8/8/05

La Inversión Internacional de las PYMEs

En la actualidad, la normativa fiscal de muchos países europeos ofrecen ventajas tanto para la empresa exportadora como para aquella que decide invertir en otro país. Sin embargo, a la hora de tomar alguna de esas decisiones habrá que tener en cuenta la fiscalidad extranjera, es decir, la correspondiente a los países donde se ha propuesto operar la sociedad española, porque, en muchos de esos casos, la tributación será menor de la que se produciría si la actividad se realizara, por ejemplo, en el mercado español.

En general, la inversión puede llevarse a cabo estableciendo una filial o una sucursal en el país extranjero, hecho que afectará al cálculo de la Base Imponible.

Inversión a través una filial (ésta posee personalidad jurídica). Así, en caso que la inversión deba financiarse con préstamos de la matriz o se requiera la utilización y cesión de activos intangibles (como por ejemplo, una patente, un proceso industrial o know-how), la utilización de una filial resultaría más adecuado, dado que los gastos generados (derivados de intereses o cánones) podrán ser fiscalmente deducibles en el otro país si no se sobrepasan determinados límites. Por el contrario, resulta habitual que exista una retención (por ejemplo, de un 10%) en el país extranjero por este tipo de operaciones.

Inversión a través de una sucursal (ésta no posee personalidad jurídica propia). La sucursal no tiene la posibilidad de deducir todo ese tipo de gastos. Pero, en caso de producirse beneficios en la operación exterior, es más probable que su distribución quede sometida a una menor retención en el caso de la sucursal que en el caso de la filial.

La existencia de convenios para evitar la doble imposición permitirá reducir o evitar esas retenciones. Si no existiera un convenio favorable con el otro país, se vería estimulado el uso de sociedades interpuestas (por ejemplo, una sociedad Húngara para el pago de los cánones), hecho que fuerza a los países a firmar convenios adecuados, además de estar bien visto en el seno de las Organizaciones Internacionales con el objeto de favorecer la inversión internacional.

Una de las bases que se enseñan en las clases de fiscalidad internacional descansa en el uso de convenios de doble imposición para que la canalización de los rendimientos que puedan proceder de las filiales operativas del grupo, reduciendo al máximo la retención en el país de origen de dichas rentas, mediante la interposición de entidades que disfruten de un convenio con ambos países.

Se debe tener en cuenta las posibilidades que ofrece la normativa fiscal del país de destino de la inversión en cuanto a deducciones y bonificaciones que dicho país permita (cada vez más discutidos por la Unión Europea). En caso de prestación de servicios, o que se deba financiar la inversión vía préstamo (tener en cuenta el índice de subcapitalización de aquellos países que lo exigen, como España y Francia), el coste puede llegar a reducir la base imponible de la filial (remuneración del servicio o el pago del interés), pero el sistema de retenciones pueden hacer esto poco interesante.

Todo esto no es un hecho que tan solo afecte a grandes corporaciones: se calcula que alrededor del 60% de las exportaciones españolas las llevan a cabo las empresas de carácter familiar. En algunos países este porcentaje es mayor. Por ejemplo, el 80% de las empresas españolas que tienen relaciones comerciales con Corea son PYMES.

Salvador Trinxet
Profesor de Fiscalidad Internacional, IESE

19/6/05

Asesorando financieramente a Michael Jackson






Business Week considera que Michael Jackson debe tomarse en serio la protección de bienes en este articulo que aparece en http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jun2005/nf20050615_1881_db035.htm:

Michael Jackson's Financial Thriller
What can the superstar do to repair his balance sheet? Ax some luxuries, focus on asset protection, and cash in on his talent, experts say.


What kind of financial advice can help a 46-year-old with questionable career prospects and huge debts on one gloved hand and significant assets on the other? It's time for Michael Jackson to think about it. With his legal problems behind him -- at least for now -- getting his monetary situation in order should sit high on his agenda.

The King of Pop's outflow reportedly exceeds his inflow by $20 million to $30 million a year. His estimated assets total an impressive $500 million, including such jewels as the Beatles music-publishing catalog. Yet the superstar has saddled himself with some $300 million to $400 million in debt, having heavily borrowed against his riches.

