Registry, use and inactivation of breasfeeding support rooms

Edificio de cristal con el logo de CorralRosales
Through official notice sent via e-mail on October 17th, 2022; the Ministry of Labor makes available the User manual (the “Manual”) containing the general process to register or inactivate breastfeeding support rooms on the Single Labor System (Sistema Único de Trabajo) (“SUT”).


Process Summary.

1.    Log in to SUT System.
  • Access the system by using the link: https://sut.trabajo.gob.ec/
  • Select the option “Sistema para Personas Jurídicas y Naturales”.
  • Log in by using the corresponding user and password.
  • Select the option “Salud y Seguridad en el Trabajo”.
  • Agree to the user statement popup.
2.    Registry and Inactivation of Breastfeeding Support Rooms.
  • Enter the “Salud en el Trabajo” module and select the option “Sala de Apoyo a la Lactancia Materna”.
  • Select the option “Nuevo” on the corresponding list of active breastfeeding rooms registered by the company.
  • Select the option “Nuevo” on the upper part of the registry.
  • Resister the corresponding information about the implementation of the room and select “Guardar”.
  • Once the entry is completed, the options to edit, print or inactivate will be made available.
3.    Registry of the Use of Breastfeeding Support Rooms.
  • Enter the “Salud en el Trabajo” module and select the option “Sala de Apoyo a la Lactancia Materna”.
  • Select the option “Nuevo” on the corresponding list of active breastfeeding  rooms registered by the company.
  • Register the information of the workers that used the room, according to the period.
  • Select the option “Guardar”.

Edmundo Ramos

Specialist in Labor Law
Edmundo Ramos, partner at CorralRosales
eramos@corralrosales.com
+593 2 2544144

Would you like to receive our newsletters with information like the one you have just read?
Click here and subscribe.

NOTE: The above text has been prepared for informational purposes. CorralRosales is not responsible for any loss or damage caused as a consequence of acting or not acting on the basis of the information contained in this document. Any additional determined situation requires the specific opinion and concept of the firm in Quito / Guayaquil, Ecuador.

CORRALROSALES

Amendments to several tax regulations

Manos con las uñas pintadas de rosa haciendo uno de una calculadora. Pieza para un boletín tributario de CorralRosales: aparece el logo de CorralRosales también en la pieza gráfica

The President of the Republic issued the Executive Decree 586 on October 31, 2022 which several regulations to Commercial, Investment and Tax Policy. The following is a summary of the main tax reforms:

I.    Amendments to the Regulations for the Application of the Internal Tax Regime Law: 

1.    Professional Services. The term “professional services” is defined as those rendered by professionals accredited with an academic degree, either as an individual or through a legal entity. 

2.    Ghost Entities. If the Internal Revenue Service notifies a taxpayer that it has incurred in the circumstances to be qualified as a non-existent entity, ghost entity, or taxpayer with non-existent transactions, the taxpayer will have 30 business days to refute such assertion. Previously the term was 5 business days.

The taxable base will not be reduced by transactions carried out with companies qualified as non-existent or ghost entities, except for those cases in which the taxpayer supports the material sequentiality of the expense and its economic essence. 

3.    Depreciation of fixed assets. The possibility of requesting accelerated depreciation of assets in cases of obsolescence, intensive use or other reasons is eliminated.

4.    Losses. In the case of individuals and/or non-financial entities, the loss or discount generated in the sale of financial assets corresponding to commercial credits or portfolio, which are negotiated outside the stock market or with related parties, will not be deductible.

5.    Royalties, technical, administrative and consulting services. A limit is again imposed on the deductibility of the sum of expenses for royalties, technical, administrative and consulting services paid to related parties. This limit had been eliminated by Executive Decree 304, published in Official Gazette Supplement 608 of December 30, 2021.

As from fiscal year 2023 the limit will be equivalent to 5% of the taxable income of the respective fiscal year, except in the following cases:

a.    Taxpayers that are in the pre-operative cycle of the business, the limit will be equivalent to 10% of the total assets.
 
b.    Taxpayers whose only activity is to provide technical services to independent parties, if the operating margin indicator (operating profit over operating sales) is equal or higher than 7.5%. If the indicator is lower, a specific deductibility limit will be applied.

c.    Taxpayers that carry out operations with related parties in Ecuador, as long as the taxpayer that incurs the cost or expense has an effective tax rate equal to or lower than that of its related party with which it carries out the operation. 

d.    When the total of royalties, technical, administrative and consulting services operations with related parties within a fiscal year does not exceed 20 basic fractions taxed at zero income tax rate for individuals.

The taxpayer may request a higher limit of deductibility through an advance pricing agreement with the IRS. 

