Broadly speaking, global trends in politics and economics have given rise to new tax legislation and regulations across the globe and have led to increased aggressiveness of tax enforcement in many LATAM jurisdictions. Tax authorities are making strategic use of data to facilitate compliance and audit tax determinations, and are increasingly sharing this information with tax authorities in other jurisdictions. Today, tax authorities have built departments with deep expertise that aggressively pursue taxpayers. At the same time, the economic downturn has led to lower tax revenues in some LATAM countries, motivating tax authorities to maintain or even expand tax bases. They also have a strong need to collect taxes in an attempt to restore budgetary deficits caused by the economic environment. This exposes multinational businesses to more risk. Against this backdrop, characterised by uncertainty and change, it is crucial to have a clear and structured vision for controversies that might arise in all areas of the organisation. To put things in perspective, now more than ever, tax policy and risk is much more than just an issue for the tax function.
In this article, our transfer pricing (TP) specialists throughout the region highlight the most relevant aspects of each country and comment on the key recent developments affecting business in each LATAM jurisdiction. They will look at recent developments that will have a great impact on the shape and content of the international tax environment.
On December 27 2017, the Argentine Congress passed comprehensive tax reforms, which became effective as of January 1 2018. This reform introduced important changes related to TP, including the following.
Intermediary substance test
Argentine taxpayers that carry out import and export transactions of goods involving international intermediaries will have to demonstrate that the remuneration obtained by the foreign intermediary is consistent with the functions and risks involved in the transactions.
Regulation on the specific elements of proof required is still pending. This provision will apply when: (a) the intermediary is a related party of the Argentine taxpayer; or (b) the foreign counterparty in the transaction is a related party of the Argentine taxpayer.
Important changes for the valuation of exports of commodities: Sixth method
The TP rules for the valuation of commodities export transactions carried out through a foreign intermediary have been modified to take into account the standards introduced to the OECD TP guidelines because of the work developed under the BEPS Action 10 initiative.
The previous Argentine measures included a mandatory 'method' in order to determine the price as being the price as at the shipment date in certain commodity export transactions.
According to the new rules, in addition to complying with the substance test mentioned above, the Argentine taxpayer must register, with the local tax authorities, the written agreements related to such export transactions.
Only failure to comply with such recording will lead to the determination of the taxable income by reference to the quoted price as at the shipment date.
Low tax jurisdictions
The tax reform has widened the range of transactions with unrelated parties subject to TP documentation rules to encompass those based in the location of the foreign counterparty. In particular, it establishes that transactions with counterparties located in countries considered non-cooperative for tax purposes or in low-tax jurisdictions will not be considered transactions between independent parties.
Countries considered non-cooperative for tax purposes are defined as those jurisdictions that do not have a tax information exchange agreement or a tax treaty signed with Argentina, or despite having this kind of agreement, the exchange of information has failed. In addition, low-tax jurisdictions are those countries or tax regimes that are determined as having a maximum corporate income tax rate lower than 60% of the Argentine corporate income tax.
Companies having transactions with parties located in a non-cooperating or low or no tax jurisdiction may need to analyse the consequences of those transactions from an Argentine TP standpoint, and to consider the special deductibility rules, and exclusions from capital gains exemptions, among other things.
Advanced pricing agreements (APAs)
The tax reform introduced a regime called Determinación Conjunta de Precios de Operaciones Internacionales, that is similar to an APA programme. The conditions for accessing this regime still need to be defined.
CBC reporting penalties
The law establishes specific fines for not complying with Argentine TP documentation requirements for country-by-country reporting:
- CbC filing failure – penalties range from ARS 600,000 ($22,000) to ARS 900,000; and
- CbC notification failure – penalties range from ARS 80,000 to ARS 200,000.
Transfer pricing compliance thresholds
The new tax law delegates to the tax administration the authority to issue regulations for a minimum threshold to be considered for general TP compliance filing (that is, the TP return and a TP report).
Limitation on the deduction of interest
The law eliminates the 2:1 debt-to-equity ratio and establishes a new limit for the deduction of interest arising from financial loans. The limit is either 30% of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) or a certain amount to be determined by the executive power, whichever is higher. The limit each year will be increased by the amount unused – if applicable – in the preceding three years. In addition, if certain interest was not deductible in a given year due to the application of the limitation, it can be carried forward for five fiscal years.
