 22 By: Andrés Juan Pablo Wills- On December 26th 2012, the tax reform approved by the Colombian Congress (Act 1607/2012) entered into force. The 2012 tax reform encompasses material changes to the current income tax framework for both corporations and individuals, to the transfer-pricing regime and to the Colombian VAT rules. In addition to Colombian nationals and residents, the changes will impact foreign corporations and individuals with businesses and investments in Colombia. In this issue, Colombian_Tax_Flash® brings our readership a summary of the main changes that the Tax reform brings concerning the following issues: in matters of corporate taxation: (1.1) the reduction of statutory rates for corporate income and capital gains taxes, (1.2) a new net income tax replacing certain wage-based employer welfare contributions, (1.3) adoption of domestic permanent establishment (PE) rules, (1.4) adoption of a branch-profits tax applicable to both branches and PEs (1.5) adoption of the “effective place of management” as a criteria to determine corporate residency (1.6) adoption of thin capitalization rules, (1.7) changes to the tax-free reorganizations framework (1.8) amendments to the tax credit (1.9) adoption of a General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR), (1.10) changes to the depreciation rules; in matters of income taxation of individuals: changes in expatriate taxation, among others; in matters related to VAT: the possibility to credit the VAT paid upon importation or upon acquisition of capital assets against the taxpayer’s income tax, among others; in matters related to the Colombian Transfer-Pricing regime: (4.1) amendments on the criteria to determine when a transaction is completed by related parties, (4.2) rules on transfer-pricing elements on business restructurings. (4.3) appraisal method for sale of shares between related parties; and the anticipated termination of current administrative and judicial proceedings. Please bear in mind that this is a selective summary for informational purposes only that focuses on certain topics of the approved tax reform. Therefore, it is not intended to be a detailed and comprehensive dissertation of the 2012 tax reform. Although not featured herein, there are other measures and changes enacted by the Act 1607/2012 in income and VAT taxation and in other areas, which are also important for our readers to keep in mind. Therefore, it is advisable that our readers do not exclusively rely on this document and thoroughly review the measures and changes that could affect them, seeking qualified advice from professional tax attorneys duly admitted to the practice of law in Colombia. In matters of taxation, 2013 has been a prolific year and in addition to the 2012 tax reform, currently there are many other changes in other pieces of legislation both at a national and local level, which are not featured in this issue of Colombian_Tax_Flash®. For more information on these, you can visit us on twitter @colombiatax. The use, translation, reproduction or retransmission by any means in whole or in part of this document is prohibited without the prior written consent of one of the partners of LEWIN & WILLS.

10 YEARS March 18, 2013, yr.10 – No. 22 1. Corporate Income Taxation 1.1. 25% Corporate Income Tax and 10% Capital Gains Tax The statutory 33% income tax rate for corporations and similar entities (e.g. branches and PEs) was reduced to 25%. The current 15% reduced income tax rate for certain companies in free trade zones was kept. The income tax rate applicable to non-resident corporations was maintained at 33% unless otherwise provided for in the statute. The current general statutory 33% long-term capital gains tax rate for the sale or exchange of property (including stock in Colombian corporations), was reduced to 10%. 1.2. 8% Net Income tax C.R.E.E In an effort to reduce the current wage-based tax burden as a job creation incentive, the elimination of three material employer welfare contributions was introduced, coupling the statutory income tax rate 8 points reduction, with a new net income tax (C.R.E.E.”). The C.R.E.E’s rate is 9% for fiscal years 2013, 2014, 2015 and 8% as of fiscal year 2016. The C.R.E.E does not apply to free trade zone companies currently benefitting from the 15% reduced income tax rate. In the case of foreign entities, they are only subject to the C.R.E.E on their profits attributable to permanent establishments or branches. 1.3. PE Taxation. Before the 2012 tax reform, there was no domestic definition of permanent establishment. Nevertheless, the PE concept was relevant for Colombian tax purposes given that the treaties entered into by Colombia (i.e. Spain, Chile, Switzerland, Canada) include a definition of permanent establishment adopting features of OECD-MC and of the UN-MC depending on the case. The 2012 tax reform establishes a definition of permanent establishment inspired on the PE definition included in the OECD-MC with some specific features: i) The project PE is not included in the Colombian PE definition, ii) There is not a list indicating which activities are presumed to be preparatory or auxiliary. According to the new regulation, both PEs and branches are taxed on the profits attributable to them considering their assets, activities, functions and risks. Therefore, transfer-pricing considerations and the elements related with the “OECD report on the attribution of profits to permanent establishments” are to be considered. The inclusion of a PE domestic regulation in Colombia has, among others, the following consequences: (i) certain taxpayers taxed by means of a withholding upon payment before the 2012 tax reform, will be required to present an income tax return and to have accounting records following the Colombian GAAP, (ii) considerations regarding transfer- pricing and PE’s profits attribution will be applicable to both branches and PEs, (iii) The domestic provisions will facilitate the application of the tax treaties Colombia has entered

