Income Tax for Sports Betting Operators

The Executive Decree 313 issued June 27, 2024, by the President of the Republic of Ecuador regulates the Unique Income Tax for Sports Betting Operators. Below are the key points summarized:

  1. Assessment and payment of the tax: Taxpayers parties must declare and pay the tax monthly. Sports operators with tax residence in Ecuador must file an annual tax form consolidating the amounts declared monthly.
  2. Taxable Base: It is equal to the total income generated, including commissions, minus total paid prizes, provided that 15% tax was withheld from these prizes at the time of payment.
  3. Tax Rate: A flat rate of 15% applies to the taxable base.
  4. Withholding: Prizes paid by resident and non-resident operators are subject to a 15% withholding. The prize is the amount the player is entitled to when their prediction is correct, excluding the accrued forecast, i.e., the amount wagered by the player.
  5. Receipts: Resident or non-resident operators must issue sales receipts. One sales receipt per player per sporting event may be issued. Regarding withholding, one withholding receipt may be issued for all prizes awarded to the same player during the month.
  6. Implementation Period: Operators have 6 months to adjust their systems and implement the necessary mechanisms to comply with the applicable formal obligations.
  7. Non-resident Operators: Non-resident operators must obtain their Unique Taxpayer Registry (RUC). Obtaining a tax ID in Ecuador does not imply that operators have a permanent establishment in the country. However, the Ecuadorian representative must retain supporting information for 7 years.

 

Andrea-Moya-abogados-ecuador

Andre Moya, Partner at CorralRosales
amoya@corralrosales.com
+593 2 2544144

© CORRALROSALES 2024
DISCLAIMER: The previous text has been prepared for informational purposes. CorralRosales is not responsible for any loss or damage caused as a result of having acted or stopped acting based on the information contained in this document. Any additional determined situation requires the specific opinion and concept of the firm.

 

CORRALROSALES

The National Intellectual Property Rights Service (SENADI) has nullified the registration of a trademark requested in bad faith

Good faith, as a fundamental principle of the legal system, governs all areas of law, including trademark law. Under this precept, the actions of individuals are presumed to be carried out with the conviction of not harming third parties and within the framework of the law.

The registration of the trademark SAVOY TORONTO in class 30 (edible decorations for pastry and bakery products, cocoa-based beverages, chocolate-based beverages, chocolate bonbons, peanut (confectionery products based on), peanuts (confectionery products based on), cocoa, cocoa (beverages based on), cocoa (products based on), chocolate, chocolate (beverages based on), sweets, milk (cocoa with), milk (chocolate with) [drink]), was granted in 2021 under the presumption of being a good faith application, in favor of a natural person in Ecuador engaged in the marketing of food products.

The trademark was registered having fulfilled all necessary steps until the issuance of the registration certificate. However, it was not analyzed in a timely manner by the intellectual property authority, as the SAVOY TORONTO brand is one of the emblematic brands of Societé des Produits Nestlé in some countries of the region. At the time the trademark was requested, Nestlé did not have its trademark registration in Ecuador and therefore did not oppose it.

In 2022, Nestlé filed a nullity action against the SAVOY TORONTO trademark, claiming to be the legitimate creator and owner of the trademark rights, so the registration obtained by the applicant in Ecuador was made to perpetrate an act of bad faith and unfair competition, as the applicant was fully aware that it was a third party’s trademark and sought to take advantage of its fame and level of recognition among consumers.

In the nullity action, Nestlé demonstrated with convincing evidence that the request was made in bad faith, as it was practically impossible for the coincidence in the name of the trademark and the confronted products to occur as a mere coincidence, especially considering: (i) the high level of recognition of Nestlé’s brands; and (ii) that the applicant marketed products under the conflicting brands before applying for their registration in Ecuador.

