Definitive global law guides offering comparative analysis from top-ranked lawyers
CHAMBERS GLOBAL PRACTICE GUIDES
Corporate Tax 2026 Definitive global law guides offering comparative analysis from top-ranked lawyers
Contributing Editor Devon M. Bodoh Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
Global Practice Guides
Corporate Tax Contributing Editor Devon M. Bodoh Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
2026
Chambers Global Practice Guides For more than 20 years, Chambers Global Guides have ranked lawyers and law firms across the world. Chambers now offer clients a new series of Global Practice Guides, which contain practical guidance on doing legal business in key jurisdictions. We use our knowledge of the world’s best lawyers to select leading law firms in each jurisdiction to write the ‘Law & Practice’ sections. In addition, the ‘Trends & Developments’ sections analyse trends and developments in local legal markets. Disclaimer: The information in this guide is provided for general reference only, not as specific legal advice. Views expressed by the authors are not necessarily the views of the law firms in which they practise. For specific legal advice, a lawyer should be consulted. Content Management Director Claire Oxborrow Content Manager Jonathan Mendelowitz Senior Content Reviewers Sally McGonigal, Ethne Withers, Deborah Sinclair, Stephen Dinkeldein, Vivienne Button and Sean Marshall Content Reviewers Lawrence Garrett, Marianne Page, Heather Palomino, Alison Moore, Adrian Ciechacki and Michael Irvine Content Coordination Manager Nancy Tsang Senior Content Coordinators Carla Cagnina and Delicia Tasinda Content Coordinator Joanna Chivers Head of Production Jasper John Production Coordinator Genevieve Sibayan
Published by Chambers and Partners 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AE Tel +44 20 7606 8844 Fax +44 20 7831 5662 Web www.chambers.com
Copyright © 2026 Chambers and Partners
Contents
INTRODUCTION Contributed by Devon M. Bodoh, Joseph M. Pari and Blake D. Bitter, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP p.5
GIBRALTAR Law and Practice p.171 Contributed by ISOLAS LLP
ARGENTINA Trends and Developments p.9 Contributed by Salaberren & López Sansón
GREECE Law and Practice p.185
Contributed by Zepos & Yannopoulos Trends and Developments p.206 Contributed by Zepos & Yannopoulos
AUSTRIA Law and Practice p.17 Contributed by Schindler Attorneys
HONDURAS Law and Practice p.210
BERMUDA Law and Practice p.33 Contributed by Walkers
Contributed by Baker Tilly Honduras Trends and Developments p.225 Contributed by Baker Tilly Honduras IRELAND Law and Practice p.230 Contributed by Maples Group KENYA Law and Practice p.247 Contributed by O’Bang Law (Ong’anya Ombo Advocates LLP)
BRAZIL Law and Practice p.45 Contributed by Machado Associados Trends and Developments p.58 Contributed by ButtiniMoraes Advogados CANADA Law and Practice p.64 Contributed by BCF Business Law LLP CÔTE D’IVOIRE Law and Practice p.82 Contributed by Ofori Conseils Africa LLP Trends and Developments p.95 Contributed by Ofori Conseils Africa LLP CYPRUS Law and Practice p.101 Contributed by Patrikios Legal DOMINICAN REPUBLIC Law and Practice p.116 Contributed by Pereyra & Asociados Trends and Developments p.129 Contributed by Pereyra & Asociados ECUADOR Law and Practice p.136 Contributed by Almeida Guzmán & Asociados Trends and Developments p.150 Contributed by Almeida Guzmán & Asociados
LIECHTENSTEIN Law and Practice p.262 Contributed by Schurti Partners Attorneys at Law Ltd
LUXEMBOURG Law and Practice p.273
Contributed by ATOZ Tax Advisers Trends and Developments p.295 Contributed by ATOZ Tax Advisers
MALTA Law and Practice p.302 Contributed by Camilleri Preziosi Advocates MAURITIUS Law and Practice p.318 Contributed by BLC Robert & Associates MEXICO Law and Practice p.330 Contributed by Haynes and Boone, S.C. Trends and Developments p.346 Contributed by Martel
GERMANY Law and Practice p.156 Contributed by POELLATH
3 CHAMBERS.COM
Contents
NETHERLANDS Law and Practice p.351 Contributed by Stibbe NEW ZEALAND Law and Practice p.371
SOUTH AFRICA Law and Practice p.526 Contributed by ENS
SOUTH KOREA Law and Practice p.535 Contributed by Yulchon LLC Trends and Developments p.547 Contributed by Lee & Ko SPAIN Law and Practice p.553 Contributed by RocaJunyent Trends and Developments p.570 Contributed by RocaJunyent URUGUAY Trends and Developments p.575 Contributed by FBM Advisory
