World Tax Advisor 1 October 2010

Transcription

1 International Tax World Tax Advisor 1 October 2010 In this issue: Investment into India through Mauritius the challenge ahead... 1 Brazil: Customs regime for oil and gas companies changed... 3 India: AAR affirms no withholding tax on payment for support services to head office... 3 Indonesia: Tax authorities can recharacterize income of expatriates... 5 United States: Final schedule on uncertain tax positions and accompanying guidance released... 5 Vietnam: Tax authorities clarify personal income tax issues... 7 In brief... 8 Are You Getting Your Global Tax Alerts?... 8 Investment into India through Mauritius the challenge ahead Mauritius is the most favored go to country for investment into India due to its low tax regime and the beneficial provisions in the India-Mauritius tax treaty. Under the treaty, capital gains derived by an entity from the sale of securities are taxable only in the state of residence of the selling entity. Therefore, a Mauritius company deriving capital gains from the sale of shares in an Indian company will not be taxable in India. The gains can only be taxed in Mauritius, which does not tax capital gains. As a result, the transfer of shares of an Indian company by a Mauritius holding company is a tax-free transaction both in India and Mauritius. Investors have also relied on this provision to avoid the Indian dividend distribution tax of 16.6% by undertaking a repurchase of shares rather than declaring dividends. In addition to the absence of capital gains taxation, other attractive features of the India-Mauritius treaty are the absence of a limitation on benefits (LOB) provision, the availability of an underlying tax credit and a tax sparing clause. These benefits are the primary reason that almost 50% of the total investment into India is routed through Mauritius. Background and current situation The Mauritius route has been the subject of considerable debate, controversy and various pronouncements. The Indian government, concerned that it is losing revenue, has made several efforts to re-negotiate the treaty with Mauritius, but to no avail. (The government has, however, set up an overseas tax unit in Mauritius, presumably to improve the exchange of information between the two countries.) The Indian tax authorities have challenged exemption claims by Mauritius-based companies and tried to deny treaty benefits on the basis that the Mauritius company is not a beneficial owner of the shares, but rather a mere conduit. However, both the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and the Indian Supreme Court have concluded that benefits under the India-Mauritius tax treaty are available to a Mauritius company if the company has a certificate of residence issued by the Mauritius government. A circular issued by the CBDT in 2000 (Circular 789) specifically states that such a certificate of residence is sufficient for the Mauritius company to prove residence and beneficial ownership. Circular 789 also reiterated that companies incorporated in Mauritius are liable to tax under the laws of Mauritius and, therefore, are deemed to be World Tax Advisor 1 of 9 Copyright 2010, Deloitte Global Services Limited.

2 residents of Mauritius for purposes of the treaty. Accordingly, they would not be taxable in India on income from capital gains arising in India on the sale of shares, as per the India-Mauritius tax treaty. The Indian Supreme Court upheld the validity of Circular 789 in the 2003 case of Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan and confirmed that residents of Mauritius are not liable to tax in respect of capital gains derived in India. The Supreme Court further held that the term liability to tax in a tax treaty does not equate to an actual payment of tax; simply because an exemption is granted on a particular source of income does not mean that an entity is not liable to tax at all. The Supreme Court also said that, in the absence of an LOB provision in the treaty, an attempt by a resident of a third country to take advantage of the provisions of the treaty is not illegal. The Authority for Advance Rulings reaffirmed the Supreme Court decision that a taxpayer can claim treaty benefits on the basis of a tax residence certificate in its E*Trade Mauritius Ltd. (issued 22 March 2010) and Praxair Pacific Limited (issued 23 July 2010) rulings. It should be noted that the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tax Tribunal (ITAT) ruled on 26 March 2010 that additional documents may be required to substantiate a claim for an exemption under the India-Mauritius treaty (SMR Investments Ltd.). The ITAT held that furnishing a certificate of tax residence is not sufficient; it is necessary to have certified documentary evidence to support a claim that the place of effective management of an entity is in Mauritius. Way forward Despite the above pronouncements, a provision in the proposed Direct Taxes Code Bill could affect the India-Mauritius tax treaty. The code, which is likely to be effective as from 1 April 2012, will introduce a general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) in India. Under the GAAR, the tax authorities will be empowered to declare an arrangement to be an impermissible avoidance arrangement if the main purpose of the arrangement (whether domestic or cross-border) is to obtain a tax benefit. The consequences of such a characterization could be that the authorities will be able to disregard all or part of an arrangement and any intermediary holding company and reallocate income among the parties or recharacterize receipts or expenses. The taxpayer will be required to demonstrate that obtaining a tax benefit was not the main purpose of the arrangement. Significantly, the