6.    Deferred taxes: The following is added:

a.    In the case of non-financial entities, a deferred tax will be recognized for the value impairment of financial assets corresponding to uncollectible credits that exceed the deduction limits. The deferred tax will be recognized on the value impairment generated as from fiscal year 2023. 


b.    Deferred tax is recognized on the difference between the financial depreciation of property, plant and equipment and the limits established for deductibility. The deferred tax will be recognized on assets acquired as from fiscal year 2023.


7.    Reduction of the tax rate for new investments. In the case of taxpayers that make new investments and are not able to maintain a cost center for such new investment, they must calculate the reduction in the income tax rate based on a formula established for such purpose.


8.    Legal certainty and stability on tax incentives. During the term of the investment contract, the rules that regulate the application of the tax benefits in force at the date on which the contract was entered into, will remain stable. If there are amendments that establish more favorable benefits to the investment, the investor may apply such benefits. 

9.    Settlement and payment of VAT. The transfers of goods and rendering of services carried out by micro, small and medium enterprises must be declared in the following month and paid up to 3 months after the fiscal period in which the invoice was issued, if a payment term was granted for more than one month. 

10.    VAT refund to exporters of services. Exporters of services may request a VAT refund even when: (i) they do not comply with the requirement of habituality; and/or, (ii) the payment for the services is received from a local bank account, provided that the payment is made on behalf of the non-resident. 

11.    VAT paid to popular businesses. In order to support the VAT paid to popular businesses, taxpayers must issue a liquidation of purchase of goods and rendering of services and withhold 100% of the VAT generated. 


12.    Excise tax (ICE) taxable base. Refunds made before the goods or services have been consumed will not be consider for calculating the ICE taxable base.

13.    Mining activity. The following will apply to the amortization of investments made by companies holding mining concessions and companies that have entered into exploitation contracts:

a.    The investments made in the phases of prospecting, initial exploration, advanced exploration and economic evaluation of the deposit must be amortized on a straight-line basis over 5 years from the beginning of production. Amortization shall be directly related to each mining concession. 

b.    Complementary exploration investments during the exploitation phase must be amortized on a straight-line basis over 5 years from the start of production, subject to certification by the competent entity. The amortization must be directly related to each mining concession.


c.    The amortization of investments for the preparation and development of the deposit shall be directly related to each mining concession and shall be made in accordance with the Production Unit Method as from the beginning of production.


d.    For depreciation of property, plant and equipment the following shall apply:

i.    Depreciable property, plant and equipment associated with mining reserves will be depreciated based on the Production Unit Method as of the commencement of production,
ii.    Depreciable property, plant and equipment not associated with mining reserves will be depreciated on a straight-line basis over their useful live from the time they are available for use. The depreciation percentage may not exceed the limits provided for in the regulations. 

II.    Amendments to the Regulations for the Application of Foreign Exchange Tax:

14.    Foreign Exchange Tax (ISD). For the application of the ISD exemption by virtue of investment contracts, the capital goods and raw materials on which the benefit is applied must be classified as such within the CUODE. Otherwise, the Government entity must establish, within the corresponding opinion, that the goods must be exceptionally considered as raw material or capital goods for the project. 

III.    Amendments to the Regulation of Invoices, Withholding Receipts and Complementary Documents: 

15.    Settlements of purchases of goods and rendering of services. This type of documents may be issued for transactions of goods and services carried out with individuals who maintain their RUC in suspended status and who, due to their cultural level are not able to issue invoices. 

16.    Invoice filling requirements. If the transaction does not exceed USD$500.00, the invoice may be issued to “END CONSUMER”. Previously the maximum value was US$200.00. 

IV.    Amendments to the Investment Regulation of the Code of Production, Commerce and Investments: 

17.    Procedure for approval of investment contracts. In order to enter into an investment contract, the investor must submit a list of permits, authorizations or any other title necessary for the execution of the project. If the investor does not have such permits, the documentation supporting the initiation of the procedure to obtain them must be submitted. 

18.    Opinion of the governing body of public finances. The accumulated value of the tax incentives derived from the investment contract may not exceed the amount of the investment. The Government entity of public finances must issue an opinion, verifying the above, within a non-extendable term of 30 days. 

19.    Addenda to investment contracts. Entities that have entered into investment contracts may request -at any time- the execution of an addenda. Such addenda may maintain the tax and non-tax benefits stabilized at the date of subscription of the contract.

Andrea Moya - CorralRosales - Lawyer Ecuador

Specialist in Tax
Andrea Moya, partner at CorralRosales
amoya@corralrosales.com
+593 2 2544144

Would you like to receive our newsletters with information like the one you have just read?
Click here and subscribe.