Contributed by Russell McVeagh Trends and Developments p.389 Contributed by Russell McVeagh
NIGERIA Law and Practice p.395 Contributed by ǼLEX
NORWAY Law and Practice p.409 Contributed by Ro Sommernes Advokatfirma AS Trends and Developments p.423 Contributed by Ro Sommernes Advokatfirma AS PARAGUAY Law and Practice p.428 Contributed by Mascareño Vargas – Asesores Trends and Developments p.447 Contributed by Mascareño Vargas – Asesores PHILIPPINES Law and Practice p.455 Contributed by SyCip Salazar Hernandez & Gatmaitan
USA Law and Practice p.580 Contributed by Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP Trends and Developments p.600 Contributed by Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
USA – NEW YORK Trends and Developments p.605 Contributed by Blank Rome LLP
POLAND Trends and Developments p.473 Contributed by V4 Tax sp. z o.o. PORTUGAL Law and Practice p.478 Contributed by VdA Trends and Developments p.496 Contributed by VdA
ZAMBIA Law and Practice p.612 Contributed by Mulenga Mundashi Legal Practitioners Trends and Developments p.623 Contributed by Mulenga Mundashi Legal Practitioners
SINGAPORE Law and Practice p.505
Contributed by Drew & Napier LLC Trends and Developments p.520 Contributed by DBS Bank Limited
4 CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION
Contributed by: Devon M. Bodoh, Joseph M. Pari and Blake D. Bitter, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP was founded in 1931 and has provided legal services to the largest public companies, private equity firms and financial institu - tions for more than 90 years. Widely recognised by those covering the legal profession, Weil’s lawyers regularly advise clients globally on their most com - plex litigation, corporate, restructuring, and tax and benefits matters. Weil has been a pioneer in estab - lishing a geographic footprint that has allowed the firm to partner with clients wherever they do busi -
ness. Weil’s global tax department offers comprehen - sive knowledge of how the complex and continually evolving nature of tax law plays a crucial role in some of the most significant and high-profile domestic and cross-border transactions, restructurings and other commercial matters. The firm not only understands the nature of its clients’ transactions, but also under - stands their businesses, and is a critical part of the team that works to accomplish each client’s business goals.
Contributing Editor
Co-Authors
Devon M. Bodoh is a partner in Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP’s tax department and is based in Miami and Washington, DC. Devon is the head of the firm’s international and cross-border tax practice, a member
Joseph M. Pari is co-chair of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP’s tax department and is based in New York and Washington, DC. Mr Pari has extensive experience in advising on federal income taxation of domestic
of the tax department’s leadership team and managing partner of the Miami office. He advises clients on cross-border mergers, acquisitions, spin-offs and other divisive strategies, restructurings, bankruptcy and non-bankruptcy workouts, the use of net operating losses, foreign tax credits, and other tax attributes and consolidated return matters. Mr Bodoh is recognised as a leading lawyer by Chambers USA.
and cross-border mergers, acquisitions, spin-offs, other divestiture types, restructurings, bankruptcy and non-bankruptcy workouts, acquisition financing and the use of pass-through entities in acquisitive and divisive transactions, with an emphasis on corporate tax planning, the utilisation of net operating losses, and other tax attributes and consolidated return matters. Mr Pari has been recognised as a leading lawyer by Chambers USA and Chambers Global.
Blake D. Bitter is counsel in Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP’s Tax Department and is based in Washington, DC. Mr Bitter advises clients on tax aspects of a variety of US and cross-border transactions,
including corporate acquisitions and mergers, spin-offs and other divisive strategies, restructurings, bankruptcy and non-bankruptcy workouts, and consolidated return matters.
