Chile: New instructions regarding provisional withholding on capital gains

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: New instructions regarding provisional withholding on capital gains

pelegri.jpg

bullemore.jpg

Loreto Pelegrí


Javiera Bullemore

In May 2015 the Chilean IRS issued three new resolutions (No. 42, 43 and 48) which establish the procedures that shall be followed by withholding agents in order to be released or become subject to a lower withholding obligation upon the transfer of certain assets. These resolutions imply great news for foreign investors, as they make possible the elimination or reduction of the economic burden that the provisional withholding represented in many cross-border transactions, in cases where no additional tax (withholding tax) was actually triggered or lower rates were applicable.

The current withholding provisions set forth by article 74 No.4 of the Chilean Income Tax Law were introduced by Law No. 20.630 of September 2012.

Regarding the transfer of Chilean shares or quotas held by an entity not domiciled norr resident in Chile, such provision establishes that, as a general rule, the acquirer of Chilean shares or quotas shall perform a provisional withholding which shall be declared and paid to the Chilean Treasury within the first 12 days of the month following the transaction.

The provisional withholding shall be performed with different rates depending if the capital gains are subject to the general tax regime, or to the first category tax (corporate tax) as a sole tax, and depending on whether or not it is possible to determine a capital gain as a result of the transaction.

The law establishes that exceptionally, withholding agents may be released of performing the relevant withholding, if they are able to prove, by the procedure established in a resolution by the Chilean IRS , that: (i) the relevant additional tax was duly paid by the beneficiary of the income; (ii) the income obtained constitutes a nontaxable or exempted income; (iii) a tax loss was triggered as a result of the transaction; or (iv) no additional tax or a lower rate shall be applied due to the application of a double tax treaty (DTT).

Thus, until the issuance of such resolution, in cases where – as a result of the transfer of the Chilean shares or quotas – a tax loss was triggered for the transferor, or a lower tax rate was applicable due to the application of a DTT, the payer or acquirer of the shares or quotas was obliged to perform the provisional withholding anyway, even though no capital gains were obtained by the foreign transferor, or a lower rate was applicable.

In such cases, the transferor or beneficiary of the income supported the economic burden of the provisional withholding, being entitled to request the refund of the amounts provisionally withheld in excess during April of the year following the transaction.

This problem was solved by Resolution No. 42, 43 and 48 which gave applicability to the provisions of Article 74 No.4 of the Chilean ITL, by establishing the procedure that shall be followed by the withholding agents in order to be released from their withholding obligations in the cases previously mentioned, or to perform the withholding with a lower rate, as the case may be.

Loreto Pelegrí (loreto.pelegri@cl.pwc.com) and Javiera Bullemore (javiera.bullemore@cl.pwc.com)

PwC

Tel: +562 29400155

Website: www.pwc.cl

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The controversial deal will allow US-parented groups to be carved out from key aspects of pillar two
Awards
ITR invites tax firms, in-house teams, and tax professionals to make submissions for the 2027 World Tax rankings and the 2026 ITR Tax Awards globally
Pillar two was ‘weakened’ when it altered from a multinational convention agreement to simply national domestic law, Federico Bertocchi also argued
Imposing the tax on virtual assets is a measure that appears to have no legal, economic or statistical basis, one expert told ITR
The EU has seemingly capitulated to the US’s ‘side-by-side’ demands. This may be a win for the US, but the uncertainty has only just begun for pillar two
The £7.4m buyout marks MHA’s latest acquisition since listing on the London Stock Exchange earlier this year
ITR’s most prolific stories of the year charted public pillar two spats, the continued fallout from the PwC Australia tax leaks scandal, and a headline tax fraud trial
The climbdowns pave the way for a side-by-side deal to be concluded this week, as per the US Treasury secretary’s expectation; in other news, Taft added a 10-partner tax team
A vote to be held in 2026 could create Hogan Lovells Cadwalader, a $3.6bn giant with 3,100 lawyers across the Americas, EMEA and Asia Pacific
Foreign companies operating in Libya face source-based taxation even without a local presence. Multinationals must understand compliance obligations, withholding risks, and treaty relief to avoid costly surprises
Gift this article