Direct Taxes Code specifically states that the GAAR provisions will prevail over any tax treaty. As well, it should be noted that the later in time doctrine that appeared in the original draft of the Direct Taxes Code has been omitted from the revised version presented to Parliament on 30 August Under that doctrine a significant departure from existing rules neither a tax treaty nor the code receives preferential status by reason of it being a treaty or law and, in the case of a conflict between treaty provisions and the code, the one that is effective later in time prevails. This provision would have meant that the new Direct Taxes Code would override all of India s existing treaties. It is now proposed that the treaty override provisions will apply only on a limited basis (i.e. the GAAR or the controlled foreign company rules are invoked or when the branch profits tax is levied) and that the existing provisions under the Income Taxes Act 1961 otherwise be retained so that a taxpayer may apply the domestic law or the relevant tax treaty, whichever is more beneficial. The Indian government has announced that it will issue guidelines setting out the circumstances in which the GAAR provisions could be invoked so as to prevent the overly broad use of the provisions by the tax authorities. Nevertheless, it is widely believed that the Indian tax authorities will be permitted to invoke the GAAR to deny benefits under the Mauritius tax treaty. There is no specific exemption that would prevent the GAAR from being invoked against existing structures and, therefore, the tax authorities arguably could apply the GAAR to any transactions entered into after 1 April 2012 in relation to existing structures although only transactions entered after 1 April 2012 would be affected. For example, if an investment was made through Mauritius in 1990 and the Mauritius entity sold Indian shares in June 2012 and tried to claim treaty benefits, the GAAR provisions could be triggered. In view of this possibility, affected companies should re-examine their investment holding structures and consider any potential tax exposure as a result of the proposed GAAR, as well as options to mitigate the exposure. Such options include ensuring substance in Mauritius, transferring Indian investments to other jurisdictions (such as Singapore or the Netherlands) and setting up a new Mauritius entity to protect accrued gains. The option to sell the Mauritius holding company itself would now have its own risks in view of the recent Bombay High Court decision in the Vodafone case and proposals in the Direct Tax Code, which have been introduced to overcome the Vodafone ruling. Given that the Direct Taxes Code is expected to become effective as from 1 April 2012, if enacted in the present form, alternative investment restructuring would need to be examined immediately for implementation before World Tax Advisor 2 of 9 Copyright 2010, Deloitte Global Services Limited.

3 Rajesh Gandhi (New York) Client Service Executive Smita Parulkar (New York) Senior Manager Brazil: Customs regime for oil and gas companies changed The Brazilian government issued a decree on 13 September 2010 (Decree No. 7,296) that amends the special REPETRO customs regime that applies to goods used in the exploration and production of oil and natural gas fields in Brazil. The REPETRO regime aims primarily to reduce the tax burden on companies involved in such activities and operates by granting a suspension of federal taxes incurred on the import of specific goods/assets ( temporary admission regime ). Taxes affected include the federal excise tax (IPI), the program for social integration contribution (PIS), the contribution for the financing of social security (COFINS) and the freight tax (AFRMM). In accordance with Decree No. 7,296, the Brazilian tax authorities also issued new guidance (Normative Instruction RFB No. 1,070/2010) on the REPETRO rules that supersedes previous guidance in Normative Instruction No. 844/2008. The main changes to the REPETRO regime are as follows: The list of entities eligible for benefits under the REPETRO regime now includes Brazilian navigation companies (EBN) that provide time charter services. A REPETRO license for the provision of services related to the operation of supply vessels will be issued only to a legal entity that qualifies as an EBN according to the Brazilian Navigation Transport Agency. Contracted or subcontracted companies can use the REPETRO regime to import goods related to a time charter contract signed between the foreign supplier and the exploration and production concessionaire in Brazil (the entity that holds a license to carry out oil and gas exploration and production activities), but the company that will be the importer of record must be clearly mentioned in the time charter or service contract. If the contracted or subcontracted company is not based in Brazil, a Brazilian company can be designated to import the goods under the REPETRO regime. The designated company must be included in the time charter or service contract. REPETRO licenses granted in the past remain valid until the end of the relevant contract. The changes to the REPETRO rules clarify procedures that have been subject to controversy, they confirm the position of the Customs authorities and reflect a more restrictive approach to the special custom regime, a trend that is likely to continue in the foreseeable future. It is our understanding that the amendments will apply only on a prospective basis, i.e. to new contracts, with existing contracts continuing to be governed by the old rules. Carlos Vivas (Rio de Janeiro) Deloitte Brazil cavivas@deloitte.com Luiz Rezende (Rio de Janeiro) Deloitte Brazil lrezende@deloitte.com India: