Highlights and comment:
- Reducing deficit and reciprocity. Trade deficit, not only is folly and based on ignorant arguments, but is a tool for negotiation. No idea how to solve something unnecessary.
- American agricultural export. There are obstacles to Mexican products, but Americans?
- Raising Rules of Origin. Primary theme, it offers great challenges and great opportunities.
- Prohibit exchange manipulation. What is that? Mexico since 1995 has unrestricted foreign exchange market.
- Guarantee investment rights according to American practice. This could become very delicate but interesting subject.
- Eliminate Chapter 19 of Dispute Resolution. Terrible approach.
- To approve legal framework of intellectual property. Something we could thank.
- Regulate wages and eradicate child labor. First point, extremely difficult, but equally desirable; second, by law is illegal, but efficiency is always a topic.
- Eliminate Income Tax deduction of corruption. What? where a payment for corruption is deductible?
- Increase anti-corruption review. Could mean more government scrutiny ... therefore, more possible corruption.
- Energy opening. And the Mexican Energy Reform?
- Telecomm opening and free flow of financial data. And the Mexican Telecommunications Reform?
- Environment. Negotiation within the treaty and not in parallel agreements.
In essence, it is a first public official statement, which suggests that negotiation will not be so complicated for Mexico, and therefore pressures on macroeconomic and financial indicators, will not increase volatility by these elements, in principle.
There are even issues that are irrelevant (eg manipulated exchange rate), or others already complied (eg energy or telecommunications issues) or even some crucial for our better development and which are appreciated (eg equate intellectual property protection systems or wage homogenization).
A sensitive issue is that in the proposed issues, they become long-term to negotiate and worse to verify effectiveness.
Checking each topic, the following is expliend by us:
It is underlined that the negotiations will begin on 16 August.
The issue on trade deficit will be very complicated, since it does not imply a damage to an economy by itself, but is a datum of a confluence of elements, where some are even beneficial for the pressumably affected Country. But politically and poorly managed, it has been exposed as a weakness. The apparent output will be to increase trade flows, as opposed to decreasing them and that is opportunity for all. We will have to wait.
The issue of American agricultural exports becomes absurd, since the one with the most obstacles in the matter is the US, but there is more waiting for more concrete positions.
The issue concerning Rules of Origin, while proposing great opportunities, the challenge is huge and at least still with interest, in Ciudad Juárez, has not grown participation in decades literally. Mexico does not improve internally on this basis for 3 reasons, namely lack of financing, economic regulation and lack of corporate culture. All require funding and best governance practices.
The issue of manipulation of the exchange rate becomes irrelevant, because it is not the proper subject. Actually the problem is that the peso is affected a lot with global volatility and that impoverishes the Mexicans and lowers the labor force. Then, the issue is to consolidate the Mexican economy, so that volatility damages less to the peso.
An extremely negative issue is the proposal to eliminate chapter 19 of international dispute settlement or arbitration. And it is a system that has worked very well, and in any case may require some improvements but not elimination. US exposes another point of rigging mechanisms of decision on investments to the American style (procedure). And this highlights the regular American position that only its resolution systems are functional, but the truth is that in principle, it decreases equity in conflict resolution, but neither is it to exalt the Mexican procedure, which is known slow and not-well-funcional in many cases.
Another very interesting point is that they seek to approve protection of intellectual property, which in Mexico is bad. This may even be desirable.
The labor issue is very complicated, but highly desirable, as they would push to increase the purchasing power of the Mexican employee, so that it is not an element of competition as it is today (low wages).
Seek to bridge government corruption. It will be necessary to see if the new National Anticorruption System fulfills expectations in NAFTA or new norms are required. There is even criminalization; is supposed to exist in Mexico, but recent issues leave much to be desired.
The environment issue could recover items of the Paris Agreement in a treaty like NAFTA, which offers ample opportunities in several senses.
The energy and telecomm issues seem to have been remedied by the structural reforms, but we would have to analyze what they request.
Wilbur Ross, the US Secretary of Commerce, had three months ago exposed the need to touch on three central points: salaries (seeking regional wage equalization), foreign exchange (seeking exchange rate matching), and rules of origin (increasing minimums in productive chains, to provide NAFTA benefits); in the previous ones, they are included, but not necessarily with the required or objective dimension.
These points stand out in much the substantiation of where they want to take the issues, and in fact are more beneficial than harmful to Mexico. Only the issue of chapter 19, can become conflicting to accept.
More information: https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/Press/Releases/NAFTAObjectives.pdf
martes, 26 de septiembre de 2017
lunes, 25 de septiembre de 2017
Thesis Interpretation: Presumption on Positive Balance Refund at SAT
Jurisprudence is interpreted by the Federal Judiciary Branch, resolving thesis contradiction regarding the use of Presumption by SAT (Mexican tax authority) to determine or require more information to authorize a Positive Balance Refund from a taxpayer.
