Chile: Update on preferential tax regimes

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Chile: Update on preferential tax regimes

Sponsored by

sponsored-firms-pwc.png
chile-focus-on-tp.jpg

Tax Reform Law 20.780 of 2014 introduced Article 41, letter H to the Chilean Income Tax Law, setting new criteria in order to determine whether a preferential tax regime was characterised for Chilean tax matters.

Since 2003, the characterisation of a preferential tax regime in Chile was entrusted to a fixed blacklist of 39 tax haven jurisdictions based on the OECD report of 1998, 'Harmful Tax Competition: an Emerging Global Issue', and its 2000 update. The aforementioned blacklist was issued by the Chilean Ministry of Finance (Decree 628 of 2003) and was relevant regarding certain international transactions, triggering the application of special rules when such transactions were performed involving a tax haven (i.e. long arm capital gain rules, thin capitalisation rules, royalty payments and remuneration for services).

Tax Reform Law 20.780 of 2014 introduced Article 41, letter H to the Chilean Income Tax Law, setting new criteria in order to determine whether a preferential tax regime was characterised for Chilean tax matters. According to such provision, a jurisdiction or territory would be deemed as having a null or preferential tax regime, when at least two of the following requirements were met: (a) its effective tax rate for foreign income is less than 17.5%; (b) the jurisdiction has not entered into an agreement with Chile for the exchange of information for tax purposes; (c) legislation of the jurisdiction does not provide for transfer pricing rules, which substantially comply with OECD recommendations; (d) the jurisdiction does not have the conditions to be considered as compliant or substantially compliant with OECD international standards in matters of transparency and exchange of information for tax purposes; (e) the jurisdiction maintains preferential tax regimes that do not follow OECD standards; and/or (f) the jurisdiction only impose taxes on domestic source income. Article 41, letter H allows taxpayers to apply before the Chilean Internal Revenue Service for a specific pronouncement, confirming whether a jurisdiction would be deemed as having a preferential tax regime as per the requirements set forth above.

Henceforth, since 2014, Chile has held two different rules in order to determine whether a jurisdiction would be deemed as having a preferential tax regime: one that provided a specific list of tax havens, and another that required an analysis of the requirements listed above.

Law 21.047 of November 23 2017 indirectly repealed the blacklist established by the Ministry of Finance and, as of December 1 2017, the characterisation of a preferential tax regime was entrusted solely to Article 41, letter H.

The Chilean Internal Revenue issued a preliminary list of possible preferential regimes in December 2017 (Resolution 124 of 2017) that included 150 preferential tax regimes. In July 2018, an updated list was issued by the tax authority (Resolution 55), reducing the list from 150 to 147 preferential regimes. Uruguay and Panama were excluded from the list, as both jurisdictions signed the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters (MAAT) and introduced amendments to their internal tax legislation following BEPS recommendations.

The preferential tax regimes list is expected to be updated periodically, at least once a year, according to the Chilean Internal Revenue Service. This matter should be closely monitored as countries continue to adapt to new standards and trends on international taxation and transparency.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

A lack of commitment from major jurisdictions and the associated compliance burden are obstacles facing the OECD initiative
Richard Gregg is no longer fit and proper to be a tax agent, said the TPB; in other news, MHA completed its acquisition of Baker Tilly South-East Europe
Recent Indian case law emphasises the importance of economic substance over mere legal form in evaluating tax implications, say authors from Khaitan & Co
PepsiCo was represented by PwC, while the ATO was advised by MinterEllison, an Australian-headquartered law firm
Three tax experts dissect the impact of a 30% tariff that has shaken up trade relations between South Africa and the US
Awards
ITR is delighted to reveal all the shortlisted nominees for the 2025 Americas Tax Awards
As we move into an era of ‘substance over form’, determining the fundamental nature of a particular instrument is key when evaluating the tax implications of selling hybrid securities
It stands in stark contrast to a mere 1% increase in firmwide revenue since last year
It follows a court case concerning a Freedom of Information request lodged by the founder of a software company
After years of deafening silence, the UK tax authority is taking overdue action against corporates that fail to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion
Gift this article