STILL A CASH COW? Clearly, Jackson needs serious fiscal counseling if he hopes to maintain a lifestyle suitable for a member of pop royalty, albeit a semi-deposed one. The hallmarks of his lavishness include the 2,600-acre Neverland Ranch with its menagerie of pets and amusement park, an entourage that boasts a magician (among other functionaries), a security detail, a private jet, and a team of tailors who custom-make his elaborate wardrobe.

The big question: How much money can Jackson earn? Twenty-two years have passed since his megahit Thriller, which sold more than 40 million copies and established Jackson as a superstar of the first order. Number Ones, his greatest-hits album, which came out in 2003, sold only some 1 million copies. While he still has a loyal fan base (witness the crowds outside the courthouse and at Neverland), his reputation remains tarnished. And who's to say Jackson is even interested in making music or going on tour?

Well, here's some free advice for Jacko, courtesy of top financial planners contacted by BusinessWeek Online:

TAKING CONTROL. "For the first time, Jackson's going to have to get real," says David Bach, founder of the Web site Finishrich.com and the author of Start Late, Finish Rich and Smart Women Finish Rich. That's a tall order for any celebrity, especially someone who likens himself to Peter Pan. Nevertheless, step No. 1 for Jackson is to tally up how much he spends.

"This is the same thing I would tell someone making $50,000 or $50 million," says Bach. "Everyone has to know where the money is going. The challenge is that Michael Jackson is an enterprise. Does he even know how many people are on his payroll?"

Next, Jackson has to cut his fixed overhead -- "immediately," insists Bach. "I read that his lifestyle costs up to $25 million a year. Now he's obviously not going to get on United Airlines (UAL ) and start flying coach, but he has to see what he's spending." He says that Jackson has a large "latte factor," a phrase Bach coined to describe spending for things people really don't need.

Finally, Bach recommends that Jackson heavily involve himself in his finances. "If I were Michael Jackson today, I'd want to be signing my own checks."

OVERSEAS POTENTIAL. The way David Yeske, a San Francisco-based certified financial planner and former president of the Financial Planners Assn., sees it, Jackson has a few choices. "If he wants to bridge that $20 million deficit he's running, he either has to reduce his expenses by $20 million, raise his income by $20 million, or come up with some combination of the two."

Perhaps a Vegas act, like what Elvis did? To make some quick money, Yeske suggests that Jackson instead schedule a world tour, which could generate bottom-line income in the $20 million range for him. Jackson still enjoys great popularity in Europe and Asia.

Yeske also urges Jackson to get a copy of Quicken (INTU ). "I tell all of my clients who want to reduce their budgets to get it," he says, "Knowledge is power. You see the money in and out, and it can help you modify what you are spending that is not central to your happiness or well-being."

GERMANE PRECAUTIONS. It's all about making choices and trade-offs, Yeske points out. In Jackson's case, that might mean grounding his jet or getting rid of the Neverland menagerie. "He has a more complex array of consumption, but he has no choice but to make a choice," says Yeske.

And finally, Yeske highly recommends deploying some asset-protection tactics. Jackson reportedly paid out an estimated $22 million in recent years to settle earlier out-of-court claims of child molestation, and who knows about his future vulnerability. Although the jury found him not guilty in his recent court battle, almost as quickly as the judge's gavel hit the desk, talk turned to a potential civil case against Jackson.

Yeske says Jackson could employ a number of strategies to make it more difficult for creditors to identify assets. They include moving to Florida, putting his money in some type of annuity, moving it overseas, or holding his income in a series of different entities. "Asset protection should be one of his top priorities," Yeske emphasizes.

TAP THE MUSE. Richard Upton, a tax attorney and estate planner at Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler in New York City, says the beleaguered Jackson should "take a deep breath" first. After that, "I'd tell him to write another hit song. He is a genius, or he was a genius," says Upton. "I'd tell him to go back to the source, his creative talent. He's got capacity few of us have to create in a way that's commercially viable."

While most experts urge Jackson to cut down on his overhead and spending, Upton has a different opinion. "I've heard all of the standard things," he says. "We could tell him to cut down on his spending, but I'm not sure he is capable of [that]. But he is capable of reaching in and creating some music." Should Jackson's tainted reputation render his recordings unmarketable, he could always write songs for others and retain the lucrative publishing rights.

