Transparência do Beneficiário Efetivo: Conquistas e Desafios na Prevenção da Corrupção e dos Abusos Fiscais (Transparency on Beneficial Ownership: Achievements and Challenges in the Prevention of Corruption and Tax Abuse)

PurposeThis paper uses the recent (August 2015) FIFA arrests to provide an example of how illicit financial flows are occurring through the formal banking and financial services sector. The purpose of this paper is to explore which elements of anti-money laundering (AML) compliance need to be addressed to strengthen the banking response and reduce the impact of IFFs within the banking sector.Design/methodology/approachThe paper is based on the indictment document currently prepared for the FIFA arrests and the District Court case of Chuck Blazer the FIFA Whistleblower. It uses the banking examples identified in the indictment as typologies of money laundering and wire fraud. Corresponding industry reports on AML compliance are included to determine where the major weaknesses and gaps are across the financial service.FindingsThe main findings from the analysis are that banks still have weak areas within AML compliance. Even recognised red flag areas such as off shore havens, large wire transfers and front companies are still being used. The largest gaps still appear to be due diligence and beneficial ownership information.Research limitations/implicationsThe research topic is very new and emerging topic; therefore, analysis papers and other academic writing on this topic are limited.Practical implicationsThe research paper has identified a number of implications for the banking sector, addressing AML deficiencies, especially the need to consider the source of funds and the need for further enhanced due diligence systems for politically exposed and influential people and the importance of beneficial ownership information.Social implicationsThis paper has implications for the international development and the global banking sector. It will also influence approaches to AML regulation, risk assessment and audit within the broader financial services sector.Originality/valueThe originality of this paper is the link between the emerging issues associated with allegations of bribery and corruption within FIFA and the illicit financial flow implications across the banking sector.

Download Full-text

Pyott case: A lasting deposit for our tax heritage

Southern African Business Review ◽

10.25159/1998-8125/5790 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 19 ◽

pp. 47-70

Author(s):

A C Engelbrecht ◽

G K Goldswain ◽

A Heyns

Keyword(s):

South Africa ◽

Income Tax ◽

Rental Housing ◽

Value Added ◽

Point Of View ◽

Relevant Today ◽

Consumer Protection Act ◽

Contingent Liability ◽

Beneficial Ownership ◽

Gross Income

Pyott Ltd v CIR is generally regarded as the seminal case in South Africa on the tax treatment of deposits received on containers that may be returned at a later stage for a refund. This article analyses the tax treatment of deposits, prepayments and advances from a gross income point of view, as well as the possibility of claiming a deduction for the contingent liability to refund such deposit. 6The main objective of this article is to discuss the judgment in the Pyott case and establish whether the principle enunciated that deposits,received in respect of returnable containers, are taxable in full once received, can also be extended to receipts of deposits, prepayments and advances where no returnable container is involved. 7The conclusions reached are that the principles laid down in the Pyott case are still relevant today, apart from possible relief which may now be claimed under the subsequently introduced section 24C. Where no container is involved, beneficial ownership must first be established before such deposit, prepayment or advance becomes taxable, taking into account the specific provisions of legislation such as the Rental Housing Act and the Consumer Protection Act. The research has also shown coherence in the treatment of deposits for income tax purposes and other taxes, such as value-added tax.

Download Full-text

Beneficial ownership of income as an antiabusive measure in Serbian Tax Law

Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta Nis ◽

10.5937/zrpfn0-27818 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 59 (88) ◽

pp. 217-232

Author(s):

Miloš Vasović

Keyword(s):

Income Tax ◽

Corporate Income Tax ◽

Tax Law ◽

Tax Rates ◽

Double Taxation ◽

Current Function ◽

Tax Rate ◽

Treaty Shopping ◽

Beneficial Ownership ◽

The One

The Serbian Corporate Income Tax Act contains a provision on the beneficial ownership of income (hereinafter: the BO provision), which is one of the conditions for the application of the preferential tax rate on income tax after tax deduction, which is envisaged in Treaties for the avoidance of Double Taxation on income and capital (hereinafter: Double Taxation Treaties/ DTTs). The subject matter of research in this paper is the term "beneficial ownership", which is not defined in the Corportate Income Tax Act. It may ultimately lead to abusing the preferential tax rates from the DTTs in tax planning and "treaty shopping" through the use of conduit companies. Tax experts have different opinions on the legal nature of the BO provision, which is given the function of an anti-abusive measure (on the one hand) and a rule for the attribution of income (on the other hand). The author analyzes the current function of the BO provision envisaged in the Serbian Serbian Corporate Income Tax Act (CITA), and its inadequate application. The author advocates for enacting the BO provision as an anti-abusive measure, and examines the possible application of the BO provision in domestic tax law, with reference to Articles 10, 11, and 12 of the DTTs that Serbia contracted with other states, as well as Articles 10-12 of the OECD Model-Convention on Income and Capital (2017) and Commentaries on these articles. Such an application of the BO provision may preclude "treaty shopping". In final remarks, the author points out why the BO provision should be envisaged as an anti-abusive measure in Serbian tax law.

Download Full-text