Based on these grounds, by resolution No. OCDI-2024-202 of March 26, 2024, the National Intellectual Property Rights Service established that “It seems highly improbable that two different persons would have devised a distinctive sign with exactly the same terms to protect the same products, and whose registration in the Andean territory dates back to the year 2005.” and nullified the registration of the SAVOY TORONTO trademark. This resolution constitutes progress in the comprehensive protection of intellectual property rights, as the applicant’s intention in the trademark registration request was considered, not only the objective elements. The competent authority has made a correct assessment of the specific circumstances of this particular case.

 

Katherine González
Senior Associate at CorralRosales
katherine@corralrosales.com

Penalties for failure to deliver and transmit sales receipts

Resolution NAC-DGERCGC24-00000022 issued by the Internal Revenue Service (SRI) on June 6, 2024, and published in the Official Gazette 575 on June 10, 2024, regulates the penalties applicable for failure to deliver and transmit sales receipts.

It is the taxpayer’s obligation to issue sales receipts and transmit them at the time of issuance or within a maximum period of 72 hours. Non-compliance with these obligations is subject to the following penalties:

Characteristics of the taxpayer (as of the date of the offense) Failure to deliver sales receipts (RBU = US$460 for 2024) Failure to transmit electronic sales receipts to the SRI (RBU US$460 for 2024) Large taxpayer and large estates 20 RBU (US$9,200) 30 RBU (US$13,800) Special taxpayer 10 RBU (US$4,600) 15 RBU (US$6,900) Entities other than non-profits, indivisible estates, and individuals required to keep accounting 7 RBU (US$3,220) 10 RBU (US$4,600) Non-profit entities 4 RBU (US$1,840) 5 RBU (US$2,300) Indivisible estates and individuals not required to keep accounting 4 RBU (US$1,840) 5 RBU (US$2,300) Taxpayers considered small businesses subject to RIMPE regime 1 RBU (US$460) 1 RBU (US$460) Non-registered taxpayers 1 RBU (US$460) 1 RBU (US$460)

A sales receipt is considered not delivered when:

  1. The taxpayer delivers a physical receipt with an expired authorization at the time of issuance.
  2. The taxpayer delivers an electronic receipt without being authorized for issuing it.
  3. Receipts belonging to another taxpayer are delivered.
  4. Unauthorized receipts are delivered.

The transmission of electronic receipts is considered verified when:

  1. The transmission to the SRI is made within the 72-hour period.
  2. The receipts have met all the validations established for successful transmission and reception in the SRI systems.
  3. The sales receipts include the information and values of the transaction carried out.

 

Andrea-Moya-abogados-ecuador

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

© CORRALROSALES 2024
DISCLAIMER: The previous text has been prepared for informational purposes. CorralRosales is not responsible for any loss or damage caused as a result of having acted or stopped acting based on the information contained in this document. Any additional determined situation requires the specific opinion and concept of the firm.

 

CORRALROSALES

The resolution adopted in Ordinary Session No. 062 – 2024 of the Judiciary Council on May 30, 2024, does not modify the expiration of terms

The Judiciary Council, in the resolution adopted in Ordinary Session No. 062 – 2024 on May 30, 2024, extended the hours of service for the submission of requests and documents through the Electronic Judicial Management Office, to seven days a week, 24 hours a day.

While the resolution modified the hours of operation of the Electronic Judicial Management Office, it does not change the moment when judicial terms expire, as explained below: Article 77 of the General Organic Code of Processes provides:

Art. 77.-Beginning and expiration of the term. The term begins to run in a common manner, with respect to all parties, from the working day following the last summons or notification. Its expiration occurs at the last working moment of the workday.

That is, terms expire at the last working moment of the workday, which is consistent with Article 78 of the same legal body, which states that working hours are those established by the Judiciary Council.

According to Article 100 of the Organic Code of the Judicial Function, it is the obligation of all judicial function servers to fulfill the forty-hour workweek in eight-hour daily shifts. Furthermore, the workday established by the Judiciary Council is from 08:00 to 17:00 from Monday to Friday, which is consistent with Article 78 of the General Organic Code of Processes.

In conclusion, the extension of the hours of service of the Electronic Judicial Management Office optimizes judicial management in the submission of documents and requests, but does not modify the expiration of terms, which will continue to be until 17:00 on the last day.