10 YEARS March 18, 2013, yr.10 – No. 22 into. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the rules governing PEs under each treaty should always prevail. 1.4. Branch profits tax. In Colombia, in order to avoid domestic economic double taxation, profits are taxable only at the entity’s level (exemption method) and not at the shareholder’s level. Conversely, when parts income are not taxed at the entity’s level (e.g. due to tax incentives or due to differences between the entity’s accounting income and the entity’s taxable income) they are taxed at the shareholder’s level. In order to treat Colombian entities and foreign entities’ branches equally, the tax reform establishes that transfers of profits from Colombian branches to their home offices are “deemed dividends”. In consequence, transferring untaxed profits at the branches’ level will trigger Colombian taxation. These rules also apply to PEs. The application of this rules under the tax treaties Colombia has entered into, should be carefully reviewed, considering each treaty's particularities. 1.5. Corporate Residency. Traditionally, for Colombian Tax purposes, the place of incorporation of an entity and its corporate domicile, were the sole elements to be considered in order to determine its residency. The tax reform brought a very important modification in this regard, indicating that for an entity to be considered as a Colombian entity one of the following two criteria should be met: (i) The entity must be incorporated in Colombia and it is corporate domicile must be in Colombia or (ii) the entity must be “effectively managed” in Colombia. An entity is managed where the key managing decisions are taken. Please keep in mind that in Colombia, resident entities are taxed on their worldwide income while foreign entities and foreign entities´ branches are taxed only on their Colombian source income. 1.6. Thin Capitalization Rules. The tax reform establishes that only interest derived from indebtedness with an average value not exceeding three times the entity’s net equity on December 31 of the preceding year are deductible. The aforementioned interest deductibility limitation implies, among others, the following issues: i) it applies on both indebtedness between related parties and indebtedness between non related parties, ii) it applies on both cross-border inbound indebtedness and local indebtedness, ii) It does not apply on certain cases (e.g. when the debtor is a bank, when the loan is obtained to finance infrastructure related with activities considered of public interest).

10 YEARS March 18, 2013, yr.10 – No. 22 1.7. Tax-Free Reorganizations Redefined The statutes lacked clarity regarding the treatment of non-cash property transfers to corporations as capital contributions, while offering an unrestricted tax-free treatment to all statutory mergers and spin-offs. The tax reform establishes a reorganizations chapter with specific anti-avoidance rules to address these issues, in an effort to curtail M&A transfer strategies that result in acquisitions of corporate assets and businesses in Colombia that due to current loopholes in the statutes avoided local taxation. Tax-Free Capital Contributions of Property Before the tax reform, only capital contributions in cash were income tax neutral while contributions of property could potentially be subject to taxation upon transfer to a corporation. Due to the lack of regulation, the Colombian Tax Service has dealt with this situation through a series of cumbersome revenue rulings that the taxpayer had to navigate in order to mitigate unreasonable taxation. The new provisions intend to adopt clear rules regulating taxable and tax-free capital contributions of property. According to the new applicable rules, unless otherwise provided by the statute, property transfers to corporations as capital contributions will be deemed tax- free. Therefore, the stock received by the transferor will inherit the tax basis in the transferred property, while the transferee corporation keeps the same tax basis in the property that the transferor had. All capital contributions of property, including stock, where the transferor is a Colombian national individual or entity and the transferee corporation is an offshore entity, under the proposed statute (a) will be deemed as taxable without exception, and (b) must observe transfer pricing rules, regardless of (i) the existence of a “related-party” relationship between transferor and transferee and (ii) the value attributed to the contributed property. 1.7.2. Tax Free Statutory Mergers and Spin-Offs Restricted In an effort to prevent the use of statutory mergers and spin-offs as a means of achieving tax-free status for certain acquisitions of corporate assets and businesses in Colombia, the 2012 tax reform establishes statutory requirements for these types of reorganizations to qualify for tax-free treatment. In order to achieve the tax-free treatment, the applicable rules provide for a tax cost roll-over concerning both the transferred assets and the new shares issued to the shareholders. These requirements are somehow similar to those in place in other jurisdictions, and are based on a continuity of interest (“COI”) and on continuity of business enterprise (“COBE”), in absence of which the reorganization will not qualify for tax-free treatment. In addition to the adoption of COI and COBE requirements, the new statute differentiates acquisition mergers and spin-offs as opposed to organizational

10 YEARS March 18, 2013, yr.10 – No. 22 mergers and spin-offs. For acquisitive reorganizations, the participating entities are not deemed related-parties under Colombian regulations while in the latter, the participating entities are deemed related-parties under Colombian regulations. The difference would be on the adoption of stricter COI and COBE requirements for the organizational mergers and divisions. In a reorganization between foreign entities entailing the transfer of assets located in Colombia, the transfer of the Colombian assets will be deemed as taxable and will not be eligible for tax-free treatment. In this case, if the Colombian assets transferred as a result of the reorganization represent 25% or less of the worldwide combined assets of the participating entities, the resulting transfer of the Colombian assets could be eligible for tax-free treatment observing the COI and COBE requirements and related rules as discussed above. Already existent, joint and several liability for taxes between the participating entities in reorganizations, is being restated along with the newly proposed rules. 1.8. Foreign Tax Credit. The 2012 tax reform establishes the following amendments to the Colombian foreign tax credit: (i) the tax paid abroad could be credited against both the income tax and the C.R.E.E. (ii) foreign individuals considered as Colombian tax residents can benefit from the foreign tax credit (iii) excess tax credits can be carried forward for 4yr if certain requirements are met (iv) Certain conditions need to be met in order to benefit from the foreign indirect tax credit (i.e. shares no granting voting rights cannot benefit from the credit, a minimum 2yrs holding period is required). 1.9. General Anti Avoidance Rule (GAAR) Traditionally, the Colombian tax service has attempted to challenge tax abusive transactions based on the constitutional principle of substance over form and based on general law abuse considerations. The tax reform establishes a general anti avoidance clause according to which, if the tax administration manages to prove three of the following elements, the taxpayer will have the burden of proof in demonstrating that the transaction had a business purpose or that the prices or considerations related with the transaction meet the Colombian transfer- pricing rules: i) the transaction involves related parties, ii) the transaction involves a tax haven, iii) the transaction involves an entity covered by a favorable tax regime, iv) the price or consideration agreed differs in more than 25% from a fair market value, v) the transaction does not include a feature, an entity or an agreement common to similar transactions, with the purpose of obtaining a tax advantage in an abusive manner, If the taxpayer fails to furnish sufficient evidence of a business purpose or compliance with the transfer pricing regime, the tax administration can re-characterize the transaction and tax it.