NOTE: The above text has been prepared for informational purposes. CorralRosales is not liable for any loss or damage incurred as a result of acting or failing to act on the basis of the information contained in this document. Any additional determined situation requires the specific opinion and concept of the firm in Quito / Guayaquil, Ecuador.

CORRALROSALES

Partial unconstitutionality of the law for economic development and fiscal sustainability after the COVID-19 pandemic

Manos con las uñas pintadas de rosa haciendo uno de una calculadora. Pieza para un boletín tributario de CorralRosales: aparece el logo de CorralRosales también en la pieza gráfica

On October 28, the Constitutional Court issued the ruling 110-21-IN/22 by which it declared the partial unconstitutionality of the Law for Economic Development and Fiscal Sustainability After the COVID-19 Pandemic. The following are the main effects of such ruling, which has not yet been published in the Official Gazette:

  1. The amendments to the Law of the Special Regime of the Province of Galapagos are declared unconstitutional. This change will be effective as of the publication of the ruling in the Official Gazette.

  2. The amendments to the Hydrocarbons Law are declared unconstitutional, except for the exemption of foreign trade taxes on the importation of fuels, hydrocarbon derivatives, biofuels and natural gas made by individuals or national and foreign entities. This change will be effective as of the publication of the ruling in the Official Gazette.

  3. The tarriff applicable to the popular businesses of the RIMPE regime is declared unconstitutional. This change will be effective as of the fiscal year 2024:

 

  1. The following are declared unconstitutional on the merits with effect as of publication of the ruling in the Official Gazette:

    • The exemption from payment of Inheritance Tax to beneficiaries within the first degree of consanguinity with the deceased.
    • The exemption from criminal liability for any crime, including those of a tax nature, to taxpayers who apply the Regime for the Regularization of Assets Located Abroad is eliminated. The Internal Revenue Service must notify the Financial and Economic Analysis Unit (UAFE) of any suspicious activity.

Andrea Moya - CorralRosales - Lawyer Ecuador

Specialist in Tax
Andrea Moya, partner at CorralRosales
amoya@corralrosales.com
+593 2 2544144

Would you like to receive our newsletters with information like the one you have just read?
Click here and subscribe.

NOTE: The above text has been prepared for informational purposes. CorralRosales is not liable for any loss or damage incurred as a result of acting or failing to act on the basis of the information contained in this document. Any additional determined situation requires the specific opinion and concept of the firm in Quito / Guayaquil, Ecuador.

CORRALROSALES

Acquisition of treasury shares – current regulation and possible reforms

Foto de Sofía Rosales, asociada de CorralRosales + foto de un edificio + Logo de CorralRosales

It may seem strange for a company to be its own shareholder, i.e., to hold a certain number of shares issued by the company itself, commonly known as treasury shares or treasury stock. However, there are several reasons why a company might be interested in acquiring its own shares, and their regulation becomes necessary, since it entails equity and corporate risks. This matter would merit a more in-depth analysis, but this article aims to describe in broad outline the main purposes of treasury stock, the risks it presents, current regulation and possible reforms.

1. Main purposes of treasury stock and its risks

From an equity perspective, the acquisition of treasury stock essentially produces the same effects as a distribution of dividends, especially considering that the Law on Companies determines that, in order to acquire treasury stock, it is necessary to use funds taken from net profits which may be disposed of by the general shareholders’ meeting. The company uses the net profits, which are part of the shareholders’ equity, to pay the selling shareholder the value of the acquired shares. The renowned Spanish lawyer Jesús Alfaro states that: “when a company acquires its own shares, in fact, what it does is to distribute part of its equity to the shareholders or members whose shares or units it acquires.”[1]

In addition, if the treasury stock is resold at a higher value than that at which it was acquired, the shareholders will benefit, since this transaction will generate a profit for the company, which will ultimately be consolidated in the total profit belonging to all shareholders.  

From a tax perspective, it is more convenient for the shareholders to receive income from the sale of shares than from dividends, since the income in the first case is taxed by the Single Income Tax (Impuesto a la Renta Único) over the profit on the sale of shares, while the income from dividends becomes part of the global income subject to Income Tax. In short, the shareholder will have the option to choose between keeping its participation in the company or obtaining a tax benefit on the value received, which could be in the shareholder’s interest in case it considers that its investment has yielded the expected results. It will also be very important to consider whether by selling part of his shares to the issuing company itself, the capital percentage held by shareholder decreases – diluted – or not.

From a different standpoint, holding treasury stock allows certain financial transactions, such as the issuance of convertible bonds. Thus, when the bonds are converted into shares, it is not necessary to carry out a capital increase, but it can be done with shares held in treasury.