The Jackson saga holds no shortage of lessons, including that a multimillionaire can't afford to live like a billionaire. Reforming may not be as easy as A-B-C. But a more down-to-earth career and lifestyle could still be in his future.


Perman is a reporter for BusinessWeek Online in New York
Edited by Patricia O'Connell


http://banksit.blogspot.com
http://internationaltax1.blogspot.com
http://assetprotection.wordpress.com
http://proteccionactivos.wordpress.com
http://proteccionbienes.blogspot.com

26/2/05

Efectos de la Directiva sobre fiscalidad del ahorro

La Directiva se aplica a los intereses pagados en la Unión Europea (y, mediante acuerdo, en otros países) a favor de personas físicas con residencia fiscal en un Estado miembro distinto al que perciben dichos intereses. Por ejemplo, si una persona española tiene una cuenta abierta en Francia.

Dependiendo del país, el ahorrador español se encontrará con que algunos países siguen manteniendo el secreto bancario, pero penalizado con retenciones crecientes, y otros proporcionarán información a la administración española. Y esto a partir del 1 de enero de 2005.

En el primer grupo de países se encuentran Austria, Bélgica, Luxemburgo, Suiza, Mónaco, Liechenstein, Andorra, San Marino, Isla de Man, Jersey y Guernsey.

En el segundo grupo se encuentran los países de la Unión Europea (excepto los primeros tres mencionados) y Estados Unidos, pero éste sólo en caso de solicitud.

Si el ahorrador español tiene una cuenta en uno de los países del primer grupo (por ejemplo, en Bélgica), la retención que sufrirá es la siguiente: del 2005 al 2007, del 15%; del 2008 al 2010 del 20%, y a partir del 2011 del 35%.

No obstante, el ahorrador español podrá optar por tributar sólo en su país de residencia por estos intereses percibidos en el extranjero. Para ello, deberá solicitar a la autoridad fiscal española un certificado que mostrará al banco extranjero.

Si se produce la retención a cuenta, el fisco español deberá tenerla en cuenta para que no se produzca doble imposición. Si hubiera una diferencia entre la retención realizada y el tipo de gravamen, el país en el que se produjo la retención deberá reembolsarla.

La retención recaudada será repartida entre el país recaudador (25%) y el país de origen del ahorrador (75%).

Una Directiva muy limitada

Esta directiva, lejos de conducir a una harmonización fiscal, consolida la autonomía fiscal de los Estados. Por otro lado, hasta el año 2008 la retención tiene poco impacto: muchos países aplican una retención similar pero no ofrecen secreto bancario. Por otro lado, para evitar la retención, basta con poner los fondos a nombre de una sociedad, o esperar a que los expertos en ingeniería financiera imaginen productos específicos, mientras algunos tradicionales, como los seguros de vida, escapan de la norma europea.

La impresión que causa la Directiva es que va dirigida a los pequeños ahorradores, no a grandes patrimonios bien administrados, o protegidos por diversas sociedades interpuestas. Imagino que de otro modo no hubiera conseguido la aquiescencia de Luxemburgo, Austria, Suiza, el Reino Unido y Estados Unidos.

El caso de Suiza

Como consecuencia de los acuerdos, Suiza renegociará los convenios de doble imposición que tiene vigentes con los Estados miembros. El Ministerio de Hacienda español quiere que el nuevo convenio con Suiza entre en vigor en enero de 2005 para que coincida con la aplicación de la Directiva. Suiza ya se comprometió a dar a España al menos la misma información fiscal que otorga al país que da más información (cláusula de nación más favorecida). Aunque siga existiendo el secreto bancario suizo, Suiza podría ofrecer información fiscal sobre cualquier expediente administrativo o penal que en España se considere delito fiscal. No es necesario, como hasta la fecha, que sea considerado por Suiza un delito. La información podría recaer sobre dividendos, cánones, intereses, sueldos o ingresos de consejeros.

Suiza obtiene la aplicación a las empresas suizas de la Directiva sobre intereses y cánones, con lo que se eliminan retenciones en estos pagos de filial a matriz situada en otro Estado. España ha conseguido (junto con Grecia y Portugal) que esta Directiva no se aplique en nuestro país hasta el 2010. Por ello, podría interesar a Suiza retrasar la aplicación del nuevo convenio hasta el 2010 y no en el 2005, como quiere España. De hecho, ya ha manifestado que el 2005 es muy pronto para la aplicación de la Directiva.