10 YEARS March 18, 2013, yr.10 – No. 22 It is worth noting that the anti avoidance rule, allows the tax administration to pierce the corporate veil of entities interposed for tax abuse purposes. 1.10. Depreciation The tax reform includes the following limits to the decline balance depreciation method: i) the salvage value cannot be lower than 10% of the asset’s cost, ii) The depreciation rate cannot be accelerated applying additional shifts. 2. Income Taxation of Individuals 2.1. Expatriate Taxation The 2012 tax reform establishes that Non-Resident Alien individuals (“NRA”) that spend in Colombia days or more in any day-period, will be deemed as a Colombian resident for tax purposes and would be taxed on their worldwide income. The difference, is that in the past an NRA becoming a resident of Colombia was taxed exclusively on its Colombian source income, while benefiting from an exclusion treating non-Colombian source income as non-taxable for the first 5-yr. of residency. 2.2. Minimum Schedular Based Taxation In an effort to, arguably, simplify individuals’ taxation, the tax reform adopted an Alternative Minimum Income Tax System for individuals (the “IMAN”), based on a special taxable income assessment arrived through the application of restricted statutory allowances towards the individual’s gross income with rates, in general, lower than those applicable following the ordinary system. A simplified version of the IMAN (the “IMAS”) also applies for individuals with a yearly income inferior to certain thresholds. Both the IMAN and the IMAS will coexist with the regular income tax assessment method based on actual income. 3. VAT. Income Tax Deduction of VAT Paid in the Acquisition or Import of Capital Assets According to the 2012 tax reform, the VAT paid upon acquisition or upon import of capita assets can be creditable against the taxpayer’s income tax. The government by way of an annual decree will establish the amount of the 16% VAT rate that can be credited. Finally, section 60 of the tax reform clarifies that this treatment is not applicable in the import of heavy machinery for basic industries, which will be regulated by pre-existing rules.

10 YEARS March 18, 2013, yr.10 – No. 22 4. Transfer-Pricing. 4.1. Amendments to the criteria to qualify as a related party for Transfer Pricing issues: The tax reform amends the Colombian Tax Code in reference to the criteria for qualification as a related party for transfer pricing matters. The former rule referred to the Colombian Commercial Code and to certain sections of the Colombian tax code. Below please find the main changes made to the criteria to determine when a taxpayer is considered a related party: Additional Scenarios for qualification as a related party: When an individual taxpayer or an entity is entitled to receive 50% or more of the profits of a subordinated entity. Permanent establishments in regard to the entity whose business they conduct in whole or in part. Transactions between related parties through non-related entities. When more than 50% of the gross revenue comes individually or as a group from its partners or shareholders. When specific types of association contracts are executed (collaboration agreements, joint ventures, etc.) Transactions between Colombian taxpayers and entities located in Free Trade Zones. Finally, the related party assumption regarding the sale of 50% or more of an entity’s production to a same company was eliminated. 4.2. Rules on Business Restructurings The 2012 tax reform establishes that whenever a Colombian taxpayer transfers functions, assets or risks to a related party abroad, it is expected to obtain an arm's length remuneration. This provision is based on the OECD report on business restructurings. 4.3. Appraisal Method for Sale of Shares Between Related Parties The 2012 Tax Reform includes an appraisal method for operations of sale of shares (not publicly traded) between related parties. This method establishes that for determining the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the shares, common financial methods must be used, specially the one in which the FMV is calculated through the present value of future income. Additionally, this disposition establishes that under no circumstance will the equity or intrinsic value, be accepted as a valid appraisal method.

10 YEARS March 18, 2013, yr.10 – No. 22 5. Anticipated Termination of Current Administrative and Judicial Tax Proceedings. The tax reform introduces a mechanism for anticipated termination of undergoing tax proceedings. Sections 147 and 148 of the reform, grant the Colombian tax authorities the ability to settle with the taxpayer, either the claims that are currently being studied in Court, or those which are still undergoing administrative review. This method allows for a settlement of up to 100% of both the penalties and/or accrued interest owed for the tax matter being discussed. In order to access this mechanism, the taxpayer must commit to paying the entirety of the tax owed in said dispute. Also, please note that this mechanism applies only to judicial proceedings initiated before the entry into force of the reform as well as to administrative proceedings in which notification of the deficiency was served prior to the enforceability of the law. Regulation regarding the procedure to follow in order to file for this mechanism is currently being drafted and is expected to be issued soon. Finally, please keep in mind that taxpayers interested in adhering to this mechanism must do so before August of this year. Additional consideration must be given in a case-by-case basis, as specific facts might alter the opportunities of a successful settlement LW Colombian_Tax_Flash® is being sent to clients, friends and colleagues of LEWIN & WILLS worldwide, and contains a legal alert and marketing information. If you do not wish to receive this briefing in the future, please us at writing the words “Stop Flash” in the subject. NOTICE: ©2013 LEWIN & WILLS. All rights reserved. Colombian_Tax_Flash® is a periodical publication that discusses certain recent tax developments in Colombia. Please be advised that this summary is not intended to be a detailed and comprehensive description of the topics discussed herein. This publication is prepared by LEWIN & WILLS (Colombia) for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The statements contained herein reflect the author’s interpretation of current tax rules and may not be shared or accepted by the Colombian Tax Service or by the Colombian Courts or by other persons or authorities. The information contained herein is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon it without seeking qualified advice from professional tax attorneys admitted to practice law in Colombia. This publication was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding any taxes or tax penalties that may be imposed on such person in Colombia or any other jurisdiction. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Colombian_Tax_Flash® is copyrighted material, the use, translation, reproduction or retransmission by any means in whole or in part of its contents is prohibited without the prior written consent of one of the partners of LEWIN & WILLS. LEWIN & WILLS – Visit us at: Postal Address in Colombia: Calle 72 #4-03, Bogota, Colombia Member of LATAXNET – Latin American Tax & Legal Network –