The law provides exemptions from the deduction limit in certain circumstances. In addition, the limitation will not apply to situations in which it is proved that the ratio of interest to EBITDA of the Argentine borrower is equal to, or lower than, the same ratio for its economic group – in relation to debt with unrelated lenders – for the same fiscal year.
The law establishes a permanent establishment (PE) definition, which did not exist until this reform. The definition generally follows the meaning agreed in many of Argentina's tax treaties, though it includes some provisions that would need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Generally speaking, the new law can be viewed as an important stage in aligning the Argentine TP rules with the transparency and substance concepts in the taxation of international transactions. Nevertheless, certain measures under the new rules will require further clarification by the tax authorities in future guidance and regulations.
As a final point, multinational entities conducting business or planning to invest in Argentina need to be aware of the impact of these changes. Because of the importance of the modifications, taxpayers need to evaluate potential effects on their existing operations and on how their business in Argentina is organised.
Peruvian TP rules were modified beginning in 2017 in order to align them with the OECD standards. The main changes implemented relate to intragroup services and the new formal obligations related to Action 13 of the BEPS project.
The deduction of costs or expenses for services has been conditioned to the compliance of the benefit test and the disclosure of certain documentation and information to Peruvian tax authorities.
According to the new legislation, the benefit test will be deemed fulfilled when the service rendered provides economical or commercial value to the service recipient, improving or maintaining its commercial position. The deduction of costs or expenses for the service received will be determined on the basis of the addition of the costs and expenses incurred by the service provider as well as its profit margin.
The intragroup services rules also include the characterisation of the 'low-value added' services, whose margin must not exceed 5% of the costs and expenses incurred by the provider. According to the law, low value added services are those that: (i) have a support nature; (ii) are not the core business of the group; (iii) do not use or create unique or valuable intangible assets; and (iv) do not imply the assumption of substantial risks by the service provider.
As for the documentation that tax authorities may require, the new rules state that it must demonstrate the effective provision of the service, the nature of the service, the need for the service, the costs and expenses incurred by the provider and the reasonable criteria for its allocation.
In addition, taxpayers will be subject to some obligations:
- Local file affidavit: for taxpayers with annual accrued income exceeding 2,300 tax units – approximately PEN 9.3 million ($2.8 million) – in respect of transactions that generate taxed income and or deductible costs or expenses. The local files for fiscal year 2017 were submitted to the tax administration in June 2018.
- Master file affidavit: for taxpayers that are part of a group if they comply with the following conditions in the fiscal year to which the report corresponds:
- If their accrued income has exceeded 20,000 tax units, which is equivalent to PEN 81 million for 2017; and
- If they have carried out transactions within the scope of application according to TP rules, and the value of their operations is equal to or exceeds 400 tax units, that is, PEN 1.6 million.
The master file for 2017 is due in November 2018.
- Country-by-country report affidavit: for taxpayers that belong to a multinational group. The last resolution issued by the National Superintendency of Tax Administration (SUNAT) confirmed that the following taxpayers are required to submit the country-by-country report if their income accrued in the fiscal year before the year of the report, according to the consolidated financial statements prepared by the parent company, exceeds or is equal to PEN 2.7 billion:
- The parent of a multinational group, domiciled in Peru; and
- Taxpayers domiciled in the country that is part of a multinational group, whose parent is not domiciled in Peru, when any of the following situations are identified:
- The Peruvian entity has been designated by the group as a surrogate parent entity; or
- One or more of the following conditions occur:
– The non-domiciled parent of the multinational group is not required to submit the CbC report in the jurisdiction of its domicile or residence;
– At the due date for the submission of the CbC file, the jurisdiction of domicile or residence of the parent company has an international treaty or decision of the Andean Community Commission in force in Peru, which authorises the exchange of tax information, but does not have an agreement in force between competent authorities for the exchange of the CbC file; or
– In cases where an international treaty or decision of the Andean Community Commission and an agreement between competent authorities is in force with the jurisdiction of domicile or residence of the non-domiciled parent of the multinational group, but a situation of non-compliance of exchange of information on a systematic basis is communicated by SUNAT to the taxpayer domiciled in the country.
