Litigation Risk

Litigation Risk

Despite prudent decisions and the best possible advice, corporate directors face an increase in international legal actions that can impact their personal assets. think:act examines what top managers should look for in corporate D&O (directors and officers) programs.

The Enron scandal of the last decade transformed corporate governance. It also had a lasting effect on the D&O insurance market, given CEO Jeffrey Skilling's legal bills estimated at $23 million: The case piqued interest in the coverage that protects company officers from personal financial liability if they are sued. And, as insurers assessed the riskier business climate, premiums began to rise. Like malpractice insurance for high-level managers, the "directors and officers" insurance forms a worldwide market today, worth $8.8 billion in 2008, and covers top managers in the event of a breach of duty and a resulting lawsuit. Usually reserved for companies with a fair share of assets and management board structures, the pricey insurance policies, with premiums that can reach up to several hundred thousand euros a year for millions in coverage, essentially let individuals hedge the personal financial risks they face by playing in the top league. At the same time, the policies are a tool for making corporate entities responsible for the actions of their employees and protecting corporate assets.

 

D&O  Policy Holders are more likely than ever to be sued.

In the aftermath of the subprime financial crisis, companies as well as their directors are advised to be even more cautious about potential financial liability for their management decisions, says attorney Kevin M. LaCroix, the author of the D&O Diary and a director of OakBridge Insurance Services. That's because D&O policyholders are now more likely to be sued, and more likely to be sued for larger amounts, than in the presubprime era. Whereas class-action lawsuits were once common only in the US, such lawsuits— with their massive potential for financial damage—are gaining popularity outside North America as part of governance reform aimed at securing recourse for shareholders. According to Advisen, an insurance research firm, cases settled since 2005 in Europe were for average settlements of €117 million. Although some anti-corporate activists argue that the coverage creates an incentive for misbehavior, scholars find no evidence that the coverage motivates mismanagement, just as carrying auto liability insurance hardly gives drivers a reason to cause an accident. Suits against managers can come with a host of punitive effects, including reputational  loss, jail time and possible fines in the event of a scandal. Enron's Skilling is serving a 24-year term in prison and was fined $45 million. Fines are typically excluded from a policy's benefits. D&O coverage tends to be best advised on by lawyers and specialized insurance brokers. The specialists recommend that policies go far beyond the basic requirements of being large enough to cover the cost of settlements. They stress that policies must be tailored for each individual buyer, depending on the area of business and the risks present. In the US, a large number of D&O claims are made for a manager's conduct related to human resources, such as hiring and firing decisions. But an increasing number of claims are being filed against directors and officers for securities-related misconduct. What's more, American law is known to have a long arm from which managers around the world might need to defend themselves. Witness the Enron-related case of the NatWest Three. The British bankers involved were extradited to and tried in the United States, where they also served prison terms for wire fraud committed in the UK.

Megan Colwell, an expert in management liability insurance at Woodruff Sawyer & Co., a California insurance brokerage and specialist of international legal actions, offers her clients a choice of roughly 10 to 15 insurers. Her firm is paid by commission from insurance companies or consulting fees from the client. Colwell recommends that companies with international operations acquire specialized advice to align their corporate D&O program to the risks in different countries.

More about international tax on international tax and international legal actions

Transfer priciing in China

Transfer priciing in China

 

Braxton is an international tax specialist in transfer pricing.  This also covers China. Years ago, when we actively represented corporate clients in Chinese tax matters, there was not a transfer pricing "problem" for smaller wholly foreign enterprises, as the number of SAT specialists was so small that they could only delve into matters of corporate entities far larger than those I represented. But now it is quite different. On July 12 Circular 323 was issued by the SAT. The SAT is beginning a nationwide inspection of transfer pricing documentation. Local authorities have been instructed to select for audit for years 2008 and 2009 a minimum of 10 percent of taxpayers who have related-party transactions. While we don't know if this instruction filtered down to all levels of SAT offices, we do know that it has reached the Guangzhou SAT. It is time for some of those smaller businesses - the type that we used to work with - to be concerned about having their transfer pricing documentation in order. From what we hear, it will be more than the minimum of 10 percent who will be audited.

 

More about international tax, asset protection and wealth on asset protection

 

Moving from the UK to a prescribed territory

Moving from the UK to a prescribed territory

According to the Savings Directive, "If a UK individual changes address to a prescribed territory you will need to report on the basis of the new address. This may mean you need to obtain additional information and/or update your system.

For example, a UK paying agent pays savings income to an individual who lives in the UK. This is not reportable under the scheme. He has a contractual relationship made on or after 1 January 2004 with the individual.

If the payee moves to Spain, they will become reportable and the paying agent will need to update his records to fulfill his obligations under the scheme. Since he has a relationship which began on or after 1 January 2004 with the individual, he will also need to verify the name and address in addition to obtaining and verifying the TIN or the date and place of birth.