AAR affirms no withholding tax on payment for support services to head office The Indian Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) issued a ruling on 6 August 2010 concluding that no tax should be withheld on payments made by an Indian company to its regional head office in Singapore for management and technology support services because these services do not fall within the scope of fees for technical services (FTS) or royalties under the India- Singapore tax treaty (Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Limited (BGI)). The AAR clarified that technical or consultancy services as defined under article 12 of the treaty are narrower than the definition under Indian domestic tax law in section 9(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (ITA). Further, even if the services were characterized as technical services in nature, since no technical know-how was made available, no income is taxable in India under the treaty. World Tax Advisor 3 of 9 Copyright 2010, Deloitte Global Services Limited.

4 Facts of the case BGI is an Indian company engaged in the general insurance business. Axa Asia Regional Centre Pvt. Ltd. (Axa SGH) is a Singapore resident company established as a central service organization to provide business support for the Axa group of companies in the Asia-Pacific region. Axa does not have a business presence or permanent establishment (PE) in India. BGI and Axa SGH entered into a service agreement for Axa SGH to render various support and business advisory services on an ongoing basis. The support services included actuarial services, the development of claim settlement strategies and services, guidance on reinsurance strategies, the development of underwriting models, market research, marketing, guidance on business plans, HR services and the use of software licensed from third parties, as well as access to Axa SGH s technology systems. The business support services provided by Axa SGH to its regional group entities were in the form of recommendations in connection with positioning the Axa brand globally. In consideration for the services, Axa SGH charged BGI a service fee based on the actual costs incurred plus a mark-up of 5%. BGI requested a ruling from the AAR as to whether the fees paid to Axa SGH would be taxable in India as FTS or royalties under article 12 of the India-Singapore tax treaty and therefore subject to withholding tax under section 195 of the ITA. Ruling of the AAR ITA section 195 requires a person paying income to a nonresident to withhold tax if the income is taxable in India. Article 12 of the India-Singapore tax treaty gives India the right to tax FTS and royalties paid to a Singapore resident. FTS under the treaty are defined as payments for the supply of managerial, technical or consulting services that make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes to enable the acquirer to apply the relevant technology. The definition of royalties includes payments for the use of, or the right to use, copyrights of a literary or scientific nature or any industrial, commercial or scientific equipment. In reaching its conclusion, the AAR relied on a treaty-related memorandum of understanding between India and the U.S. that defines FTS in a manner similar to that used in the India-Singapore treaty. Payments qualify as FTS only if the services enable the recipient to acquire sufficient knowledge to apply the technology independent of the service provider. In the case, the centralized functions and activities enumerated under the service agreement were classified as managerial in nature, but the services provided by Axa SGH did not make available to BGI any technical knowledge, experience, skills, know-how or processes. The AAR relied on a previous ruling (Intertek Testing Services India Pvt. Ltd.), in which it held that managerial services essentially do not make available or enable the services to be applied for business. This principle was also affirmed by the AAR in another ruling (Ernst & Young (P) Ltd.): support services aimed at providing information and guidelines to ensure uniformity and seamless quality of group entities are not technical knowledge and experience to be made available to other entities. Thus, the AAR held that Axa SGH s use of technical and other related skills to provide services to BGI is not in and of itself sufficient for the fees to be classified as FTS under article 12 of the India-Singapore treaty. Additionally, the payments for the licensing of software and system support services could not be classified as royalties. BGI had no right to commercially exploit the copyright in the software; it only used the software for its own business purposes. Therefore, the payments did not represent the use of, or the right to use, any copyright. Further, BGI had no right to use Axa SGH s hardware and related systems. Axa SGH merely used the hardware and systems to provide the services to BGI. The AAR therefore ruled that the payments could not be classified as royalties under the treaty. Finally, since Axa SGH does not have a PE in India, the fees are not taxable in India and BGI had no obligation to withhold tax under ITA section 195. Comment The use in India of specialized support services provided by a head office or central service organization within a group frequently gives rise to issues relating to the taxability of such services. Under the ITA, a nonresident is taxable in India on India-source income from FTS, even though the nonresident does not have a PE in India. The definition of FTS is broader under the ITA when compared to the make available concept as found in several of India s tax treaties (e.g. U.K. and World Tax Advisor 4 of 9 Copyright 2010, Deloitte Global Services Limited.