The problem is that these types of transactions affect the equity of the company, since the capital stock ceases to be a guarantee against creditors, since, in accounting terms, the capital stock does not have a cash counterpart, but the counterpart is the company’s own shares. This means that the capital stock is not invested in actual assets. For these reasons, as will be discussed below, the legislator is becoming increasingly wary of these transactions. 

2. Current regulation

Pursuant to the Law on Companies, corporations may acquire their own shares in order to: (i) resell them; or (ii) redeem them, provided that the requirements contained in article 192, transcribed below, are met: 

“The general shareholders’ meeting may decide that the corporation acquires the shares issued by it, provided that the following requirements are met:

  1. That a majority of the shareholders attending the corresponding meeting resolve the acquisition of the shares;
  2. That only funds taken from net profits are used for such transaction;
  3. That the capital corresponding to the acquired shares is fully paid-in; and,
  4. That in no case shall the acquisition result in a decrease in the subscribed capital.

As long as the shares are held by the company, the rights inherent to them will be suspended.

A resolution by the general shareholders’ meeting will also be required for these shares to be put back into circulation.”

Article 196 of the Law on Companies refers to the redemption of shares and establishes that:

The redemption of the shares will be done against the capital stock, for which its reduction shall be previously resolved, in the form established by this Law or the bylaws. The redemption of shares may not exceed fifty percent of the capital stock

It derives from the foregoing that corporations, once they acquire their own shares with net profits, may either reintroduce them into the legal market or redeem them by means of a capital reduction.

Prior to the entry into force of the Law for the Modernization of the Law on Companies – in December 2020 – the redemption of shares against distributable profits and not necessarily against the stock capital was allowed, in which case, there was no capital reduction. This possibility was eliminated, which evidences a certain reaction from the lawmakers with respect to the acquisition of treasury stock, which, with this possibility, could be kept in the company without the need to reduce capital or reintroduce them into circulation.

With respect to limited liability companies (compañías de responsabilidad limitada), Article 112 provides as follows:

“The redemption of the corporate units will be done against the capital stock, for which its reduction shall be previously resolved, in the form established by this Law or the bylaws. The redemption of the units may not exceed fifty percent of the capital stock.”

Based on the above and derived from the very nature of limited liability companies, they can only acquire their own shares in order to redeem them. 

At this point, the reader may be asking themselves, in what time does the company have to resell or redeem the shares, in the case of a corporation, or redeem the units, in the case of a limited liability company? Well, this very important point is not currently regulated by the Law on Companies. Therefore, although the possibility of redeeming shares against distributable profits has been eliminated, companies do not have a time limit in which they must either redeem them or resell them.

In other legislations, such as Spain, the regulation of the acquisition of treasury stock is much stricter since it is expressly prohibited[2]. In the event of contravention of this prohibition, a limit of one year is established for the resale or redemption of the shares or units, and a fine of up to the nominal value of the shares or units is imposed.  

Moreover, our legislation does not provide for express regulation on this matter for companies listed on the stock exchange, where these transactions would be particularly dangerous.

Possible reforms

As we have anticipated, the Ecuadorian lawmaker is becoming more and more reluctant to this type of transactions, and although it is not expected to reach a rigidity similar to the Spanish legislation, the draft Law Reforming the Law on Companies for the Promotion of Corporate Governance, currently in process in the National Assembly, foresees the inclusion of the following paragraph in article 192 in fine of the Law on Companies:

The shares must be transferred within a maximum period of one year from their acquisition. Once this period has elapsed without the transfer having taken place, the administration shall immediately proceed to call a general shareholders’ meeting to resolve to redeem the repurchased shares, with the consequent reduction of the capital stock.

This constitutes a significant change compared to current legislation, since companies will not be able to hold treasury stock indefinitely, which would consequently discourage this type of operation. This change could also be seen as protection for minority shareholders and third-party creditors.  

It will be very important to regulate these types of transactions in companies listed on the stock exchange in order to preserve their transparency.

[1] Alfaro, J. (2020) Los negocios de una sociedad sobre sus propias acciones o participaciones. Almacén de Derecho. https://almacendederecho.org/los-negocios-de-una-sociedad-sobre-sus-propias-acciones-o-participaciones

[2] Artículo 134 de la Ley de Sociedades de Capital de España: “En ningún caso las sociedades de capital podrán asumir o suscribir sus propias participaciones o acciones(…)

Sofía Rosales
Associate at CorralRosales
srosales@corralrosales.com

Instagram fined 405 million euros for violating the privacy of children and adolescents

Foto de los asociados de CorralRosales, Rafael Serrano y Christian Razza y una foto de un edificio y el logo de CorralRosales

The Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) has fined Meta-owned social media platform Instagram €405 million for breaches of the European Union’s (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).[1]

The sanction was imposed following a two-year investigation by the DPC, which found that Instagram had allowed users between the ages of 13 and 17 to operate business accounts on the platform that displayed users’ phone numbers and email addresses. This led the authority to conclude that Meta had been processing the personal data of children and adolescents illegally without a legal basis under the GDPR.

