|Home| Info| Community| Business| Beaches| What to do?| Rentals| News| Forum| Blogs| Finance| History| FAQ| Contact|
the revenge of the offshore
the revenge of the offshore
reading the thread about differing values in the general section,..are those who had offshore companies and moved them in personal names now safe from retrospective revaluations by the tax man?
is it safe it get back in the water?
is it safe it get back in the water?
Tax man
Martin
If the move was made AFTER 1st December 2003 then the answer is no! We are already seeing demands for additional IMT and capital gains in those cases. Some demands are of course VERY large where the sale took place at a low value. I have seen a demand for over €40,000 in capital gains tax.
Everone should have been aware that a sale would lead either to a tax charge at that time or one later. The only real way to avoid this was to move the offending comany to a "safe" jurisdiction.
If the move was made AFTER 1st December 2003 then the answer is no! We are already seeing demands for additional IMT and capital gains in those cases. Some demands are of course VERY large where the sale took place at a low value. I have seen a demand for over €40,000 in capital gains tax.
Everone should have been aware that a sale would lead either to a tax charge at that time or one later. The only real way to avoid this was to move the offending comany to a "safe" jurisdiction.
-
Guest
Which is why I have been telling anyone that asks me, that as well as listening to real estate blurb and legal eagles to also consult with reputable, financial advisers like Biffa and others, before purchasing and selling property. Cover all the bases and then you might be more secure about what you are doing.
By the way, someone asked me today what is the average cost of an accountant or "other" being a fiscal rep for a non resident property owner? I was quoted €250 by someone. Any views, opinions?
By the way, someone asked me today what is the average cost of an accountant or "other" being a fiscal rep for a non resident property owner? I was quoted €250 by someone. Any views, opinions?
-
nightrider
In total agreement Bruxy.Bruxinha wrote:Which is why I have been telling anyone that asks me, that as well as listening to real estate blurb and legal eagles to also consult with reputable, financial advisers like Biffa and others, before purchasing and selling property. Cover all the bases and then you might be more secure about what you are doing.
By the way, someone asked me today what is the average cost of an accountant or "other" being a fiscal rep for a non resident property owner? I was quoted €250 by someone. Any views, opinions?
Nightrider
fiscal rep etc
Can't advertise or Steen will whip me but we do provide fiscal rep for non residents at a little under Brixys quote.
The significance of 1st December 2003 is that part of the new property tax legislation came into force on that day. A very sneaky move by the government meant that the increased IMI for 2003 at 5% became restrospective for that year catching all offshore owners out.
Thus any sale after 01.12.2003 was subject to the new system and thus subject to IMT on the eventual new valuation under that system.
Does this make sense?!!
Look at it like this. If you sold up to 30.11.2003 you were under the old sisa system. After 01.12.2003 you came under the new IMI system. So if you sold there would have to be a new IMI1 form submitted to tax department which they would use to revalue your place under the NEW regime. So if you sold for €150k and their new value came back as €250k then they would ask you to pay the extra IMT on the difference.
However, as the main part of the legislation only took effect as from 01.01.2004 those sales in December 2003, whilst liable to payment of increased IMT should NOT be liable for a tax on any capital gain made. Sales after 01.01.2004 could be charged to both IMT and capital gains if the new value was greater than the declared sale price.
The significance of 1st December 2003 is that part of the new property tax legislation came into force on that day. A very sneaky move by the government meant that the increased IMI for 2003 at 5% became restrospective for that year catching all offshore owners out.
Thus any sale after 01.12.2003 was subject to the new system and thus subject to IMT on the eventual new valuation under that system.
Does this make sense?!!
Look at it like this. If you sold up to 30.11.2003 you were under the old sisa system. After 01.12.2003 you came under the new IMI system. So if you sold there would have to be a new IMI1 form submitted to tax department which they would use to revalue your place under the NEW regime. So if you sold for €150k and their new value came back as €250k then they would ask you to pay the extra IMT on the difference.
However, as the main part of the legislation only took effect as from 01.01.2004 those sales in December 2003, whilst liable to payment of increased IMT should NOT be liable for a tax on any capital gain made. Sales after 01.01.2004 could be charged to both IMT and capital gains if the new value was greater than the declared sale price.
Opps
Brixy? Bruxy - sowwy!
-
Guest
Tax
The demand will be sent to the company at the address the Finanças hold on their database - usually the fiscal representative.
If payment is not forthcoming the tax department will look to those parties involved - the attorney that signed the sale, the fiscal representative, even any one who has acted on behalf of the company as agent paying bills etc
Those entities will be expecetd to provide information on who was the ultimate beneficiary of the company so that the tax man can get their "pound of flesh."
Meanwhile they will probably put a charge on the property even though it is no longer in the nameof the company!
If payment is not forthcoming the tax department will look to those parties involved - the attorney that signed the sale, the fiscal representative, even any one who has acted on behalf of the company as agent paying bills etc
Those entities will be expecetd to provide information on who was the ultimate beneficiary of the company so that the tax man can get their "pound of flesh."
Meanwhile they will probably put a charge on the property even though it is no longer in the nameof the company!
or whatever...no problems, Biffa. 
-
Guest
well this is very interesting..I suppose the offshore company who had nominee directors could be liable...but I wonder where it all stands legally if the lawyer or agent refuses to say who owned the property really..which was the whole purpose of offshore to avoid (not evade) taxes by having it "hidden".
when is the time that all this backtracking on taxes will stop?.
when is the time that all this backtracking on taxes will stop?.
-
Guest