SOURCE
Thesis Register: 2015101
Source: Federal Judicial Weekly
Authority: Circuit Plenary
Type of Thesis: Jurisprudence
Thesis: PC.XVI.A. J/19 A (10a.)
Subject: Administrative
Date of publication: 9/08/2017
Item: Positive Balance. When a request for repayment is made, the authority may use presumption to verify the transactions' effective execution from which it is derived and, if appropriate, to conclude that they did not happen.
Link to original source (only Spanish): http://bit.ly/2fo9zuz.
---
The Court named Circuit Plenary, authority to expose jurisprudences, determines the previous resolutions.
Solo Negocios provides the following explanation:
The authority, to determine the legality of a refund, may use Presumption to deduce the exposed fact by taxpayer (his reasoning for requesting the refund); this presumption must seek to deduce from the known and exposed fact by taxpayer, another presumption of ordinary consequence, based on a correct balance between said proven fact and that presumed with a rational deductive process and consistent with the above.
Therefore, if a request for refund from a positive balance is based on legal tax invoices is filed, the authority may use presumptions to verify the effective conduct in those transactions and, if necessary, require further information to achieve that rationalism and coherence, with respect to that such request for refund, comes from legal acts of taxpayer's business operations.
Given this, taxpayer must (at its own cost), formulate internal mechanisms to achieve this "rationalism and coherence", that is, a Quality Management System (QMS) or a processes and procedures system that keep record and trace of business acts and therefore their tax invoices, to avoid falling outside of such rationalism and coherence.
Obviously, the authority's position is more radical every day to monitor and it is validated by the Supreme Court; but, if possible: (a) we need to modify these laws, politically (a long-term issue), and/or (b) make relevant adjustments in the company (having an QMS), and above all, against the tax authority (tax litigation), having certainty on the definition of rationalism and coherence, we could contain their collecting expectations.
Any questions about this explanation, feel free to contact us.
Solo Negocios
Phone: +52 (656) 6119768
Email: correo@solonegocios.mx
SOURCE
Thesis Register: 2015101
Source: Federal Judicial Weekly
Authority: Circuit Plenary
Type of Thesis: Jurisprudence
Thesis: PC.XVI.A. J/19 A (10a.)
Subject: Administrative
Date of publication: 9/08/2017
Item: Positive Balance. When a request for repayment is made, the authority may use presumption to verify the transactions' effective execution from which it is derived and, if appropriate, to conclude that they did not happen.
Link to original source (only Spanish): http://bit.ly/2fo9zuz.
---
The Court named Circuit Plenary, authority to expose jurisprudences, determines the previous resolutions.
Solo Negocios provides the following explanation:
The authority, to determine the legality of a refund, may use Presumption to deduce the exposed fact by taxpayer (his reasoning for requesting the refund); this presumption must seek to deduce from the known and exposed fact by taxpayer, another presumption of ordinary consequence, based on a correct balance between said proven fact and that presumed with a rational deductive process and consistent with the above.
Therefore, if a request for refund from a positive balance is based on legal tax invoices is filed, the authority may use presumptions to verify the effective conduct in those transactions and, if necessary, require further information to achieve that rationalism and coherence, with respect to that such request for refund, comes from legal acts of taxpayer's business operations.
Given this, taxpayer must (at its own cost), formulate internal mechanisms to achieve this "rationalism and coherence", that is, a Quality Management System (QMS) or a processes and procedures system that keep record and trace of business acts and therefore their tax invoices, to avoid falling outside of such rationalism and coherence.
Obviously, the authority's position is more radical every day to monitor and it is validated by the Supreme Court; but, if possible: (a) we need to modify these laws, politically (a long-term issue), and/or (b) make relevant adjustments in the company (having an QMS), and above all, against the tax authority (tax litigation), having certainty on the definition of rationalism and coherence, we could contain their collecting expectations.
Any questions about this explanation, feel free to contact us.
Solo Negocios
Phone: +52 (656) 6119768
Email: correo@solonegocios.mx
sábado, 23 de septiembre de 2017
Interpretación de Tesis: La Presunción sobre Solicitud de Saldo a Favor ante el SAT
Se expone interpretación sobre Jurisprudencia por parte del Poder judicial de la Federación, donde se resuleve contradición de tesis relativa al uso de la Presunción por el SAT para determinar o requerir más información para autorizar un Saldo a Favor requerido por un contriubyente.
FUENTE
Registro de Tesis: 2015101
Fuente: Semanario Judicial de la Federación
Autoridad: Plenos de Circuito
Tipo de Tesis: Jurisprudencia
Tesis: PC.XVI.A. J/19 A (10a.)