Arguing that the expiration of terms occurs at 24:00 on the last day lacks legal and factual support, as substantiated.

 

Mateo Zavala
Senior associate at  CorralRosales
mzavala@corralrosales.com

Refund of VAT Paid in Real Estate Projects

Regulation NAC-DGERCGC24-00000019 issued on May 28, 2024, the Internal Revenue Service (SRI) established the procedure for requesting the refund of VAT paid in real estate projects.

Below, we summarize the most important points:

  1. Who can request a refund?

Those companies and individuals who have paid VAT on local acquisitions or imports of goods and services for the construction of real estate projects.

  1.  What is the amount subject to refund?

The VAT generated, declared, and paid as of January 1, 2024, which does not generate the right to a tax credit, is subject to refund.

In the case of housing projects developed for sale to third parties, the refund amount may not exceed 6.5% of the total reference cost of the project registered with the Ministry of Urban Development and Housing (MIDUVI) or SRI.

In the case of housing projects executed by individuals for their use, the refund amount may not exceed 7% of the reference cost of the real estate project, that may not exceed US$105,340 (229 SBU) per dwelling.

  1.  What is the process to obtain the refund?

The beneficiary must:

  1. Perform a pre-validation of the request in the SRI’s web system.
  2. A request must be submitted per month and per project, to which the following must be attached:

i. Certificate of registration of the real estate project with MIDUVI or with SRI.
ii. Construction enabling title granted by the Municipal Government.
iii. Pre-validation report obtained in the SRI’s web system.
iv. List of the physical and electronic sales receipts supporting the total value of VAT paid in the local acquisition or import of goods and services, directly used in the real estate project.

 

Andrea-Moya-abogados-ecuador

Andre Moya, partner at CorralRosales
amoya@corralrosales.com
+593 2 2544144

© CORRALROSALES 2024
DISCLAIMER: The previous text has been prepared for informational purposes. CorralRosales is not responsible for any loss or damage caused as a result of having acted or stopped acting based on the information contained in this document. Any additional determined situation requires the specific opinion and concept of the firm.

 

CORRALROSALES

Protecting IP rights through criminal actions: insights from a recent court ruling

DETAILS

DATE: 12-04-2024

PROFESSIONALS INVOLVED IN THE ARTICLE:

Maria Cecilia Romoleroux

MEDIA:

– WTR

  • In a recent case, counterfeit goods were released and the prosecutor ordered to close the investigation 
  • An expert was asked to assess the infringing goods pursuant to the principle of evidentiary freedom
  • Based on the expert’s report, the judge rejected the prosecutor’s request to close the case

Background 

In August 2021 a reform to the Criminal Law corrected several errors which, in practice, made it impossible to prosecute and sanction IP crimes. The minimum appraisal of seized goods was reformed (except for foreign trade cases) and a penalty of imprisonment (of up to one year) was reintroduced.

The reform also clarified several aspects to be considered in a crime (eg, the appraisal of the goods based on the price of the genuine goods and the possibility of reaching an agreement between the parties), which put an end to litigations.

Recent court ruling

In practice, although these provisions are regulated by law, certain prosecutors and judges have unfortunately not proceeded as expected. For example, in a recent case, an infringer appeared before a judge of constitutional guarantees, arguing a violation of the principle of legal certainty due to an alleged late notification by Customs, which resulted in the release of the counterfeit goods. The prosecutor hearing the case ordered that the investigation be closed, arguing that, with the release of the goods, there was no crime to prosecute.

IP crimes should be prosecuted following the criminal justice principles established in the Criminal Law. One of these principles is that of “evidentiary freedom”, which allows the parties to provide elements that may be considered as evidence, which will be subsequently assessed as to their relevance and usefulness. In other words, based on this principle, a wide range of opportunities are open to lawyers to prove that a crime has been committed – in this case, an IP crime.

Based on the principle of evidentiary freedom, an expert was requested to assess the infringing goods based on the documents and pictures in the official records. The expert’s assessment concluded that the released goods were counterfeit, which proved that a crime had been committed and should therefore be investigated.