Regarding the obligation to present a CbC report for Peruvian subsidiaries of multinational groups that exceed the limit of consolidated revenues of PEN 2.7 billion, it was established that this obligation would be fulfilled by the group's parent company in the jurisdiction in which it resides.
Given that Peru is still in the process of signing these agreements, there is a high probability that we will reach the date of submission of this affidavit, in November 2018, with these agreements still not in force. If this is the case, the local subsidiary will be obliged to present the aforementioned return to the tax authority.
On May 30 2018, Colombia became the 37th member of the OECD.
Colombia was invited to open accession talks in 2013. It has since been subject to in-depth reviews by 23 OECD committees and has introduced major reforms to align its legislation, policies and practices to OECD standards. This includes changes relating to labour issues, the reform of its justice system, corporate governance of state-owned enterprises, anti-bribery, trade as well as new national policies on industrial chemicals and waste management. Colombia will be the third member country from the Latin American region, joining Mexico and Chile.
As active promoters of the OECD BEPS project, we expect from the TP authorities a substantial increase in the number of audits with a higher technical level based on economic analysis of intangibles (development, enhancement, maintenance, protection and exploitation of intangibles – DEMPE – functions), economic substance of intra-group services, and business restructuring. We also expect a new and more complex sanctioning regime because of the adoption of the BEPS Action 13.
In addition, several modifications to the local TP obligations were introduced.
Amounts requiring preparation and submission of TP documentation
A local report and the master file must be prepared and submitted for operations (inter-company transactions with foreign related parties and/or located in a free trade zone within Colombia, or individuals or entities in tax havens) in an annual amount of 45,000 UVT (1 UVT = $10) or above, in the taxable year subject to the documentation. This applies where the taxpayer's total assets as at the last day of the fiscal year, or its gross income, exceeds the minimum amount of 100,000 UVT or 61,000 UVT, respectively.
In addition, for transactions carried out with persons, entities or companies located, resident or domiciled in non-cooperating jurisdictions of low or zero taxation or preferential tax regimes, the local report should be prepared and submitted for those types of transactions that have an annual cumulative amount of 10,000 UVT or above for the taxable year subject to the documentation. This applies regardless of the amount of the total assets or gross income of the taxpayer.
Master file – preparation and submission
The obligation to prepare and submit the master file starts for the fiscal year 2017 only for those taxpayers that pay income tax and complementary taxes and are also subject to preparing a local report. The format of the master file requested by the Colombian tax authorities has the same structure as the OECD's, as it must include the following information on the multinational group to which the taxpayer belongs: organisational structure, business description, intangibles, financial activities, and tax and financial positions.
CbC report – preparation and submission
The CbC report obligation started for the fiscal year 2016, and the relevant decree includes a detailed description of: i) the taxpayers that must prepare and submit it; and, ii) the information that must be included in the report in order to comply with the assumptions indicated in Point 2 of Articles 260-5 of the Colombian Tax Statute. In general terms, the CbC report must contain the following information for each of the jurisdictions in which the multinational group operates: consolidated revenues, profit or loss before income taxes, income tax paid and accrued, stated capital, accumulated earnings, number of employees, and tangible assets other than cash and cash equivalents.
Dates for the submission of the TP documentation
By September 2018, Colombian taxpayers are obliged to submit, on the same date:
- The local report;
- The master file; and
- The TP informative return for the fiscal year 2017.
The filing date varies depending on the last digit of the taxpayer's tax ID number, excluding the verification digit.
Colombian taxpayers that are not themselves obliged to prepare a CbC report for the 2017 financial year, but that belong to a multinational group that has the obligation to do so abroad, must still submit a TP informative return. Within this return, which must be submitted by September 2018, the taxpayer must provide the name, address and tax ID number of the multinational entity. If the Colombian headquarters of an enterprise is obliged to prepare the CbC report, or if a local taxpayer has been designated by its headquarters to prepare and submit this report, the compliance dates vary depending on the last number of the taxpayer's tax ID minus the verification digit.