The DPC also found that the platform had operated a user registration system whereby the accounts of users aged 13 to 17 were set to “public” by default, thereby also making their social network content public.  The fine, which is the second highest under the GDPR, following only a €746 million sanction against Amazon, is the third imposed by the Irish authority on a Meta-owned company.[2] In addition to the fine, the DPC decided to admonish Meta and require it to adopt a series of specific corrective measures to comply with the proper data processing.

In December 2021, the DPC presented a draft decision to all EU counterpart regulators, also known as Competent Supervisory Authorities, as provided under Article 60 of the GDPR. Six of these national regulators raised objections to the DPC’s draft decision. The DPC was unable to reach a consensus with the regulators on the issue of objections and therefore referred the case to the European Data Protection Committee (EDPC), pursuant to article 65 of the GDPR.

On July 28, 2022, the EDPC issued its binding decision,[3] under which it required the DPC to modify its draft decision to the effect that it included having found an infraction of article 6(1) of the GDPR and to reassess the proposed administrative fines arising from said additional infraction.[4] After including these considerations in the text, the DPC rendered its final decision on September 2, 2022,[5] and on September 15, 2022, confirmed the conclusions from the investigation into Instagram and the fine of 405 million euros.[6] The DPC has at least six other ongoing investigations involving companies owned by Meta.[7]

Irish state-owned station RTE quoted a Meta spokesman as saying that they will appeal the fine, because this investigation was based on old configurations that they apparently updated over a year ago. Since then, they have implemented a number of new features to help keep teens safe and their information private. Such updates include a setting in which accounts belonging to users under 18 years of age are automatically configured as “private” when they register on Instagram.[8]

This is a major sanction, since it is the first fine imposed in relation to the personal data of children and adolescents, and a sign that financial sanctions for non-compliance with the GDPR are being imposed with ever-increasing values. This could be a sneak preview of the investigations and fines that the future Personal Data Protection Authority of Ecuador could well initiate and impose when the sanctioning regime set out in the Organic Law on Personal Data Protection (LOPDP) goes into force on May 26, 2023.

Personal data is any information that allows a person to be identified and requires special care when it comes to children’s personal data in a digital environment like social networks. The LOPDP will have a greater impact on individuals and legal entitiesthat process the personal data of children and adolescents, since their data is categorized in said regulations as special data, which implies additional obligations for the person in charge and the person responsible for processing such data. Such additional responsibilities include impact assessments and granting additional rights to data owners.[9] In this sense, the personal data of children and adolescents will receive reinforced and specific protection, especial when such data is used  for marketing, profiling, and the collection of these through services offered directly to minors, as happens on social media.

Since 20202, Ecuador has had a public policy aimed at guaranteeing internet safety for children and adolescents,[10] focused on protecting the dignity and physical, psychological, emotional, and sexual integrity of children and adolescents and enhancing the opportunities and skills offered by digital technologies in their lives and comprehensive development. Now, under the LOPDP, companies must be vigilant to ensure they comply with this rule, otherwise they will be penalized with the respective sanctions.

Although the DPC sanction applies in the EU, Meta will need to rectify this problem and adopt the corrective measures not only in that jurisdiction, but also change the default configuration of the commercial accounts of children and adolescents in Latin America, since currently, Instagram business accounts are set to “public” by default. Otherwise, the Latin American data protection authorities will have some work to do.

[1] BBC. (September 5, 2022). Instagram fined €405m over children’s data privacy. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-62800884

[2] The penalty is currently the highest for a Meta-owned company, coming on the heels of a 225 million euro fine against WhatsApp and one for 17 million euros against Facebook.

[3] The EDPC published its decision on September 15, 2022.

[4] EDPC. (September 15, 2022). Binding Decision 2/2022. https://edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2022-09/edpb_bindingdecision_20222_ie_sa_instagramchildusers_en.pdf

CPD: (September 2, 2022). Decision of the Data Protection Commission made pursuant to Section 111 of the Data Protection Act, 2018 and Article 60 of the General Data Protection Regulation, DPC Inquiry IN-20-7-4. https://edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2022-09/in-20-7-4_final_decision_-_redacted.pdf

[6] Irish Data Protection Commission. (September 15, 2022). Data Protection Commission announces decision in Instagram Inquiry. https://dataprotection.ie/en/news-media/press-releases/data-protection-commission-announces-decision-instagram-inquiry