The expert’s report was submitted to the judge, who reviewed all the documentation submitted, and rejected the prosecutor’s request to close the case. The judge also ordered that the case be brought to the attention of a higher authority within the Attorney General’s Office, stating that the investigation of a possible crime should be prioritised. 

A new prosecutor must now be appointed so that the investigation may continue and sanctions may be imposed (including a term of imprisonment of up to one year and a fine of up to $138,000).

Comment

This court ruling is important as it shows that, despite limitations in training, a lack of specialised IP knowledge and the abuse of constitutional actions, it is possible to obtain an adequate outcome by submitting documents demonstrating the mistakes made by the authorities, and by providing the judges with tools to support their decisions. 

The protection of IP rights can be achieved by using all the available mechanisms and principles established by the Criminal Law for all types of crime, as IP crimes cannot be considered as minor crimes. 

Read the article in WTR here.

This article first appeared in WTR Daily, part of World Trademark Review, in (April 2024). For further information, please go to www.worldtrademarkreview.com.

Division of the Agency for Regulation and Control of Energy and Non-Renewable Natural Resources

By Presidential Decree No. 256 dated on May 8, 2024, the Agency for Regulation and Control of Energy and Non-Renewable Natural Resources (“ARCERNNR”) was ordered to be split into three new agencies:

  1. Mining Regulation and Control Agency (“ARCOM”).
  2. Electricity Regulation and Control Agency (“ARCONEL”).
  3. Hydrocarbons Regulation and Control Agency (“ARCH”).

ARCOM, ARCONEL, and ARCH will be attached to the Ministry of Energy and Mines and will regulate and control the mining, electricity, and hydrocarbon sectors, respectively.

The attributions, functions, programs, projects, and delegations established in laws, regulations, decrees, and other applicable regulations that corresponded to ARCERNNR will be assumed by ARCOM, ARCONEL, and ARCH, according to their respective sectors.

Each agency will have a board of directors consisting of: (i) the minister in charge of the sector or their permanent delegate, who will preside over it; (ii) a permanent delegate of the President of the Republic; and (iii) the national planning secretary or their permanent delegate (the “Board”).

The Board will appoint the executive director of each agency, who will exercise its legal, judicial, and extrajudicial representation.

The rights and obligations acquired by ARCERNNR will be transferred to the new agencies according to their respective sectors. In the case of contractual obligations, if it is not possible to identify the specific sector, they will be transferred to ARCONEL.

The split of ARCERNNR must be completed by August 8, 2024.

 

carlos-torres

Carlos Torres, senior associate at CorralRosales
ctorres@corralrosales.com
+593 2 2544144

DISCLAIMER: The previous text has been prepared for informational purposes. CorralRosales is not responsible for any loss or damage caused as a result of having acted or stopped acting based on the information contained in this document. Any additional determined situation requires the specific opinion and concept of the firm.

 

CORRALROSALES

Customs Codes for applying 0% VAT rate and Excise Tax exemption on imports

The Customs Authority (SENAE) issued Bulletin 71-2024 on April 12, informing foreign trade operators of the codes to be applied in the import of the following goods to avoid the payment of VAT and Excise Tax:

1.    Unmanned aerial vehicle (Drone)

Drones or unnamed aerial vehicles do not meet the definition of airplanes, light aircrafts, and helicopters; therefore, the import of this goods is not subject to Excise Tax.

When importing this type of goods, the release code 5779 must be included in the customs declaration.

2.    Animals for human consumption

The import of purebred breeding stock is taxed at 0% VAT rate when destined for human consumption at the end of their productive cycle, being slaughtered and commercialized as meat.

When importing this type of merchandise, the release code 0613 must be included in the customs declaration.

3.    Electric vehicles

The import of electric vehicles for private use, public transportation, and cargo is taxed at 0% VAT rate and is not subject to Excise Tax, provided they are duly homologated and registered by the National Transit Authority.