During late 2017 and early 2018, Guatemalan TP topics under discussion have included:
- The Transfer Pricing Study Technical Guide issued by the Superintendence of Tax Administration (SAT) that requires the inclusion of some information about the group, as defined for the master file in Action 13 of the BEPS Action Plan. The SAT also requires the inclusion of Table 2 of the country-by-country (CbC) report. However, the master file and the CbC report per se, as described in Action 13, are not required;
- In formal and mandatory requirements for the filing of the 2016 and 2017 TP study (TPS) submitted in mid-2018, the SAT has specifically pointed out each section as detailed in the template provided in the above-mentioned guide. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that taxpayers implement this template to provide details of their Guatemala TPS;
- Capital adjustment formulas have been established by the SAT. The formulas vary depending on the type of controlled transaction under analysis (either sales or cost of goods sold);
- In the case of the so-called sixth method for evaluating related imports and exports of commodities, the criteria used by the SAT in the TP audits and assessments made of the 2013 TPS imply that the date of the purchase, for the import of commodities, is the date of shipment indicated in the bill of lading (BL). Also, the assessments are calculated by the SAT on a transaction-by-transaction basis without establishing an interquartile range for the fiscal year; and
- Finally, TPSs using the transactional net margin method have been challenged by the SAT, excluding those companies with losses and manufacturing different products than those of the taxpayer.
Some of the above criteria are stricter than those included in the law. Consequently, it is highly recommended that Guatemala subsidiaries and branches carefully define their TP positions and defence in cases of existing or future controversies.
In accordance with BEPS guidelines, specifically Action 13, Panama has incorporated in Executive Decree 390 requirements similar to the local file and master file (although not using these specific terms), being required as of fiscal year 2016. The taxpayer must provide this information upon the written request of the tax administration.
As for the CbC report, there is no requirement; however, on April 2 2018, an amendment was made to the transfer pricing informative return (Form 930) applicable for the 2018 fiscal year-end. In turn, the form requires some information to be included in the BEPS CbC report.
Among the more important aspects included in the new template for the Form 930 are the following:
- The incorporation of an annex to report the operations of intangibles carried out with related parties;
- An annex to provide the information with details of the comparables used in the analysis of the reported transactions, including the financial results and the profit indicator used; and
- A section with six questions relating to the taxpayer, as well as nine questions relating to the business group, focusing on the reported operations and the analysis used in the TPS.
Likewise, the instructions accompanying this new template indicate that the taxpayer will not be able to request extensions, or correct or replace the form.
Meanwhile, the government announced that the draft bill amending special regimes, such as the multinational corporations' headquarters regime (SEM), had been approved by the Cabinet Council and would be taken to the National Assembly for discussion and approval. This project eliminates the total exemption of taxes, and imposes an income tax rate of 5% on SEM company activities. Therefore SEM companies will be subject to the TP regime. This change came about as a result of the OECD's requirements, within the framework of compliance with Action 5 on harmful tax practices.
Finally, it is expected that the Law of the Panama Pacific Area and Ciudad del Saber will also be amended.
Despite the fact that Salvadoran legislation allows the use of the OECD guidelines, it is important to mention that during 2018, the tax administration issued the New Guide for Compliance with the Transfer Pricing Regulations. The main topics included in the new guide are: (1) adjustments to the comparable analysis; (2) regulations on the arm's-length range; (3) steps for the application of the Salvadoran TP methodology; and (4) limitations of the global analysis – a specific analysis is required for each transaction.
In recent months, the tax office has increased its audit activities, mainly focusing on intercompany transactions, and evaluating the TP documentation supporting them.
The Salvadorian government has not adopted the BEPS or any other initiatives over the past year, since it is not a member of the OECD.
The Uruguayan tax authority (DGI) continues to focus on TP issues when performing tax audits. The most common items being challenged are loss-making products or lines of business, management services received and the characterisation of the Uruguayan entity for TP purposes (ie, as a low-risk distributor).
The DGI has increasingly relied on domestic comparables over foreign ones for determining arm's-length profitability. This preference is stated explicitly in the Uruguayan 'Transfer Pricing Country Profile' which appears on the OECD website (www.oecd.org/tax/transfer-pricing/transfer-pricing-country-profile-uruguay.pdf), and which presumably was reviewed by key DGI personnel.