2014 Tax Reform Bill introduced in Congress
10 YEARS October 21, 2014, yr.11 – No. 24 By: Juan Andrés Palacios, Associate, On October 3, 2014, the Colombian Government introduced in Congress the 2014 Tax Reform Bill 134/14 (“2014 Tax Reform Bill”), proposing material changes to already existing taxes, introducing new taxes and proposing a criminal punishment for the non-disclosure of assets held by taxpayers. The Colombian Congress is currently considering this Tax Bill and faces the challenge of enacting it before the end of the year, in order for certain new taxes and modifications of already existing taxes to apply as of January 1st of 2015. In this issue, Colombian_Tax_Flash® brings our readership a summary of the following changes that may be introduced by the 2014 Tax Reform Bill. (i) Wealth Tax creation, (ii) Bank-debits tax prolongation, (iii) New Regularization Tax for non-disclosed assets or non-existing debts, (iv) Criminal punishment for the non-disclosure of assets held by taxpayers; and (v) a 3% surcharge over the already existing C.R.E.E Tax. Please bear in mind that this is a selective summary for informational purposes only. Therefore, it is not intended to be a detailed and comprehensive dissertation of the Tax Reform Bill. As a consequence, it is advisable that our readers do not exclusively rely on this document and thoroughly review the measures and changes that could affect them, seeking qualified advice from professional tax attorneys duly admitted to the practice of law in Colombia. It is also important to bear in mind that this briefing considers the Tax Reform Bill presented by the Government on October 3rd of 2014, and that such Tax Reform Bill will likely change as it moves forward in its Congressional debates. The use, translation, reproduction or retransmission by any means in whole or in part of this document is prohibited without the prior written consent of one of the partners of LEWIN & WILLS. For more information on these, you can visit us on Wealth Tax: The Wealth Tax proposed by the Government through Tax Reform Bill intends to burden the net worth of the taxpayers that exceed COP$ (USD$ Approximately) as of January 1st of 2015 for the years 2015, 2016, 2017 and Foreign non-residents and non-Colombian entities will also be subject to the Wealth Tax for their Colombian net-worth either if it is directly owned by the non- resident or non-Colombian entity or through a Colombian branch or Colombian Permanent Establishment. Regarding the taxable base of the Wealth Tax, certain amounts can be deducted of the net-worth of the taxpayers according to the Tax Reform Bill. Among others, the value of the shares or quotas of Colombian entities held by the taxpayer may be excluded from the net-worth for Wealth Tax purposes. The Wealth Tax rates proposed by the Colombian Government are the following:

10 YEARS October 21, 2014, yr.11 – No. 24 Taxable base (net worth with certain allowed deductions) Rate COP$0-COP$2.000M (USD$1M approximately) 0,2% COP$ 2.000M (USD 1M Approximately) – COP$3.000M (USD 1,5M approximately) 0,35% COP$ M (USD 1,5M Approximately) – COP$5.000M (USD 2,5M approximately) 0,75% COP$ 5.000M (USD 2,5M Approximately) and more 1,5% Please bear in mind that every threshold will be taxed with its specific rate. Therefore, if a taxpayer has a taxable base of COP$5.000M, the first COP$2.000M would be taxed at a rate of 0,2%, the subsequent COP$ M would be taxed at a rate of 0,35% and the COP$2.000M remaining would be taxed at a rate of 0,75%. Bank Debits Tax: The Bank Debits Tax has a current rate of 0,4% over the debits made from banking accounts. This rate was planed to be diminished to 0,2% for the fiscal year 2015, to 0,1% for the fiscal years 2016 and 2017 and to 0 as of the fiscal year However, the Government included a provision in the Tax Reform Bill that aims to maintain the current 0,4% rate for the fiscal years 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 and a gradual diminishment as of fiscal year 2019. Regularization Tax: Through the Tax Reform Bill, the Colombian Government proposed the creation of the Regularization Tax. This tax intends to burden the assets held by Taxpayers, which have not been included in prior tax returns in the cases in which the taxpayer was legally obliged to include them and disregarded such obligation. The taxpayers that decide to file the Regularization Tax return would avoid possible future penalties for their non-disclosed assets held either in Colombia or abroad. Please bear in mind that the Government specifically included as possible non-disclosed assets subject to this new tax, the rights over trusts held abroad and the rights over private foundations, among other type of assets. The government has proposed rates of 10%, 15% and 20% of the fiscal cost of the non-disclosed assets. The applicable rate would depend on the fiscal year during which the taxpayer files and pays its Regularization Tax return. The 10% rate would apply in case of filing and paying during FY2015, the 15% rate would apply in case of filing and paying during FY2016 and the 20% rate would apply in case of filing and paying during FY2017. Please bear in mind that there are other mechanisms currently in place in order to include the non- disclosed assets before January 1st of The possibility to apply such mechanisms must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and we strongly suggest to seek local advise from a tax advisor admitted to practice in Colombia. Non-disclosure criminal penalty for taxpayers: Through Tax Reform Bill the government seeks to give a criminal-level treatment to the non- disclosure, or inexact disclosure of assets with a value greater than minimum wages