Electric vehicles are defined as those powered solely by electric energy sources and which battery charge uses exclusively this type of energy, producing zero direct polluting emissions. Those with self-generation systems with an internal combustion source, are not considered electric vehicles regardless of their configuration.

To apply the 0% VAT rate, the release code 0753 must be included in the customs declaration. And, to avoid the payment of Excise Tax, the code 5774 must be included.

If the releasing codes have not been registered during the import, the importer is entitled to request a refund of the amounts paid for these taxes.

In the following link you can review the complete text of the Bulletin: LINK

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

 

Fernanda Inga, senior associate at CorralRosales
finga@corralrosales.com
+593 2 2544144

DISCLAIMER: The previous text has been prepared for informational purposes. CorralRosales is not responsible for any loss or damage caused as a result of having acted or stopped acting based on the information contained in this document. Any additional determined situation requires the specific opinion and concept of the firm.

 

CORRALROSALES

Regulations to the Mediation Center of the Attorney General’s Office

By Resolution No. 036 of February 28, 2024, published in Official Registry 521 on March 19, 2024, the Attorney General of the State issued the new Regulations to the Mediation Center of the Attorney General’s Office (the “Regulations”).

The key points of the Regulations are summarized below:

1.    The Mediation Center (the “Center”) of the Attorney General’s Office (“PGE”) will exclusively provide its services for the resolution of conflicts between: (i) public entities; (ii) public and private entities; (iii) public entities and individuals; and (iv) private entities exercising public activities by delegation, concession, authorization, or financing, and entities or individuals.

2.    The Mediation Advisory Board (the “Board”) has been established. It will consist of the Attorney General of the State or his delegate, the Legal National Director of PGE, and the Center Director. The Attorney General of the State will chair the Board.

3.    The Board is empowered to issue: (i) interpretative resolutions of the Regulations, (ii) amendments to the Regulations, and (iii) guidelines, instructions, and manuals for the Center’s operation.

4.    PGE will only call upon external mediators when: (i) the case is exceptionally complex; (ii) the parties require assistance in understanding the conflict and its potential solutions due to the technical and specialized nature of the case; (iii) there is a high workload; or (iv) if there is only one mediator in any of the PGE offices and that mediator has recused himself.

5.    Legal advisors may accompany the parties during mediation hearings. However, the mediator has the discretion to determine how they will participate.

6.    Mediation is confidential unless the parties agree otherwise.

7.    The parties may agree to conduct all or part of the mediation process through electronic means.

8.    Mediation procedures will be limited to a maximum of two years, which can be extended up to 180 days upon the parties’ request and the Center Director’s approval.

9.    If the agreed amount is over US$5,000.00, the paying party must confirm that the funds used to fulfill the obligation are legal.

10.    The parties may request to reopen a mediation process if it ended without agreement or with partial agreement.

11.    Mediation processes initiated before the Regulation’s effective date will continue under the previous regulation.

Mario Fernández, associate at CorralRosales
mfernandez@corralrosales.com
+593 2 2544144

DISCLAIMER: The previous text has been prepared for informational purposes. CorralRosales is not responsible for any loss or damage caused as a result of having acted or stopped acting based on the information contained in this document. Any additional determined situation requires the specific opinion and concept of the firm.

 

CORRALROSALES

Suspension of the working day

On April 17, 2024, Executive Decree No. 226 was issued, which establishes:

1.    To suspend the working day for the public and private sector on April 18 and 19, 2024.

2.    That the public sector recovers its working day through an additional hour during the subsequent working days.

3.    That the private sector, by mutual agreement between the employer and the employee, determines how to execute the workday and compensate it.

Edmundo Ramos

Edmundo Ramos, partner at CorralRosales
eramos@corralrosales.com
+593 2 2544144

 

María Victoria Beltrán, associate at CorralRosales
mbeltran@corralrosales.com
+593 2 2544144

DISCLAIMER: The previous text has been prepared for informational purposes. CorralRosales is not responsible for any loss or damage caused as a result of having acted or stopped acting based on the information contained in this document. Any additional determined situation requires the specific opinion and concept of the firm.

 

CORRALROSALES