In relation to the BEPS Action 13, since the Tax Transparency Act (Act 19.484) was approved in January 2017, the tax authority is entitled to adapt TP requirements to the standards in the OECD's BEPS Action 13 (local file, master file and CbC report).
Local companies of multinational groups must file the CbC in Uruguay, unless the report is filed in another country with which Uruguay has an exchange arrangement. In such a case, the Uruguayan entity would be subject to certain notification requirements.
The requirement of the CbC report is in force for the fiscal years starting after January 1 2017. However, deadlines and other details have not been issued yet.
With reference to the master file, the scope of the requirements is yet to be announced by the tax authority.
The tax authority is now allowed to issue multilateral advance pricing agreements (APAs). Unilateral APAs have been permitted since the first adoption of TP rules in Uruguay. Few taxpayers have shown an interest in the procedure, with only a small number ending up reaching an agreement with the tax authority.
In line with the above, the tax authority has reformulated the TP form that is filed together with the TP report by those entities subject to filing requirements. The new version, which applies as from this year, requires very detailed information, as regards both the transactions themselves and the functional and economic analyses used.
Finally, an important development in Uruguay is that in April 2018, the Uruguayan Executive Power issued Decree 103/018, declaring that Panama could be removed from the list of countries, jurisdictions and regimes with low or no taxation for income tax purposes. The decree also sets the stage for removing Panama from that list for TP purposes if Panama complies with certain requirements.
Ecuador has witnessed a substantial increase in TP audits. In previous years, the most important audits taking place involved, among other things, exports, mainly of products such as bananas, shrimp, fish and flowers, as well as products relating to the pharmaceutical and petroleum industries.
However, the tax authorities have changed their audit target focus. Specifically, large companies, multinationals and major economic groups in Ecuador, which import substantial amounts of raw materials, and have intangible contracts and service contracts with related parties, are coming under scrutiny.
Most of these TP audits have concluded with tax assessments, requesting taxpayers to make TP adjustments. In addition, they are charged interest of 1.1% per month on past due payments and a 20% surcharge on the determined income tax.
Nevertheless, approximately 85% of the taxpayers challenge the assessments imposed by the tax authorities in the Ecuadorian tax courts. The main reason for that is that taxpayers believe the technical criteria applied by the tax authorities are not in line with the TP concepts that should be used for the fiscal year under review.
Because of these differences, taxpayers tend to use the prior assessment consultation (similar to an APA) as a valid means of securing the technical aspect of their TP analyses.
Since 2016, 90% of such analyses have been approved by the tax administration (SRI) with agreement reached with the taxpayers.
In our opinion, the prior assessment consultation has become an excellent resource for the taxpayer, specifically as regards methodology and comparables. This process has been considered useful, since one of the most difficult challenges imposed by the tax administration relates to comparables.
What are the differences between the TP audit assessment and the prior assessment consultation in Ecuador?
- The TP audit assessments provide very limited timeframes in which taxpayers can respond to questions/assessments determined by the tax administration;
- The prior assessment consultation allows for a period of up to two years, during which topics related to the consultation can be reviewed and discussed on a bilateral basis by the tax administration and taxpayers;
- The analysis performed within the prior assessment consultation process is focused on technical TP criteria;
- The prior assessment consultation provides an opportunity for open communication between the tax administration and taxpayers, enabling TP methodology proposals to be submitted, and provides for the taxpayer to receive timely and detailed knowledge of the tax administration's position and criteria used; and
- The analysis within the TP audit assessment arises as part of an income tax audit assessment, the purpose of which is to verify the accurate amount of the taxpayer's income tax.
Based on the above, the prior assessment consultation is a very good resource when applying TP methodology in transactions with related parties performed by taxpayers during a period of up to five years, which subsequently may be modified in the event of relevant changes in the taxpayer's economic situation or future changes as regards the comparables.
BEPS Actions 8 to 10 and 13 have not been formally incorporated into Venezuelan legislation. However, considering that local legislation (Income Tax Law, Article 113) establishes that for all matters not provided for in the local rule, the TP guidelines for multinational companies and tax administrations, which are approved by the OECD, will be considered part of the TP regime of the Venezuelan legislation, those rules will still be applicable.