Salvador Trinxet
Profesor Fiscalidad Internacional, IESE

19/1/05

Donde confiar tu Trust






Es lo que se pregunta Anne Tergesen en este articulo publicado en http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_03/b3916099_mz070.htm. Como es estadounidense, se refiere a los distintos Estados de su país, pero lo mismo podría aplicarse en aquellos países que tienen reconocida esta figura jurídica:

Where To Entrust Your Trust?
States are coming up with new incentives, so it pays to look around

Picking the right location is the key to success in real estate. Now it's also a crucial decision in the sleepy world of trust funds. To lure a piece of the trust business, some states have recently enacted laws designed to make it attractive to establish trusts within their borders. As a result, it's possible to improve your trust's return, life span, and defenses against creditors simply by locating it in a particular state. "Shopping for a trust locale has become de rigueur in the industry," says Michael Smith, managing director at Deutsche Bank. (DB )

Which state you choose -- you don't have to use your home state -- will depend on your goals. For example, to maximize your trust's returns, you might pick a state with no income tax -- or at least none on trusts. Meanwhile, those intent on a lasting legacy can choose a state that allows trusts to live forever instead of for just a few generations. If legal liability is a concern, you might look at the few states that permit "domestic asset-protection trusts" -- or trusts designed to benefit you, while still protecting the assets from others. A word of caution: Since these trusts are irrevocable, you can't change your mind once you set one up.

While investment decisions will dictate your trust's financial success, you can lend a helping hand by selecting a tax-friendly jurisdiction. Trusts must pay federal taxes on their capital gains and any income they don't pass along to beneficiaries. They're also subject to federal estate, gift, and generation-skipping taxes. But you can select a host state that either has no state income tax or exempts trusts from paying it.

Be forewarned that this area of the law can be complex. Delaware, for example, exempts trusts with in-state trustees from paying its income tax -- but only if the beneficiaries live in other states. And no matter where your trust is, it may be liable for Illinois' income tax if the person who establishes it lives there, says Ed Orazem, managing director at Citigroup Trust. (C ) In contrast, New York and New Jersey generally impose no income tax on residents' trusts as long as the trustee is based in another state and the trust holds no state-based property or investments that generate income. To figure out your trust's tax exposure, check the laws of each state in which a trustee, grantor, and beneficiary live, says Catherine Keating, managing director at JPMorgan (JPM ) Private Bank.

90-YEAR SPAN
Where your trust is located can also make a big difference in its longevity. Most states require trusts to dissolve after about 90 years, a feature inherited from English common law. But 22 states plus the District of Columbia have changed their laws to permit irrevocable trusts with in-state trustees to endure for generations. That's a big deal, since a trust worth $1 million today that grows 8% a year and makes a 3% annual payout to heirs will have $131 million in 100 years, according to Richard Nenno, managing director at Wilmington Trust (WL ).

Another reason to shop for a trust locale is to better protect your money from legal action, including shielding your assets from creditors should you file for bankruptcy. Money put into an irrevocable trust for someone else -- say, your children -- is generally off-limits to creditors. But seven states, including Alaska, Delaware, and Nevada, have recently enacted laws that let you name yourself the beneficiary of a protected trust. Until recently, you could get this type of trust only by moving your money offshore to places including the Cook Islands in the South Pacific.

Still, because these new trusts have yet to be tested in court, they're not bulletproof. You also have to be willing to give your trustee control over distributions. And the trust can be ruled invalid if established after a legal claim arises. "I wouldn't use them to replace other asset protection techniques, such as liability insurance," says James Kronenberg, principal at Bessemer Trust.

If you already have a trust, can you move it to another state to take advantage of these new laws? Success is more likely if your trust document lets you change trustees and doesn't require a specific state to govern it. But while switching to an out-of-state trustee might help your trust reap income-tax benefits, it's unlikely to result in a longer life span. Why? Many trusts set an expiration date in the time frame allowed by their home state. A donor can go to court to request a change. But that can be expensive and time-consuming -- and there's no assurance of success. That's why it's key to choose the right state for your trust from the start.




http://banksit.blogspot.com
http://internationaltax1.blogspot.com
http://assetprotection.wordpress.com
http://proteccionactivos.wordpress.com
http://proteccionbienes.blogspot.com