Where both the identity and UK address were verified to KYC standards, and the contractual relationship began after 1 January 2004, subsequent changes can be 'self certified' in accordance with paragraph 183.

 

More information about international Lawyers on International Lawyers

The Grandfathered bonds.

The Grandfathered bonds.

According to the Savings Directive, "Certain negotiable debt securities are not treated as money debts if they meet certain conditions for the duration of a transitional period which ends on 31 December 2010. These securities ("grandfathered bonds") do not then count as money debts for all purposes of the regulations up to 31 December 2010: interest, premiums and discounts derived from these bonds are not savings income; and investment in these bonds does not count when deciding whether the thresholds which determine whether income from certain collective investment funds is savings income have been passed.

A security will be a grandfathered bond if:

• it was first issued before 1 March 2001 or the prospectus was first approved by the appropriate regulatory authority before that date, and

• no further issue was made on or after 1 March 2002.

If the bond is a government bond (or issued by a related public authority or an international organisation – see the Schedule to the regulations) and a further issue is made on or after 1 March 2002, the whole of the issue (whether made before, on or after 1 March 2002) is not a grandfathered bond. The whole issue of the bond is a money debt. If the bond is issued by another type of issuer (e.g. a commercial company) and a further issue is made on or after 1 March 2002, only the part of the issue made on or after 1 March 2002 is not a grandfathered bond. This part of the bond issue is treated as a money debt; the rest of the issue (made before 1 March 2002) is not a money debt."

More about International Lawyers on Abogados Internacionales

The Basel III Reform

In Europe, Basel III will require the credit institutions to have higher core capital in order to absorb the same volume of assets that they have right now, consequently, the return on capital will be lower, with the logical des-incentive for the entry of new investors. On the other hand, in the US, the Volker Rule, is just a new restatement of the old Glass Steagall Act, which protected the financial system by imposing restrictions on the activities carried out by the credit institutions, basically separating the investment banking from the commercial banking activity.

The argument to support this reform is that investment banking exposes the credit institutions to a completely different set of risks compared with commercial banking, with the aggravating factor that these entities are supported by the FDIC or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, so at the end of the day, the excessive risk assumed by the entities through those activities not related to commercial banking may end up being paid with taxpayers' money.

More about International tax

Clean or dirty Cash Shells in the Plus Market Exchange

Cash shells can be "clean‟ purpose built with a fresh pool of capital with the aim of finding a project seeking capital to acquire.

Investors in the shell are backing the board to spend their cash wisely and target profitable companies or companies that can achieve capital growth, even though they have not yet secured a deal.

Alternatively, they can be "dirty‟ companies with a stock market quote and some funds whose previous business failed and have undergone a restructuring and a formal arrangement to eliminate all the company‟ old liabilities.

More about the Plus Market Exchange on:

http://international-tax-lawyer.blogspot.com/

http://foreign-tax.blogspot.com/

La recuperación del IVA de las facturas incobrables

En España, el procedimiento de recuperación de las cuotas del IVA correspondiente a facturas impagadas por los clientes requiere por parte de la empresa de una serie de requisitos formales, materiales, temporales y subjetivos establecidos por la normativa del impuesto. Un adecuada gestión del procedimiento de recuperación del IVA de las facturas impagadas por los clientes puede favorecer el cobro del propio crédito y la recuperación del IVA ingresado en las facturas incobrables.

Más información sobre recuperación del IVA en http://fiscalidadinternacional1.blogspot.com/

El Sandwitch Holandés

Introducir el paso por los Paises Bajos entre dos sociedades es lo que se llama el Sandwich Holandés.

Irónicamente, el "Sandwich no deja migajas que degustar" como dijo un empleado de Tax Research LLP.

La compañía Microsoft, que está basada en Redmond, WA, también ha utilizado una estructura de Doble Irlandés según los mismos registrs de esta en el extrangero. A Forest Laboratories Inc, fabricante del antidepresivo Lexapro, las cosas también le van bien según la agencia de noticias Bloomberg News. Esta empresa farmacéutica de Nueva York, declara la mayoría de sus beneficios en el extrangero, aunque la mayor parte de sus ventas sean dentro de los Estados Unidos. Sus precios de transferencia están siendo auditados por el IRS.

Desde los años 60, Irlanda a perseguido una estrategia de incentivos fiscales para atraer multinacionales. Otro aspecto menos comentado es que permite a las sociedades transmitir los beneficios fuera del país sin demasiadas consecuencias fiscales.

"Sacando los provechos fuera"

Para que no se acumulen todos los beneficios en Irlanda, hay que sacarlos fuera de esa jurisdicción de alguna manera fácil, y eso, se hace a través de Bermuda.

Irlanda siempre ha buscado asegurar que los beneficios cobrados en Irlanda reflejen en su totalidad la funciones, bienes y riesgos localizados ahí por grupos multinacionales.

Una vez que los beneficios no americanos de google llegan a Bermuda, es dificil seguirles la pista. Su subsidiaria en ese país, cambió su forma legal de organización en 2006 convirtiendose en una LLC. Bajo las reglas irlandesas eso implica el no requisito de transferir información fiscal al país de orígen.