10 YEARS October 21, 2014, yr.11 – No. 24 (Approximately USD$4M for 2014). The penalties proposed by the Government go as high as 9 years of prison and a 20% penalty over the value of the non-disclosed assets. 3% Surcharge of the CREE: The CREE currently has a temporary rate of 9% over the net income of the taxpayers. If the Tax Reform Bill is not approved, the CREE rate would be reduced to 8% as of FY2016. Through the 2014 Tax Reform Bill the Government has proposed to permanently fix the CREE rate at 9%. Additionally, the Government proposed the creation of an additional 3% CREE surcharge for the taxpayers with a net income greater than COP$ M (approximately USD$ ) for fiscal years 2015, 2016, 2017 and Please bear in mind that even if a company has a net revenue greater than COP$1.000M, the surcharge would only be applicable for the threshold of profits that exceed COP$1.000M. “Tax Havens” List update On October 7 of 2014, the Colombian Government issued Decree Decree includes certain countries to the jurisdictions considered as Tax Havens for Colombian tax purposes. Through Decree 1966, other jurisdictions were excluded from the Tax Havens list. The jurisdictions included as Tax Havens are: Panamá (Republic of)* Qatar (State of) United Arab Emirates Kuwait (State of) Barbados* *Please note that currently, Panama and Barbados are negotiating the signature of a Tax Information Exchange Agreement with the Colombian Government that may be signed before January 1st of (date in which the tax effects triggered by the inclusion of a jurisdiction in the Tax Haven list will become enforceable). Therefore, Panama and Barbados may be excluded of the Tax Haven list before December 31st of 2014. On the grounds of the current signature of a Tax Information Exchange treaty with the Colombian Government, the following 7 jurisdictions were excluded from the Tax Havens list: Anguila Man Islands Virgin British Islands Cyprus (Republic of) Principality of Andorra Bailiwick of Jersey Principality of Liechtenstein It is important to bear in mind that the following jurisdictions were temporarily excluded from the Tax Haven List during 2013 and that their permanent exclusion of the list depended on the signature of a Tax Information Exchange Treaty that are now currently signed, therefore, the temporary exclusion became permanent. Bermuda Bailiwick of Guernsey

10 YEARS October 21, 2014, yr.11 – No. 24 The Tax Havens list will be reviewed every year and the exclusion of jurisdictions from the list depends on the signature of a Tax Information Exchange Agreement with the Colombian Government. Even though the Decree is effective as of October 7 of 2014, the Tax effects will only be enforced as of January 1st of 2015. The main effects of considering a jurisdiction as a Tax Haven for Colombian tax purposes are: Tax Residency for Individuals Colombian nationals resident in a “tax haven” jurisdiction are deemed Colombian residents for all Colombian tax purposes (Colombian Tax Code §10). Increased Withholding Tax Rate for Foreign Portfolio Investors Foreign Portfolio Investors domiciled in a “tax haven” jurisdiction, are not entitled to the reduced 14% withholding tax rate on their return. Instead, a 25% withholding tax rate will be levied (CTC§ 18-1(4)(e)). Increased 33% Withholding Tax Rate on Cross-Border Payments All cross-border payments of (taxable income items) to beneficiaries that are resident, established, located, or functioning, in a “tax haven” jurisdiction and except as otherwise indicated in the applicable tax rules and regulations, are subject to an increased 33% withholding tax rate (CTC§408). Not performing such withholding on these payments, will result in the loss of the right to deduct the same in the Colombian payer’s income tax assessment (CTC§124-2). Transfer Pricing In addition to a number of related consequences in the area of transfer pricing regulations, transactions between Colombian parties and parties that are resident, located or domiciled, in a “tax haven” jurisdiction are by default, subject to the Colombian transfer pricing rules, whether the parties are related or not (CTC§260-7). GAAR A transaction involving in any way or form the use of a “tax haven” jurisdiction is one of the five criteria required to trigger the statutory General Anti-Avoidance Rule (CTC§§869; 869-1). Remember that the tax reform adopted an statutory GAAR requiring the presence of three out of five criteria to shift the burden of proof from the Colombian Tax Service (DIAN) to the taxpayer in a re- characterization challenge requiring from the taxpayer evidence to support a business purpose or that the prices or considerations related with the transaction meet Colombian transfer pricing rules. The Criteria are: (i) the transaction involves related parties: (ii) the transaction involves a tax haven; (iii) the transaction involves an entity covered by a favorable tax regime; (iv) the price or consideration agreed differs in more than 25% from a fair market value; and (v) the transaction does not include a feature, an entity or an agreement common to similar transactions, with the purpose of obtaining a tax advantage in an abusive manner.