5 U.S.). This ruling confirms the position that, if the nature of support services rendered does not make available technical knowledge to the service recipient, in the absence of a PE, the fees are not liable to tax in India. However, it should be noted that the provision of services in India to an associate enterprise through employees or other personnel may lead to the risk of the creation of a service PE. Some of India s tax treaties include a provision whereby even if services are rendered to an associate enterprise for one day through an employee or other personnel, PE exposure and consequent tax liability can arise. In this case, the parties will need to ensure that any payments to the associate enterprise are at arm s length. Sunil Shah (Mumbai) Deloitte Haskins & Sells sunilshah@deloitte.com Shailendra Sharma (Mumbai) Manager Deloitte Haskins & Sells shailsharma@deloitte.com Julius Cardozo (Mumbai) Manager Deloitte Haskins & Sells jcardozo@deloitte.com Indonesia: Tax authorities can recharacterize income of expatriates Indonesia s Minister of Finance issued a new regulation on 11 August 2010 relating to the recharacterization of income received by an individual from an employer that has a special relationship with an offshore company. The regulation is effective for payments made on or after the date of issuance. The regulation generally targets income received by an expatriate employee seconded to an Indonesian company, with the amount paid recorded either in whole or in part by the Indonesian company as a charge for technical service fees/management service fees from the offshore company or head office. The regulation aims to address the situation in which employment income that should have been taxed under article 21 (employment income) of the Indonesian Income Tax Law is instead taxed under article 26 as a technical or management fee. Under some of Indonesia s tax treaties, the article 26 withholding tax may be subject to a reduced rate or an exemption. According to the regulation, the Directorate General of Tax (DGT) is authorized to recharacterize the income that should have been taxed under article 21. The maximum amount of such income that can be deemed to be received by an individual in Indonesia is limited to the amount paid by the Indonesian employer to its offshore related party. In making its assessment, the DGT can use the standard expatriate salary guideline as a reference. With the issuance of these new rules, Indonesian companies should anticipate greater scrutiny during tax audits of such expenses charged to them by their head offices. Firdaus Asikin (Jakarta) Deloitte Indonesia firdausasikin@deloitte.com Connie Chu (Jakarta) Deloitte Indonesia cchu@deloitte.com United States: Final schedule on uncertain tax positions and accompanying guidance released On 24 September 2010, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) finalized its proposal to require reporting of uncertain tax positions (UTPs) by releasing the final Schedule UTP and its instructions effective for the 2010 tax year. The IRS also issued Announcement , explaining the changes to the proposal incorporated in the final Schedule UTP and accompanying World Tax Advisor 5 of 9 Copyright 2010, Deloitte Global Services Limited.