5 CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Devon M. Bodoh, Joseph M. Pari and Blake D. Bitter, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 2001 M Street, NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 USA
Tel: +1 202 682 7060 Fax: +1 202 857 0940 Email: devon.bodoh@weil.com Web: www.weil.com
Resurgence of tax sovereignty A key theme in President Donald Trump’s executive order withdrawing the USA from the global tax deal with the OECD was tax sovereignty – not wanting to have US tax rules being dictated by extraterritorial bodies or governments, particularly if the USA saw those rules as being discriminatory or unfair from a US perspective. This perspective involves looking not only at whether such rules are written generically, but also whether they are substantively designed to tar - get primarily US enterprises (and their local subsidiar - ies). Tax sovereignty was always going to be an issue with the USA in any global tax deal, especially with the US separation of governmental powers and roles between US negotiators (in the executive branch) of a tax deal and the legislators (ie, Congress) and the dif - ficulties of passing most legislation through Congress. However, Donald Trump’s election certainly foreclosed the already slim chance of tax legislation in the USA being brought into line with Pillar Two, intensified this tax sovereignty theme and focused the USA on pro - tecting its multinational enterprises from the increas - ing implementation of Pillar Two. Tax sovereignty is not isolated to the USA with respect to Pillar Two but is also evident in other jurisdictions’ reaction to the Side-by-Side Package from the OECD and related US requests (eg, a push-down of the global minimum tax that the USA imposes on non- US subsidiaries, thus potentially reducing the local domestic minimum tax that can be collected by that subsidiary’s tax jurisdiction). This is a natural reac - tion to the Side-by-Side Package and part of the risk that the Side-by-Side Package erodes the overall implementation of Pillar Two and other coordinated
Corporate Taxation: Navigating Tax Uncertainty in a Changing Global Landscape Over the past year, the global tax landscape has been full of volatile and dramatic shifts. These shifts include the abrupt withdrawal of the USA from all agreements with the OECD regarding Pillar One and Pillar Two, the threat of retaliatory taxes (whether by tariffs, tax rates and other changes), the agreement between the USA and the remaining Group of Seven coun - tries for a side-by-side exception for US multinational groups from some of the more significant portions of Pillar Two and, most recently, the OECD’s issuance of a side-by-side package (the OECD Side-by-Side Package) that adopts such a side-by-side exception (the Side-by-Side Safe Harbor) for US multinational groups. While arguably the issuance of the OECD Side-by-Side Package provides some increased sta - bility – at least in the short term with respect to the prospect of US retaliatory taxes – its implementation, effect, and longevity are all continued areas of uncer - tainty and concern. Despite this uncertainty, there is also a remarkable amount of stability in certain tax systems. For exam - ple, despite all the changes that have occurred, and that still will occur, the basic principles and rules of corporate taxation in many jurisdictions have large - ly remained unchanged. This is due in large part to the fact that the underlying challenges, concerns, and motivations of jurisdictions in dealing with taxation remain broadly the same (even if the spe - cific approaches taken by jurisdictions differ). A few themes regarding this turbulent time in global tax are discussed below.
6 CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Devon M. Bodoh, Joseph M. Pari and Blake D. Bitter, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
global tax structures. It is also natural that this may cause a potential resurgence of tax competitiveness as US multinational groups may actually have, or are perceived as having, an advantage over non-US mul - tinational groups now that US multinational groups may have an exemption from the administrative and economic burden of Pillar Two. Continued threat of retaliatory taxes However, the issuance of the Side-by-Side Package does not end the potential for US retaliatory taxes in connection with the enactment of Pillar Two and digital services taxes. As with other OECD packages, the Side-by-Side Package requires implementation by individual jurisdictions (in particular jurisdictions that already have adopted such taxes). That takes time and there is no guarantee that most or all of the rele - vant jurisdictions will agree to adopt the Side-by-Side Safe Harbor. If there are deviations from the Side-by- Side Safe Harbor that are not favourable to the USA in such jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction implementation, that could further impact whether the USA contemplates enacting US retaliatory taxes. Additionally, the OECD Side-by-Side Package is not ideal in all respects from a US perspective, including that there is a stocktake in 2029 that may further impact the longevity of the Side- by-Side Safe Harbor. Thus, pending the outcome of future US elections and the stocktake, there remains significant uncertainty regarding the long-term viability of the OECD Side-by-Side Package. Accordingly, it is still possible that the Side-by-Side Safe Harbor is not fully implemented or is only tem - porarily implemented, thus raising the specter of US implementation of retaliatory taxes that could further destabilise the global tax system. Consistent and persistent problems of tax administration and enforcement Even though not compliant with all the specific require - ments of Pillar Two, the US system has significant features targeting base erosion, profit shifting, hybrid arrangements, information gathering and sharing and other features meant to limit tax avoidance and tax evasion. These challenges permeate the entire glob - al tax system and are present in most jurisdictions. These common, and persistent, challenges drove the very existence of base erosion and profit shifting initia -