10 YEARS October 21, 2014, yr.11 – No. 24 Colombian_Tax_Flash® is being sent to clients, friends and colleagues of LEWIN & WILLS worldwide, aand contains a legal alert and marketing information. If you do not wish to receive this briefing in the future, please us at writing the words “Stop Flash” in the subject. NOTICE: ©2014 LEWIN & WILLS. All rights reserved. Colombian_Tax_Flash® is a periodical publication that discusses certain recent tax developments in Colombia. Please be advised that this summary is not intended to be a detailed and comprehensive description of the topics discussed herein. This publication is prepared by LEWIN & WILLS (Colombia) for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The statements contained herein reflect the author’s interpretation of current tax rules and may not be shared or accepted by the Colombian Tax Service or by the Colombian Courts or by other persons or authorities. The information contained herein is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon it without seeking qualified advice from professional tax attorneys admitted to practice law in Colombia. This publication was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding any taxes or tax penalties that may be imposed on such person in Colombia or any other jurisdiction. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Colombian_Tax_Flash® is copyrighted material, the use, translation, reproduction or retransmission by any means in whole or in part of its contents is prohibited without the prior written consent of one of the partners of LEWIN & WILLS. LEWIN & WILLS – Visit us at: Postal Address in Colombia: Calle 72 #4-03, Bogota, Colombia Member of LATAXNET – Latin American Tax & Legal Network –

VENEZUELA

Incentivos y Desincentivos
Fiscales sobre Inversiones Extranjeras En Venezuela

Incentivos & Desincentivos
Situación Actual: PIB creció 1,4% / 2013 Deficit Fiscal de 17,2% PIB /2013 Reducción Reservas Internacionales – 21 MMM USD /servicio 7 MMM Oct Bonos RBV (tasas / 12%) S&P CCC+ (RBV 27)

Situación Petróleo 96% de Exportaciones (> 60% PIB /2014) Reducción de Producción / Inversiones 302 MMM USD /5 años

Indicadores Inversión Inflación (56,3%?) 2013 Devaluación (3 Tipos de Cambio) Control Cambiario Seguridad Jurídica

Situación Impositiva La LISLR no ha sufrido modificaciones desde 2007 Igual caso para LIVA Expansión significativa de las Contribuciones Parafiscales (incremento en la regresividad) Las modificaciones resultan de cambios de criterio de la Administración Tributaria / Tribunales ALTO RIESGO

Situación Impositiva Venezuela no participa en el Foro Global para la Transparencia Fiscal No hay participación en esfuerzos OCDE BEPS No forma parte de la lista de gobiernos que han avanzado esfuerzos para la firma de un IGA bajo FATCA Presenta problemas prácticos importantes en aplicación de Convenios para evitar la Doble Imposición

Incentivos y Desincentivos Fiscales
Rebajas de Impuesto Estabilidad / LPPI y RLPPI Ineficiencias Rebajas o Exoneraciones de ISLR Exenciones de IVA.

Me gustaria probar con otro patrón donde esté el logo completo o por lo menos la marca Lataxnet abajo ,es muy importante porque nadie nos conoce , ademas este patron nos queda para siempre ,para usarlo en todas las presentaciones ( incluso me lo tendrias que mandar aparte como tranparecnia patron para subirlo a la web y dejarlo disponible para todos ( hoy es un relajo, todos hacen ppt de cualquier modo !!)

Otorgados ampliamente en el último decenio. Difícilmente mantienen un equilibrio entre las partes ante variaciones en rentabilidad o cambios en precio de fungibles (commodities). Resultan Ineficientes

Me gustaria probar con otro patrón donde esté el logo completo o por lo menos la marca Lataxnet abajo ,es muy importante porque nadie nos conoce , ademas este patron nos queda para siempre ,para usarlo en todas las presentaciones ( incluso me lo tendrias que mandar aparte como tranparecnia patron para subirlo a la web y dejarlo disponible para todos ( hoy es un relajo, todos hacen ppt de cualquier modo !!)

Incentivos Fiscales vs Certeza Inversionistas Prefieren Claridad Falta de Predictibilidad Afecta Rentabilidad de Proyectos Otros Aspectos a Tomar en Cuenta

Aspectos Críticos Identificación del Tipo de Cambio Aplicable / Op. Alternativas Consecuencias Fiscales / tipo de Cambio – ISLR, IVA, Aduanas Determinaciones / expropiaciones IVA / retenciones y devolución “tasa cero” Impuestos Municipales

Estabilidad: Impuestos (por su naturaleza no gozan de intangibilidad). Alternativa: Ley de Promoción y Protección de Inversiones (LPPI) por medio de un Contrato de Estabilidad Jurídica. Alternativa: Forum shopping / CDI. Flexibilidad Impuestos (por su naturaleza general, difícil). Alternativas: Mecanismos de Ajuste o Recaptura o Exoneraciones parciales.

OBRIGADO! Juan C. Garantón B.

PERU ¿Dónde estamos? ¿A dónde vamos?

Agenda ¿Dónde estamos? Sistema Tributario BEPS
Precios de Transferencia Promoción de Inversiones ¿A dónde vamos? Política Fiscal Desafíos y Riesgos

Sistema Tributario Impuesto a la Renta (IR)
Renta devengada : 30% Dividendos : 4.1% x (100 – 30) = 3% Tasa combinada : 33% (+) utilidades a Ws : 5% a 10% Base NIC’s + NIIF’s Algunas limitaciones Algunas prohibiciones Arrastre de pérdidas

IR No Residentes 30% Regalías
30% Servicio digital renta dentro/fuera del Perú 15% Asesoría técnica 30% Sólo renta en el Perú 4.99% Interés no vinculado

Impuesto al Valor Agregado (IVA  IGV)
Impuesto General a las Ventas: 18% Algunas exoneraciones IVA  costo adicional Contabilidad separada/prorrata Devolución por exportación Recuperación anticipada en inversiones