[7] Independent. (September 5, 2022). Instagram fined €405m by Irish regulator for breaching children’s privacy rights. https://www.independent.ie/business/technology/instagram-fined-405m-by-irish-regulator-for-breaching-childrens-privacy-rights-41962706.html

[8] Le Monde. (September 5, 2022). Irish data watchdog fines Instagram €405 million over children’s privacy. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/pixels/article/2022/09/05/irish-data-watchdog-fines-instagram-405-million-euros-over-children-s-privacy_5995936_13.html

[9] Under article 21 of the LOPDP, in addition to the right of children and adolescents not to be the subject of a decision based solely or partially on automated assessments, sensitive data or data of children and adolescents cannot be processed except with the express authorization of the data owner or their legal guardian.

[10] National Council for Intergenerational Equality. (2020). Public policy for a safe internet for children and adolescents. https://www.igualdad.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2020/09/política_publica_internet_segura.pdf

Rafael Serrano and Christian Razza
Associates at CorralRosales
rserrano@corralrosales.com

74.1% of the investment in Ecuador comes from national capital – El Comercio

Recorte de El Comercio de un artículo en el que se menciona a Andrea Moya, socia de CorralRosales

DETAILS

DATE: 11-10-2022

CORRALROSALES IN THE NEWS:

-Andrea Moya

MEDIA:

El Comercio

In the first quarter of 2022, Ecuador approved 27 investment contracts. Of these, 74.1% corresponds to national investment and 25.9% to mixed investment (national and foreign). According to the Ministry of Production, Trade, Foreign Trade, Investment and Fisheries, the total amount reached USD 420 million, which represents an 86% increase in local investment in relation to the same period of 2021.

The media El Comercio attended a breakfast organized by CorralRosales and Softlanding in which our partner Andrea Moya and the Undersecretary of Investment of the Ministry of Production, Marco Moya gave a talk on the subject.

As Marco Moya explains, “with the signing of investment contracts, a company commits to make new investments and the State provides legal certainty. This applies to any sector of the economy. The main objective is to increase production in Ecuador and generate employment”.

It is important to know that these contracts grant tax incentives to new investments, such as a five-point reduction in the income tax rate, exemption from foreign exchange tax (ISD) and foreign trade taxes on the import of raw materials and capital goods necessary for the execution of the investment.

Our partner, as an expert in investment contracts, explains that “these benefits and incentives apply for the duration of the contract and must not exceed the amount of the investment”. “The agriculture, livestock, forestry and fishing, manufacturing, and transportation and storage sectors account for 91% of the investment contracts approved in the first quarter of 2022,” she adds.

If you want to read the full article, click here.

SENADI refuses to register mark in Class 41 on the ground that it would affect Netflix´s rights – WTR

Recorte del artículo "El SENADI deniega el registro de la marca en la clase 41 por afectar a los derechos de Netflix", escrito por Katherine González, asociada de CorralRosales, para el medio WTR

DETAILS

DATE: 12-09-2022

PROFESSIONALS IN THE NEWS:

-Katherine González

MEDIA:

WTR

“In the opposition proceeding against the application for the trademark CHOLOFLIX in class 41, the National Service of Intellectual Rights of Ecuador (SENADI) has considered that the trademark was not registrable because there is a risk of confusion or association on the part of consumers. This is due to the existence of the trademark NETFLIX of Netflix Inc in class 41″. This is how the article written by our associate Katherine González H. for WTR opens -wherein she covers the reasons behind the decision.

The process began on May 21, 2020, when a natural person applied for registration of the trademark CHOLOFLIX for services in class 41, specifically: “education; training; entertainment; sporting and cultural activities; supply of films, not downloadable, by means of video on demand services; supply of television programs, not downloadable, by means of video on demand services; distribution of films; entertainment services.

Netflix, in the face of this, filed an opposition based on the trademark NETFLIX, which covers the following aspects of class 41:

“Entertainment services; information on entertainment activities; production of films other than for advertising; provision of films and television programs that are not downloadable via video on demand streaming services”, among other.

In addition, the entertainment company NETFLIX claimed that it was already known to a lot of population. In the counterclaim, the plaintiff replied on February 8, 2021, claiming that NETFLIX was a weak mark and therefore did not have distinctive character. It requested, therefore, that the opposition be dismissed and the application be granted.

On July 18, 2022, SENADI issued Resolution No. 2000254, whereby it accepted the opposition and rejected the registration of the trademark CHOLOFLIX. It also pointed out that it would be difficult for consumers to easily differentiate the services offered with similar names and that they could consider that the conflicting services were provided by the same company; therefore, there was a risk of confusion or association.

