Chile

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Chile

Víctor Manuel Avilés

Larrain y Asociados Abogados

Juan Manuel Baraona

Baraona Abogados

Jaime Carey

Carey

María Javiera Contreras

EY

Pedro Deutsch

Cariola Díez Pérez-Cotapos

Felipe Espina

EY

Carolina Fuensalida

Fuensalida y Del Valle

Osiel González

EY

Pablo Greiber

EY

Sergio Illanes

Baker McKenzie

Alberto Maturana

Baker McKenzie

Macarena Navarrete

EY

Jessica Power

Carey

Soledad Recabarren

Recabarren & Asociados

Francisco Selamé

PwC

Lisandro Serrano

Serrano Abogados

Mario Silva

PPU

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

After joining Milbank from Akin Gump, the fund tax specialist discusses sponsor demand, practice building, and the tax challenges facing asset managers
Partner payouts could also be reduced by a fifth, it has been reported
There is no logical reason not to extend an exemption from EU CFC rules to multinationals headquartered in side-by-side jurisdictions, USCIB said
While rarely the sole driver of a combination, tax is becoming an increasingly important part of firms' efforts to keep up with client expectations
New research, which suggests LLMs can silently corrupt complex documents, should alert tax and legal teams relying on AI to handle iterative drafting and compliance workflows
Maintaining increased funding for HMRC is a ‘high possibility’ if he becomes PM, ITR has also heard
Awards
ITR is delighted to reveal all the shortlisted nominees for the 2026 Europe Tax Awards
The firm has hired a team of private client lawyers from Withers to launch in New York and Connecticut, though ITR analysis suggests it faces stiff competition
The ability of tax authorities to receive and analyse data is becoming ‘quite advanced’, warns Stuart Lang, head of EY’s compliance co-sourcing solution
The Court of Appeal ruling clarifies that treaty benefits are not abusive where transactions are commercially driven, providing greater certainty on “main purpose” anti-avoidance tests
Gift this article