El cobro anticipado del IVA
Retención al 3% (sólo compradores calificados)  afecta al vendedor. - Resta competitividad a compradores calificados. ¿Discriminatorio? Percepción al 2% (sólo vendedores + productos calificados)  afecta al comprador. - Pago a cuenta del futuro IVA en la reventa proyectada.  IVA al consumidor final Detracción al 12% (sólo servicios calificados)  afecta al vendedor. - Resta competitividad a determinados servicios: ¿Confiscatorio? 100 + 14.46 3.54 100 + 18 2.36 100 + 3.84 14.16

Base Erosion and Profit Shifting
Normas antielusivas específicas Norma antielusiva general Controlled Foreign Companies (Reglas CFC) Transferencia indirecta de activos ITF (Impuesto a las Transacciones Financieras)

Normas Antielusivas Específicas
Escenario Base Capital 900 Utilidades 100 Patrimonio 1,000 Distribución Utilidades 1 2 3 Capital 900 Utilidades 100 (100)  Patrimonio 1,000 4.1% Capitalización Utilidades 1 2 3 Capital 900 +100 1,000 Utilidades 100 (100)  Patrimonio Reducción de Capital 1 2 3 Capital 1,000 (100) 900 Utilidades  0% vs 4.1%

Norma Antielusiva General
La Administración Tributaria (Sunat) puede exigir la deuda tributaria cuando se evite total o parcialmente el hecho imponible mediante actos: que individual o conjuntamente sean artificiosos o impropios para conseguir el resultado obtenido; y, que los efectos jurídicos o económicos sean similares a los que se hubiesen obtenido con los actos usuales o propios, salvo el ahorro tributario. Norma XVI Código Tributario Texto no literal

Nueva Lógica Sustancia antes que forma
Redefinición de los “derechos del contribuyente” Verdadero riesgo: conocimiento del negocio Requiere: alta capacidad de auditores/jueces Requiere: alta institucionalidad

Transferencia indirecta de activos
Off Shore ABC ABC 100 K 100  100 A: Por venta de activos en Perú IR 30% B:  (antes) por venta de acciones de off shore C: IR: 30% (ahora) por ventas de acciones de off shore

Negocios en el exterior Repatriación del inversionista
Reglas CFC Reglas CFC Controlled Foreign Companies A Sin Planeamiento B Con planeamiento C  Crédito D  Crédito Negocios en el exterior Utilidad (IR) Disponible 100 (30) 70 Vehículos Off Shore Rendimiento  Repatriación del inversionista Repatriación (+) Crédito IR (21) 49 -.- (30)1+ (3) +301 67 1 El 30% del IR no se calcula sobre “70” sino sobre “100” cuando se reconoce el “crédito indirecto”

ITF Impuesto a las Transacciones Financieras
La data por ITF ITF CUENTA BANCARIA Fecha Abono Cargo Saldo Total 1’000,000 800,000 200,000 Tasa: % US$1 US$ US$20,000 US$1.00 US$100,000 US$5.00 El problema Ingresos detectados ’000,000 Rentas declaradas (250,000) Otros ingresos declarados (30,000) Rentas no declaradas 720,000

Contabilidad para personas naturales
Fecha Remuneraciones Alquileres Cobro Préstamos Fondo/ Rescate Interbancos Anticipo Herencia ? Total 250,000 30,000 20,000 300,000 200,000 150,000 50,000 1’000,000

Precios de Transferencia
Evolución A C D Métodos OCDE + 6to. Método Alcance Vinculadas exterior + operaciones gratuitas Paraísos fiscales Vinculadas locales + IVA No DJ Si Estudio No Reglamento ¿En dónde estamos? IVA Operaciones gratuitas Operaciones locales “6to. Método”

El “6to método” Condiciones: commodities + 3ro sin sustancia
Base presunta Márgenes vs Precios Vinculado Exterior Local   3ro.

Ajustes (Roll Back) Reglas Producto Factores Q x P = Cotización 
(-) Impurezas del concentrado (-) Servicios de refinación (-) Fletes y seguros (-) Primas de negociación Alambrón Cátodo Cobre RAF LME Cobre Blister Eje Concentrado Calidad del producto Fecha del contrato Tipo de contrato (Spot vs Suministro) Mercado de destino Puerto de entrega Términos de entrega Volumen Forma de pago

Promoción de Inversiones
Doing Business  no necesariamente tax Política fiscal  Marco macroeconómico Convenio de estabilidad Libre conversión moneda extranjera Liberación de tasas arancelarias X Convenios para evitar doble tributación X Baja institucionalidad

Tax  Promoción de Inversiones
Contabilidad en moneda extranjera Aceleración de depreciaciones Recuperación anticipada IVA Import Temporal

La Política Fiscal ¡Un buen padre (madre) de familia!

Perú: ¿dónde estamos? ¿Cuánto me falta? 2% para Salud
Presupuesto público : 70% Tax + 30% “casi” Tax ¿Cuánto gano? : 16% PBI ¿Cuánto me falta? 2% para Salud 2% para Educación 2% para Justicia Programas sociales ¿De dónde? 4% Evasión IVA 2% Exoneración ineficiente IR 2.5% Gestión de Gasto  Infraestructura

¿Cómo vamos? Crecimiento: 5.5% PBI Inflación: 2%
Export (China – Cobre – Oro) Deuda Pública: 20% PBI  Reservas internacionales: 32.5% PBI

¿Cómo lo hacemos? Presupuesto financiado
-1% PBI como límite  gasto público en elecciones Marco multianual (5 años) Fondo de Estabilización Fiscal Transferencia del Sector Privado Obras por Impuestos APP (Asociaciones Público Privadas) Concesiones

AL: ¿A dónde vamos? Tax como commodities BEPS
Estandarización IR + IVA CDI’s BEPS Common Law vs. Civil Law o Realidad vs Forma ¿Derechos de los Contribuyentes? El gran riesgo: Gasto social Contagio por Región: AL vs. EU Robin Hood o el falso dilema de pobres vs. ricos

César Luna-Victoria ¡Obrigado! clunavictoria@rubio.pe
(51-1-) x 329 (51)

E.U.A.