Nevertheless, no further information has been published to date.
Silvana Blanco is a partner in the transfer pricing (TP) service team of Deloitte Argentina. She has been working in the TP department since its inception. From the beginning of the application of TP standards in Argentina, Silvana has participated actively with the country's tax administration officers.
She has more than 20 years of experience in the application of tax, economic and financial criteria in TP, including valuation analysis of intangibles, planning, business model optimisation, structuring and economic consulting. In the context of her expertise, Silvana has extensive experience in fields such as the coordination of multi-country TP assignments for multinational groups, the optimisation of tax burden, and information requests posed by tax authorities in major sectors such as the automotive, oil seed and pharmaceutical industries.
She has actively participated as a speaker in seminars and conferences at 'Bolsa de Cereales de Buenos Aires', 'Consejo Profesional de Ciencias Económicas de la Capital Federal', 'Bolsa de Comercio de Rosario', 'Asociación Argentina de Estudios Fiscales', etc.
She has written many articles in newspapers and local tax-specialised publications such as 'Ámbito Financiero', colección Errepar, the Buenos Aires Herald, World Trade Executive, etc. She is the co-writer of 'Manual de Precios de Transferencia en Argentina' (La Ley 2007).
Silvana graduated as a certified public accountant from Salvador University and holds a master's degree in strategic business administration and marketing from Universidad de Ciencias Empresariales y Sociales (UCES).
She is a member of the AAEF (International Fiscal Association) and of the Transfer Pricing Commission.
Partner, international tax and transfer pricing
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Horacio Dinice is a tax partner at Deloitte Argentina. He has engaged mainly in international tax consulting and transfer pricing (TP) matters. His experience covers a wide range of industries, but has centred on the pharmaceutical sector for many years.
Horacio is in charge of the TP practice in Buenos Aires and LATCO. He is one of the partners responsible for the international tax area. His experience encompasses advising multinational corporations on the tax implications of cross-border acquisitions/transactions and the establishment of foreign operations in countries in Latin America (Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay).
Horacio is the lead partner on over 100 documentation studies per year. He provides advisory services to numerous clients on their international and regional reorganisations.
He specialises in cross-border structuring for Argentinean and Latin American companies, and has participated in various mergers and acquisitions in Argentina.
He assists clients with the development of linked regional cross-border tax planning strategies and TP solutions; and has participated in numerous regional and global TP projects.
Awards, recognition, achievements, and publications
Horacio was a professor of tax at the University of Buenos Aires (1986 to 1992) and CEMA (2006 to 2015).
He is a frequent speaker at conferences focusing on tax and TP issues.
He is a member of the AAEF (International Fiscal Association) and a participant in the Transfer Pricing Commission.
He writes articles for various international tax publications.
He has participated in technical meetings on improvement and professional development in other countries, and presents advanced training courses organised by the company for the firm's professional personnel.
Professional qualifications and affiliations
He is a certified public accountant, and graduated in 1986 from the School of Economic Sciences of the University of Buenos Aires.
Partner transfer pricing
Tel: +51 1 2118585
Jenny Morón is a partner with Deloitte Peru. She has 15 years of transfer pricing (TP) experience. In addition to being an expert in the development of TP technical studies, she is proficient in the realisation of TP planning and valuation in a wide range of operations of varying complexity. Additionally, she has participated in the development and implementation of share service centres and in various TP regulations cases.
Jenny holds a graduate degree in economics from Pontificia Universidad Católica del Peru. She has also undertaken TP specialisation studies organised by Deloitte & Touche in the US.
Her clients include:
Jenny speaks Spanish and English.
National managing partner (CEO) Tax and legal managing partnerGuatemala and El SalvadorLATCO tax and legal risk leaderLATCO BPS risk leaderTax and legal partner
Tel: +502 2384 6532 Mobile: +502 5202 email@example.com
Byron Martinez is the national managing partner (CEO) for Deloitte Guatemala and El Salvador.
He is also the tax and legal managing partner for both countries.