 

Diferida indefinidamente

Técnicamente las multinacionales que transfieren los beneficios al extrangero, evitan los impuestos permanentemente. O hasta que deciden devolver al país de orígen los beneficios. A la práctica, pocas veces se repatrían porciones significantes evitando así indefinidamente los impuestos. Según Michelle Hanlon, una profesora de contabilidad del Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

En 2009 el departamento de tesorería americano, propuso reducir las tasas en los pagos entre sociedades americanas y sus subsidiarias.

Los oficiales de tesorería estimaron que el cambio reportaría unos beneficios de $86.5 billones en nuevos ingresos para los próximos diez años, pero ciertas compañías en el Congreso se mostraron contrarias a la medida como General Electric co, los fabricantes de cosméticos Johnson & Johnson y Starbucks Corp, según unos informes hechos por la Ong Center for Responsive Politics.

Google y Transfer pricing

Precios de Transferencia.

En febrero pasado, la administración de Obama, propuso medidas para cambiar la dinámica de la transferencia de beneficios offshore. En su propuesta se incluía destinar $12 billones a tal efecto en los siguientes 10 años. Mientras estas propuestas no avanzan en el Congreso de Estados Unidos, el IRS dijo en abril que dedicaria más agentes y abogados en cinco de lass más grandes soluciones de

Longitud de Brazo

La transferencia de beneficios normalmente empieza cuando compañías como Google venden o licencian derechos extrangeros sobre propiedad intelectual para desarrollar en los Estados Unidos a un subsidiario sito en un país con una fiscalidad más beneficiosa. Esto significa que los beneficios en el extrangero basados en tecnología se atribuyen a una unidad offshore, no a la empresa madre. Bajo la jurisdiccion americana, los subsidiarios deben pagar precios de longitud de brazo por esos derechos, la cantidad que una empresa totalmente ajena, pagaría.

Como esos pagos contribuyen a los beneficios taxables, la compañía madre tiene un incentivo a establecerlos cuanto más bajo mejor. Recortando los gastos de la subsidiaria, efectivamente se trasladan los beneficios al extrangero.

Despues de tres años de negociación, Google recibió la aprovación del IRS en 2006 para el pacto de precios de transferencia, acorde con las cuentas en el Securities and Exchange Commission.

El IRS dio su consentimiento en un pacto secreto conocido como un pacto de precios avanzado. Google no discutiría el precio bajo ese pacto, lo que daba licencia a los derechos de su tecnología de búsqueda y publicidad y otras propiedades intangibles para Europa, Medio Oriente y Africa. A eso se le llama Google Ireland Holdings, según un experto ene l tema.

Oficina de Dublín.

El licenciado a su vez es propietario de Google Irlanda Limited, que emplea al menos a 2,000 personas en un edificio de cristal en el centro de Dublin, a una manzana de distancia del Grand Canal de la ciudad. El subsidiario de Dublin vende propaganda globalmente y según google obtiene el 88% de sus $12.5 billones de ventas no americanas anualmente.

Hacer que los beneficios sean en Irlanda ayuda a Google a evitar el impuesto de retna en Estados Unidos, donde la mayor parte de su tecnología fue desarrollada. El pacto también reduce la responsabilidad de la compañía en otras jurisdicciones europeas con jurisdicciónes fiscales poco favorables.

Los beneficios pero, no se quedan en la filial de Dublín, que reportó beneficios antes de las tasas de menos del 1% en ventas en 2009 según los registros Irlandeses. Esto en mayor parte ocurro porque pagó $ 5.4 billones en royalties a Google Ireland Holdings que tiene el centro de gestión efectiva en Bermuda, según los registros de la compañía.

Directores de firmas legales.

Esta entidad dirigida en bermuda es propiedad a partes iguales de los subsidiarios de Google que se nombran como directores a dos abogados y un manager de Conyers Dill & Pearman, una firma legal de Hamilton, Bermuda.

Los asesores fiscales le llaman a esto una solución de Doble Irlandés porque se basa en dos compañías irlandesas. Una que paga royalties para el uso de la propiedad intelectual, generando gastos que reducen los beneficios taxables irlandeses. Y la otra recolecta los royalties en un paraiso fiscal como Bermuda, evitando los impuestos Irlandeses.

Para mantenerse fuera de la retención fiscal, los pagos desde Google Dublin no van directamente a bermuda. Hacen primero una parada en los Paises Bajos evitando así responsabilidad porque las leyes fiscales irlandesas eximen ciertos royalties de compañías que sean de miembros de la Unión Europea. Así, los pagos primero van a la sociedad holandesa, Google Netherlands Holdings B.V. Que paga un 99.8% de lo que recolecta la entidad en Bermuda. Como curiosidad la sociedad basada en Amsterdam no tiene ni un solo empleado.

Más información en fiscalidadinternacional1.blogspot.com