6 instructions, and Announcement , which expands the IRS s policy of restraint with respect to requesting particular documents relating to UTPs and the workpapers associated with the completion of Schedule UTP. Schedule UTP is designed to increase transparency and requires an affected corporation to describe UTPs for which it or a related entity recorded a reserve in financial statements or for which no reserve was recorded because of an expectation of litigation. Changes As explained in Announcement , important differences exist between the final Schedule UTP and the draft Schedule UTP that was issued earlier in 2010: Five-year phase-in There will be a five-year phase-in for filing Schedule UTP, with the largest corporations being the first required to file. Corporations with USD 100 million or more in assets will file beginning with the 2010 tax year; the total asset threshold will be reduced to USD 50 million beginning with the 2012 tax year and to USD 10 million starting with the 2014 tax year. Elimination of the maximum tax adjustment (MTA) requirement Instead of requiring the MTA calculation for each UTP, the final Schedule UTP requires a filer to rank all of its UTPs from highest to lowest based on the size of the U.S. federal income tax reserve recorded for the position and to designate those tax positions for which the reserve exceeds 10% of the aggregate amount of the reserves for all of the tax positions reported on the schedule (to be known as Major Tax Positions ). Expectation to litigate positions can be assigned any ranking number. Taxpayers will not be asked to disclose the tax reserve amounts anywhere on the schedule. No description of rationale and nature of uncertainty with respect to UTPs As part of the concise description of the position, the taxpayer will not have to disclose the rationale for the UTP or the nature of the position s uncertainty. The Schedule UTP now requires a concise description of the tax position that is based upon and consistent with the information required to be reported on Form 8275 a description that includes relevant facts affecting the tax treatment of the position and information that reasonably can be expected to apprise the IRS of the identity of the tax position and the nature of the issue. Elimination of administrative practice category of UTPs Taxpayers will not have to report UTPs for which no reserve was recorded because the corporation determined it was the IRS s administrative practice not to raise the issue during examination. Clarification of expect to litigate category of UTPs The final Schedule UTP retains this category of UTP, but to address concerns that the category would require corporations to reassess all tax positions for which no reserve was taken at the time it prepared its Schedule UTP, the instructions clarify that a corporation may rely on the reserve decisions it made for financial statement purposes to complete Schedule UTP and thus is not expected to reassess those reserve decisions previously made for financial statement purposes at the time Schedule UTP is completed. The instructions also clarify that tax positions that are either immaterial under applicable financial accounting standards or that are sufficiently certain so that no reserve is required under those standards are not included within this category. Attorney-client privilege In response to concerns about the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine and the tax practitioner privilege in light of the information required to be disclosed on Schedule UTP, the IRS modified the instructions for providing a concise description such that the taxpayer is not required to explain the rationale and nature of the uncertainty with respect to the UTP. The instructions further explain that the concise description should not include information related to the corporation s assessment of the hazards of a tax position or an analysis of the support for or against the tax position. The IRS also issued Announcement , in which the IRS expands and clarifies the IRS s policy of restraint with respect to requesting tax accrual workpapers. Specifically, the policy states that the IRS will not assert that privilege has been waived with respect to an otherwise privileged document that was provided to an independent auditor as part of an audit of the taxpayer s financial statements. This policy does not apply if the taxpayer has taken any other action that would waive the privilege or if a request for tax accrual workpapers is made under Internal Revenue Manual section (regarding the taxpayer s involvement in listed transactions and the unusual circumstances standard). The expanded policy of restraint also allows taxpayers to redact the following items from any tax reconciliation workpapers relating to the preparation of Schedule UTP that it is asked to produce during an examination: (1) working drafts, revisions or comments World Tax Advisor 6 of 9 Copyright 2010, Deloitte Global Services Limited.

7 concerning the concise description of tax positions reported on Schedule UTP; (2) the amount of any reserve related to a tax position reported on Schedule UTP; and (3) computations determining the ranking of tax positions to be reported on Schedule UTP or the designation of a tax position as a Major Tax Position. Rita Benassi (Washington, DC) rbenassi@deloitte.com Patrice Mano (Washington, DC) pmano@deloitte.com John Keenan (Washington, DC) Director jkeenan@deloitte.com Anita Soucy (Washington, DC) Principal asoucy@deloitte.com Vietnam: Tax authorities clarify personal income tax issues Vietnam s General Department of Taxation (GDT) issued guidance on 8 September 2010 that clarifies personal income tax issues relating to the residence status of foreign individuals, the foreign tax credit and the tax treatment of tax consultancy services. The guidance confirms both tax benefits and tax costs for individual taxpayers and results in additional documentation and compliance obligations. Residence status of foreign taxpayers The residence status of an individual who stays in Vietnam for less than 183 days in a calendar year or 12 consecutive months from the date of arrival and who has a lease contract that exceeds 90 days will be determined as follows: If the individual can demonstrate that he/she is a resident of another country, the individual will be treated as a nonresident in Vietnam; and If the individual cannot demonstrate residence in another country, he/she will be deemed to be a resident of Vietnam. The DGT guidance does not mention what supporting documents should be submitted to show residence status, and it appears that the above rule applies regardless of whether a tax treaty has been concluded between Vietnam and the other country. Credit for tax paid overseas An individual taxpayer is allowed to deduct tax paid overseas from his/her total tax liabilities in Vietnam if the following conditions are satisfied: The individual is tax resident in Vietnam; The tax paid overseas is calculated as foreign-source income; and Supporting documentation is available. Supporting documents issued by foreign tax authorities should be translated into Vietnamese, although notarization and legalization are not required. Tax treatment of tax consultant fees According to the GDT guidance, tax consultancy fees will be treated as follows: World Tax Advisor 7 of 9 Copyright 2010, Deloitte Global Services Limited.