Byron contributes to the LATCO cluster organisation as functional risk leader (tax, legal and BPS).
Byron has 28 years of experience as a tax and transfer pricing (TP) advisor. He has developed extensive experience in providing multinational clients with the following services: mergers and acquisitions; TP compliance and consulting; tax compliance and consulting; tax controversy; strategic tax planning; outsourcing of the tax function and statutory accounting processes; project finance-related tax planning; and local employee and expatriate planning and compliance.
Byron has also provided consulting services in applying government incentives such as drawback, export, free zones and bonded warehouses. His industry experience covers banking and finance, consumer business, oil and gas, utilities, telecom, services, manufacturing, transportation, real estate, exporting, and free trade zones.
Career milestones and achievements
He has been in charge of the tax quality risk regulation function for Guatemala and El Salvador since he joined Deloitte in 2002 in the post-Sarbanes Oxley Act arena.
He was director of independence and ethics officer for Guatemala and El Salvador from 2010 to 2017.
He joined the LATCO and DTTL global tax and legal QRR review teams in tax practice reviews in Mexico (2007), Uruguay (2008), Peru (2013), and Argentina (2008 and 2014 – leader).
He was named LATCO tax risk leader in January 2015 and LATCO BPS risk leader later that year.
He is a member of the quality work-stream team appointed by the Americas steering committee for BPS/tax integration.
He was named Deloitte Guatemala and El Salvador CEO in June 2017.
He was appointed Guatemala and El Salvador tax and legal managing partner in December 2017.
Central America Team: PanamáDirector, international tax and transfer pricing
Tel: +507 303 4100
Rosemari Cordero is the leader of the transfer pricing (TP) practice at Deloitte in Panama, with more than 20 years of experience providing tax advisory services.
She started her career at Deloitte Venezuela in outsourcing. One year later, she took up an opportunity in tax compliance to work on tax planning, due diligence, international tax consulting and TP.
She has experience in providing the following services: TP documentation reports for a wide range of companies in different sectors such as chemicals, consumer, pharmaceuticals, insurance, financial, advertising, etc; acting in TP audits, including preparing defence arguments; participating in TP cases at the first decision of the Tax Court stage in Panama; and designing tax structures based on international tax and TP rules.
Rosemari has published several articles on TP and has spoken frequently at TP conferences.
Rosemari is a certified public accountant – Universidad Católica Andrés Bello, Caracas, Venezuela.
She has a master's degree in business tax management – Universidad Metropolitana, Caracas – Venezuela; and has a certificate from the International Tax Centre (ITC) Leiden, Latin America (2016).
Rosemari is a member of the International Fiscal Association.
Felipe Prado is a senior manager in the transfer pricing (TP) practice of Deloitte Uruguay. He has been working in different areas of Deloitte's tax department since 2004. During this period he has accumulated substantial experience in various advisory services for foreign companies: tax compliance, local and international tax planning and TP.
His experience in TP projects includes planning projects, project documentation and also the defence role in tax audits. He has received extensive training locally in the tax area, while also participating in several TP courses in Uruguay and abroad.
He has written many articles in newspapers and local tax-specialised publications. He has participated as an International Fiscal Association (IFA) branch reporter in connection with the subject 'Assessing BEPS: origins, standards, and responses' at the IFA 2017 Rio de Janeiro Congress.
Felipe graduated as a certified public accountant from the University of the Republic of Uruguay and is a CFA charterholder (2014).
|Iliana T Salcedo S|
Partner, transfer pricing
Tel: +58 (212) 206 8778; +58 (212) 206 8749
Iliana Salcedo is a certified public accountant. She holds a master's degree in tax management. Iliana has more than 19 years of experience providing tax technical advisory services in transfer pricing (TP) matters. She contributes to the development of Deloitte's Andean region TP practices.
She has wide experience in the preparation and review of TP documentation in different industry sectors, eg, automotive, pharmaceutical, basic materials, mining, chemicals, and services, among others.
She has been actively involved in the development of projects for documenting and designing TP policies, strategies and structures for multinational groups.
She has experience in preparations for the defence of TP audits in Venezuela.
Iliana has participated as a speaker in various TP regime-related conferences in the Andean region.