Materia: Administrativa
Fecha de publicación: 08/09/2017
Rubro: Saldo a Favor. Cuando se presenta una solicitud de devolución, la autoridad puede hacer uso de las presunciones para verificar la efectiva realización de las operaciones de las que aquél se hace derivar y, en su caso, concluir que no se materializaron.
---
El Pleno de Cirucuito, autoridad para exponer jurisprudencias, determina lo anteiror.
Solo Negocios expone la siguiente explicación:
La autoridad, para determinar la legalidad de una devolución, puede usar la Presunción para deducir que el hecho expuesto por el contribuyente (su razonamiento para solicitar la devolución correspondiente); dicha presunción debe buscar deducir de ese hecho conocido y expuesto por el contribuyente, otro de consencuencia ordinaria, contemplando un correcto equilibrio entre dicho hecho demostrado y el que se presume con un proceso deductivo racional y coherente con el hecho expuesto.
Por lo tanto, si se presenta una solicitud de devolución de saldo a favor basada en comprobantes fiscales legales, la autoridad puede usar presunciones para verificar la efectiva realización de las operaciones y en su caso requerir información posterior para lograr ese racionalismo y coherencia, respecto a que esa solicitud de devolución, provenga de actos legales de la operación de negocio del contribuyente.
Entonces, dado ello, el contribuyente debe (a su costo), debe formular mecanismos internos para lograr dicho "racionalismo y coherencia", esto es, un Sistema de Gestión de Calidad (SGC) o un sistema de procesos y procedimientos que documentan e hilvanan los actos de negocio y por ende sus comprobantes fiscales, para evitar caer fuera de dicho racionalismo y coherencia.
Obvio, cada día la posición de la autoridad es más radical para fiscalizar y es validada por la Corte; pero en su caso o: a) se busca modificar esas leyes políticamente (un tema de largo plazo), y/o b) se hacen los ajustes pertinentes en la empresa (tener un SGC), y sobre todo, contra la autoridad (litigio fiscal), al tener claridad respecto la definición de racionalismo y coherencia, se podrían contienen sus ánimos recaudadores.
Cualquier duda sobre esta explicación, estamos a sus órdenes.
Solo Negocios
Teléfono: +52 (656) 6119768
Correo: correo@solonegocios.mx
FUENTE
Registro de Tesis: 2015101
Fuente: Semanario Judicial de la Federación
Autoridad: Plenos de Circuito
Tipo de Tesis: Jurisprudencia
Tesis: PC.XVI.A. J/19 A (10a.)
Materia: Administrativa
Fecha de publicación: 08/09/2017
Rubro: Saldo a Favor. Cuando se presenta una solicitud de devolución, la autoridad puede hacer uso de las presunciones para verificar la efectiva realización de las operaciones de las que aquél se hace derivar y, en su caso, concluir que no se materializaron.
---
El Pleno de Cirucuito, autoridad para exponer jurisprudencias, determina lo anteiror.
Solo Negocios expone la siguiente explicación:
La autoridad, para determinar la legalidad de una devolución, puede usar la Presunción para deducir que el hecho expuesto por el contribuyente (su razonamiento para solicitar la devolución correspondiente); dicha presunción debe buscar deducir de ese hecho conocido y expuesto por el contribuyente, otro de consencuencia ordinaria, contemplando un correcto equilibrio entre dicho hecho demostrado y el que se presume con un proceso deductivo racional y coherente con el hecho expuesto.
Por lo tanto, si se presenta una solicitud de devolución de saldo a favor basada en comprobantes fiscales legales, la autoridad puede usar presunciones para verificar la efectiva realización de las operaciones y en su caso requerir información posterior para lograr ese racionalismo y coherencia, respecto a que esa solicitud de devolución, provenga de actos legales de la operación de negocio del contribuyente.
Entonces, dado ello, el contribuyente debe (a su costo), debe formular mecanismos internos para lograr dicho "racionalismo y coherencia", esto es, un Sistema de Gestión de Calidad (SGC) o un sistema de procesos y procedimientos que documentan e hilvanan los actos de negocio y por ende sus comprobantes fiscales, para evitar caer fuera de dicho racionalismo y coherencia.
Obvio, cada día la posición de la autoridad es más radical para fiscalizar y es validada por la Corte; pero en su caso o: a) se busca modificar esas leyes políticamente (un tema de largo plazo), y/o b) se hacen los ajustes pertinentes en la empresa (tener un SGC), y sobre todo, contra la autoridad (litigio fiscal), al tener claridad respecto la definición de racionalismo y coherencia, se podrían contienen sus ánimos recaudadores.
Cualquier duda sobre esta explicación, estamos a sus órdenes.
Solo Negocios
Teléfono: +52 (656) 6119768
Correo: correo@solonegocios.mx
Suscribirse a:
Comentarios (Atom)