Our associate has added the following comment in conclusion: “although SENADI accepted NETFLIX’s opposition and rejected a detailed analysis of the similarities between the trademarks, as well as the identity of the services in question, there was no analysis – nor mention – of the well-known character of the NETFLIX trademark alleged by NETFLIX. Although SENADI has improved its analysis in trademark oppositions compared to previous years, the motivation is still insufficient as it does not make an exhaustive assessment of all the arguments raised by the parties. This assessment is especially important in opposition proceedings, where third party rights are at stake.”

If you want to read the full article (under registration), click here.

New Regulations to the Public Procurement law

Through Executive Decree No. 458 of June 18, 2022, published in Official Gazette Supplement 87 of June 20, 2022 (“RGLOSNCP“), the new Regulations to the Law of the National Public Procurement System were issued, effective as of August 20, 2022. 
 
The main changes concerning the previous regulation are the following:

  1. The National Public Procurement Service (“SERCOP“) must manage the data and information of the “COMPRASPÚBLICAS” Portal under open data and information concepts.
  2. In addition to the physical procurement file, contracting entities shall maintain an electronic file.
  3. Under no circumstances the electronically signed documents may be required to be printed. Once printed, they lose their legal validity.
  4. To encourage and promote local and national participation, a margin of preference must be granted to local and national suppliers. Therefore, SERCOP should establish the margins for each public procurement procedure.
  5. Disclosing the beneficial owners shall not be required in small-amount procedures.
  6. The supplier selection procedures for electronic and inclusive dynamic catalogs do not require the Relevance Report by the Comptroller General of the State, which aims to determine the relevance and favorability of the procurement according to the law.
  7. Suppliers interested in being included in the electronic and inclusive dynamic catalog may do so on a permanent and uninterrupted basis throughout the term of the respective framework agreement.
  8. The reverse auction procedure is divided into electronic reverse auctions and simplified reverse auctions. In the first case, the economic bids must be qualified prior to bidding. In the second, the qualification will be done a posteriori.
  9. Rules are established to apply the disqualifications set forth in Article 62 of the Organic Law of the National Public Procurement System (“Law“).
  10. Subcontracting is defined as “…the contractual practice under which the contractor, entrusts to another, called subcontractor, the performance of a part of the contract, prior authorization of the contracting entity.”
  11. Subcontracting shall not be considered as “…the acquisition or leasing of raw materials, inputs or indispensable means necessary for the development of the contractor’s activities to comply with the object of the contract…”
  12. The application of the price adjustment system shall be based on the principle of the economic equilibrium of the contract. Such application shall only be for reasons beyond the parties’ control that were not foreseen when the contract was signed.
  13. Rules are established to determine the commencement of contractual performance, depending on the type of contract or form of payment.
  14. The procedure to be followed by contractors to request extensions of the contractual term is regulated.
  15. The procedure for the termination of contracts by mutual agreement and the content that such agreement must contain are established.
  16. In the acquisition of goods, the contractor, the receiving committee, and the warehouse keeper of the contracting entity must sign the receiving act referred to in Article 81 of the Law.
  17. SERCOP shall implement technological tools in an open and easily accessible format on public procurement subject to the Law to facilitate subsequent control by the competent authorities.

Mario Fernández - Boletín CorralRosales - Derecho Corporativo - Contratación Pública - Sector Eléctrico - Ecuador

Specialist in Corporate and Public Contracting Law
Mario Fernández, associate at CorralRosales
mfernandez@corralrosales.com
+593 2 2544144

Would you like to receive our newsletters with information like the one you have just read?
Click here and subscribe.

NOTE: The above text has been prepared for informational purposes. CorralRosales is not liable for any loss or damage incurred as a result of acting or failing to act on the basis of the information contained in this document. Any additional determined situation requires the specific opinion and concept of the firm in Quito / Guayaquil, Ecuador.

CORRALROSALES

Competition and antitrust: evaluation of regulatory barriers – Industria Legal

Foto de Ana Samudio, asociada de CorralRosales, más el logo de CorralRosales y un trozo de su último artículo en la revista Industria Legal

DETAILS

DATE: 24-08-2022

PROFESSIONALS IN THE NEWS:

-Ana Samudio

MEDIA:

Industria Legal

“The Superintendence of Market Power Control (SCPM by its Spanish initials) has analyzed regulatory provisions that could constitute regulatory barriers to entry and permanence in the market.” This is how Ana Samudio begins her latest article published in Industria Legal magazine, in which she addresses the issue of “evaluation of regulatory barriers” from the competition and antitrust standpoint.

As Samudio analyses in her article, “the Constitution recognizes the right of people to develop economic activities, individually or collectively, in accordance with the principles of solidarity, social and environmental responsibility; and the power of State intervention in economic activities to promote forms of production that ensure good living for the population and discourage those that violate their rights or the rights of nature”.