The “Flat” World Where geographies are increasingly connected, providing increased competitive opportunities and threats. Global suply chain ( and cross-border movement of goods and services). Use of integrated systems, workflow, outsourcing and offshoring. Ongoing need to become even more productive. Friedman Thomas L, (2007) The world is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. Farrar, Starus and Giroux.

Within the Latin American Tax environment, we see:
The “VUCA” World “Vuca” – U.S. Military term used to express the combined Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity of conditions and Situations. Within the Latin American Tax environment, we see: Volatility – pace of change in tax regulations, but also in the workforce Uncertainty – economic trends, political situations and tax policies Complexity – inter-linkages of tax policies within countries and cross- borders; inter-linkage of various tax matters with each other Ambiguity – lack of clarity or transparency with respect to authorities intents, interpretations and and applications of regulations.

The “AFAK” “All Facts Are Known” - World
While the external environments is “VUCA”, Taxpayers need to recognize that increasingly all facts are known about us. Increasing digitization and linkage of financial records (e.g., Brazil SPED – the public digital bookkeeping system) Increasing cross-border exchange of information, with a lot more to come with FATCA, starting on July 1st, 2014. Increasing number and depth of audits and increased coordination of audits across tax types. Increased public scrutiny of effective tax rates (and tax structures) of public companies. More ways for news to travel further and faster.

VARIETY IS THE SPICE OF LIFE

Tax is the top business threat to growth in today’s economy.

. Tax transparency and Tax morality continue to overshadow and influence tax regulation around the world

Tax Law is local but companies are global.

Tax optimization, Tax risk and control, and Tax Communications.
When considering their corporate tax policy over the next 1 to 5 years, companies should consider the following three (3.) important factors: Tax optimization, Tax risk and control, and Tax Communications.

On Octorber 10th, 2014 the Finance Commission of the Italian Chamber of Rejuties approved the text for the Voluntary Disclosure and Money Lanndering Draft Law.

Ireland to “phase out” the Double irish Strategy used by multinational companies announced on October 23th, 2014.

More Americans Renounce their U. S
More Americans Renounce their U.S. Citizluship, with 2014 on Pace for a Record.

Modalidades da Troca de Informações Fiscais:
Troca de informações mediante solicitação formal; Troca de informações espontânea; Troca de informações automática (ou sistemática); Troca de informações setorial; Fiscalizações ou verificações fiscais simultânea; e Vistoria de representantes autorizados pelas autoridades competentes.

MinHacienda anuncia que Colombia será pionera en intercambio automático de información tributaria
Bogotá 27 de octubre de 2014 (COMH). El próximo 29 de octubre el Gobierno de Colombia suscribirá em Alemania, tras una invitación del Ministro Federal de Hacienda de Alemania, Wolfgang Scháuble, y del Presidente del Foro Global para la Transparencia Tributaria, Kosie Louw, un acuerdo multilateral por médio del cual 45 países se comprometen a intercambiar información tributária de manera anual y automática a partir de Otros 20 países iniciarán el intercambio automático a partir de “Esta herramienta nos permitirá recibir anualmente información de las entidades financieras de todos los países que se han unido al acuerdo. Será una pieza clave en nuestra lucha contra evasión fiscal, porque permitirá identificar activos e inversiones financieras que ciudadanos colombianos tengan en el exterior y no hayan declarado ante la DIAN. En esos casos, dichos ciudadanos enfrentarán sanciones y hacia adelante deberán pagar impuestos por esos activos”, explico el funcionário.

La lista de naciones que compartirán información tributaria de manera automática com Colombia incluye a los Estados Unidos, los países de la Zona Euro, el Reino Unido, China, India, Sudáfrica, Argentina, Brasil, Chile México e incluso países que hasta hace poco eran considerados paraísos fiscales como Andorra, Anguila, Bermuda, Islas Caimán, Islas Virgenes Britanicas Y Liechtenstein. “LA OCDE ya desarrolló el mecanismo tecnológico estandarizado a través del cual se intercambiará la información automaticamente. El trabajo ahora se centrará em homogeneizar el reparto de información a través de los distintos países y em implementar la herramienta como tal”, agregó el jefe de la cartera de Hacienda. Así mismo, el Ministro Cárdenas recordo que este acuerdo se suma a la extensa trayectoria de Colombia em la lucha contra la evasión fiscal internacional.

En especial, destacó que la DIAN podrá comenzar el intercambio no automático de información tributaria con una lista aún más extensa de países a partir del primero de enero de 2015 gracias a la Convención para la Asistencia Mutua de Administración Tribrutaria, ratificada por Colombia em marzo de este año.

IV SEMINÁRIO INTERNACIONAL

Presentaciones similares

Presentación del tema: "IV SEMINÁRIO INTERNACIONAL"— Transcripción de la presentación:

Presentaciones similares

Sobre el proyecto

Feedback

Iniciar la sesión

Autorizarse a través de una red social:

IV SEMINÁRIO INTERNACIONAL

Presentaciones similares

Presentación del tema: "IV SEMINÁRIO INTERNACIONAL"— Transcripción de la presentación:

Presentaciones similares

Sobre el proyecto

Feedback