8 If the consultancy services are provided to the employer, the benefit will not be considered a personal benefit, so consultants fees will not be included in the employee s taxable income for personal income tax purposes; and If the tax consultancy services are arranged by the employer for an employee or a group of employees, the benefits will be considered personal benefits of the employees, which are taxable income for personal income tax purposes. Thomas McClelland (Ho Chi Minh City) Deloitte Vietnam tmcclelland@deloitte.com In brief New Zealand The GST rate increased from 12.5% to 15% on 1 October United States The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 was enacted on 27 September 2010 and offers a roughly USD 12 billion tax incentives package that provides an additional year of bonus depreciation for businesses of all sizes, as well as enhancing existing expensing rules (which allow certain property to be expensed rather than capitalized/depreciated) and other relief targeted to small businesses. The tax incentives in the legislation most of which are temporary are paid for with permanent provisions that: require guarantee fees for guarantees issued after 27 September 2010 to be sourced like interest (resulting in fees paid by U.S. taxpayers to foreign persons being treated as U.S.-source payments subject to U.S. withholding tax unless otherwise exempted under an income tax treaty); require information reporting for rental property expenses; make administrative changes intended to close the tax gap ; and make crude tall oil ineligible for the cellulosic biofuel producer credit. Additional revenue comes from taxpayer-friendly changes to the qualified retirement plan rules. Are You Getting Your Global Tax Alerts? Throughout the week, Deloitte provides commentary and analysis on developments affecting cross-border transactions on a free subscription basis delivered straight to your . Read the recent alerts below or visit the archive. Subscribe: Archives: s_ _tax_wta United States House Passes 9/11 Health and Compensation Act with limitation on treaty benefits The House of Representatives has passed a bill that includes a provision that would eliminate the availability of tax treaty benefits on deductible payments (i.e. interest and royalties) for certain foreign companies. [Issued: 30 September 2010] URL: x_wta_ URL: _ World Tax Advisor 8 of 9 Copyright 2010, Deloitte Global Services Limited.

9 Talk to Us If you have questions or comments about the content of World Tax Advisor, contact one of the tax professionals at a Deloitte office in your area or: Susan Lyons, Director Washington International Tax Services slyons@deloitte.com - or - Connie Angle Washington International Tax Services cangle@deloitte.com About Deloitte Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Global Services Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee, and its network of member firms, each of which is a legally separate and independent entity. Please see for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte Global Services Limited and its member firms. Deloitte is the brand under which tens of thousands of dedicated professionals in independent firms throughout the world collaborate to provide audit, consulting, financial advisory, risk management, and tax services to selected clients. These firms are members of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited (DTTL), a UK private company limited by guarantee. Each member firm provides services in a particular geographic area and is subject to the laws and professional regulations of the particular country or countries in which it operates. DTTL does not itself provide services to clients. DTTL and each DTTL member firm are separate and distinct legal entities, which cannot obligate each other. DTTL and each DTTL member firm are liable only for their own acts or omissions and not those of each other. Each DTTL member firm is structured differently in accordance with national laws, regulations, customary practice, and other factors, and may secure the provision of professional services in its territory through subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other entities. Disclaimer This publication contains general information only, and none of Deloitte Global Services Limited, its member firms, or its and their affiliates are, by means of this publication, rendering accounting, business, financial, investment, legal, tax, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such professional advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your finances or your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your finances or your business, you should consult a qualified professional adviser. None of Deloitte Global Services Limited, its member firms, or its and their respective affiliates shall be responsible for any loss whatsoever sustained by any person who relies on this publication. World Tax Advisor 9 of 9 Copyright 2010, Deloitte Global Services Limited.