Therefore, this intervention is legitimate in the extent that a balance of these guarantees is achieved. In this way, any regulation that imposes restrictions on the entry and permanence of economic operators in the different markets must also be useful and sufficient, with the aim of always guaranteeing the public interest. They will also have to be reasonable and proportional, thus the development of efficient markets will take place.

Samudio concludes with the recommendations issued by the SCPM for the different markets:

  • “Hemp: the reasonableness of: (i) the norm that prevents natural persons from obtaining development licenses for activities associated with the production and commercialization of hemp has not been justified; and (ii) the norm that determines a minimum area for hemp cultivation; and the recommendations to the Ministry of Agriculture to review said regulations, so that the entry of economic operators in this market is not unjustifiably restricted.
  • Commercialization of automotive fuel: it was determined that the norm that requires an established network of -at least- 10 service stations to continue operating as a fuel distributor, has no technical support, therefore it constitutes an unjustified restriction to the number of economic operators that serve the automotive industry which harms competition. Consequently, it recommended the Agency for the Regulation and Control of Energy and Non-Renewable Natural Resources to remove this requirement.”

If you want to see the full video, click here.

The settlement of differences, a fast-track tax assessment

Foto de Andrea Moya con el titular de su último artículo "La liquidación de diferencias, un procedimiento de determinación tributaria abreviado" + logo de CorralRosales + foto de edificio de cristal

The process for settling differences provided for in the Internal Tax Regime Law is a fast-track tax assessment that should only be activated when the conditions established in the law are met and, if activated, the principles that regulate administrative procedures and the taxpayer’s rights should be respected.

Article 68 of the Tax Code defines the assessment capability of the Tax Authority as the act or set of regulated acts carried out to establish the existence of the taxable event, the taxpayer, the taxable base, and the amount of the tax.

Articles 107-A and following of the Internal Tax Regime Law establish that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has the power to notify the taxpayer of any differences detected in its tax returns and which generate amounts payable to the Treasury. If the taxpayer does not make the payment or justify the differences within 20 days, the IRS issues a Payment Settlement for Differences in the Tax Return, which implies a collection order for the exercise of the coercive action. 

The acts of notification and subsequent settlement of differences contemplated in the aforementioned articles are tax assessment acts, since the Tax Authority determines the existence of the taxable event, the taxable base and the amount of the tax. The process for settling differences is a fast-track assessment process; therefore, it is only applicable when the Tax Administration finds differences in the taxpayer’s returns.

According to the dictionary of the Royal Academy of the Spanish Language, difference is: “that quality or accident by which something is distinguished from something else”. Therefore, the Tax Authority can only apply the fast-track assessment process when it reaches the conclusion that there is a difference when comparing the data provided by the taxpayer in its tax returns or those declared by third parties in relation to the same taxpayer.

For example, the Tax Authority could identify a difference if the taxpayer has not applied a deductibility limit established by law in its income tax return; or, if the value declared and paid for withholding tax does not coincide with the values provided by third parties. And only if the evidence filed by the taxpayer is not sufficient to disprove such difference, the corresponding settlement may be issued.

However, there are cases in which the Tax Authority has exceeded its faculties. For example, when issuing settlements of differences based on presumptions, i.e., the Internal Revenue Service has presumed the existence of differences in the Value Added Tax rate applied to certain services, based on the activities registered by the taxpayer in the Single Taxpayer Registry.

The Internal Tax Regime Law does not allow the Tax Authority to establish differences by presumption and could not do so since it would be contrary to the nature of a direct and abbreviated assessment procedure. Therefore, the question arises, a settlement of differences issued based on presumptions made by the Tax Authority is valid? Does the Tax Authority have the power to issue a settlement of differences when the difference is presumed?  The answer is no.

The initiation of a fast-track assessment procedure without having complied with the conditions set forth in the law, breaches the principle of prohibition of arbitrariness provided in the Administrative Code and violates the taxpayer’s rights to due process and defense, recognized in the Constitution and in the Tax Code.

Faced with this circumstance, the taxpayer may exercise its right to appeal the assessment procedure – the liquidation of differences – through an administrative claim or a judicial challenge. However, within these processes the taxpayer will be obliged to rebut the presumption of legitimacy applicable to the administrative tax acts.

In conclusion, although the legislator has provided that the Tax Authority may initiate fast-track assessment procedures against taxpayers, these procedures of liquidation of differences may only be initiated when the Authority effectively determines the existence of differences, otherwise the Authority would be acting arbitrarily and, consequently, violating the taxpayer’s rights, especially his right to defense.

Andrea Moya
Partner at CorralRosales
amoya@corralrosales.com