tives, including the development of Pillar Two. As we see with the current state of the global tax system, the difficulty is how to address these persistent issues in a coherent and even-handed manner that also takes into account economic, political, geopolitical and other factors. One significant issue remaining in most tax systems is complexity. For example, Pillar Two is notoriously complex. As a result, the Side-by-Side Package’s inclusion of a Simplified ETR safe harbour (to simplify the operation of the global anti-base erosion model rules and ideally relieve multinational enterprises and taxing authorities from more complex computations) made some strides in simplifying some of Pillar Two’s application, but the system nevertheless remains highly complex. This complexity is particularly diffi - cult as countries grapple with funding for enforcement while still developing new tools (including artificial intelligence (AI)) and expertise to enforce these new rules. While some jurisdictions have already imple - mented portions of Pillar Two provisions for a couple of years, many are newly enacted and taxpayers in all of these jurisdictions generally are still figuring out the ramifications (positive and negative) of Pillar Two implementation. This challenge of complexity and tax administration is shared by the USA, which has generally reduced its funding for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and has greatly reduced its workforce over the past year. Some of these reductions may be mitigated by the increasing use of AI resources in tax administration and enforcement – for example, the IRS has greatly expanded its use of AI resources in audits and fraud detection. However, it remains to be seen just how effective AI will be in such a role and any such new technology and methods may have additional unfore - seen challenges. Stability (or lack thereof) in individual jurisdictions The USA recently enacted a new sweeping tax and spending legislation in the form of the One Big Beauti - ful Bill Act, and while it introduced a number of wel - come changes and clarifications, the vast majority of the tax-relevant changes were extending provisions from prior legislation that were going to expire, walking back certain tax incentives for energy production and
7 CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Devon M. Bodoh, Joseph M. Pari and Blake D. Bitter, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
some tax provisions related to individuals. Accord - ingly, a significant portion of US corporate tax struc - ture remained largely the same and the basic princi - ples underlying US corporate taxation are essentially unchanged. Consequently, while there certainly are developments and changes that constantly occur, the US corporate tax system has remained fairly stable pending the application of Pillar Two to US multina - tional groups. As readers go through this guide, they may find a similar situation in a number of jurisdictions. In other words, while there may be a significant and real feeling of chaos and uncertainty, there are pockets of stability that can provide guidance and relative comfort when evaluating investment in an unfamiliar jurisdiction. This guide is divided by jurisdiction before being bro - ken down further into the following sections that detail key features of each jurisdiction’s tax system: • corporate structures, residence and tax treatment; • corporate tax regime; • taxation of corporations and non-corporate busi - nesses; • taxation of inbound investments; • taxation of non-local corporations; • taxation of foreign income of local corporations; • anti-avoidance provisions; • audit cycles; and • the application of BEPS.
These sections provide important background and insights into the implications of, and important con - siderations for the form of, investment into an unfa- miliar jurisdiction. Furthermore, as users of this guide proceed on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, they can discern key points of consistency and diver - gence between different jurisdictions, thus allowing for a clear comparison when contemplating where to operate or invest. Conclusion What is clear on the global tax stage is that taxpayers and tax practitioners will continue to grapple with sig - nificant uncertainty about the global tax system and how non-tax factors (like global and US politics) will shape how jurisdictions approach a globally coordi - nated tax system. Nevertheless, this guide provides necessary information and tools to deal with such uncertainty and act with confidence when investing in and operating a cross-border enterprise.
8 CHAMBERS.COM
ARGENTINA
Brazil
Paraguay
Chile
Uruguay
Buenos Aires
Argentina
Trends and Developments Contributed by: Sebastián López Sansón, Rubén Darío Atim, Martina Pilar García Vidal
and Bautista López González Salaberren & López Sansón
Salaberren & López Sansón (SyLS) is a boutique law firm headquartered in Buenos Aires, with an es - tablished office in Uruguay since mid-2023, and a team of ten fee earners dedicated to tax and corpo - rate matters. The firm operates as a fully integrated corporate and tax practice, advising on cross-border M&A, international tax structuring, wealth planning, tax controversy and corporate reorganisations, with particular depth in technology, blockchain, venture capital and regulated industries. The firm’s corporate
and tax teams work closely together on each man - date, delivering tailored solutions for sophisticated and non-standard matters. The firm is regularly in - structed by leading US, UK and Latin American firms as local counsel in Argentina. Recent clients include The Coca-Cola Company, Kaszek Ventures, Mercado Libre, Decentraland, Kavak, Pampa Energía, HSBC Bank plc, General Catalyst, and Boston Consulting Group.
Authors
Sebastián López Sansón is a founding partner of SyLS and a leading practitioner in corporate and tax matters, with a focus on technology-driven businesses and cross-border transactions. He advises
Rubén Darío Atim is a partner at SyLS and head of the domestic taxation and tax litigation practice. With over two decades of experience, he advises high net worth individuals, family groups and corporate clients
global technology and blockchain companies, venture capital funds, international investors and ultra-high net worth individuals on complex M&A transactions, corporate reorganisations, multi- jurisdictional structures, family trusts and international wealth planning. He holds a law degree and a specialisation in Taxation from the Universidad de Buenos Aires, and studied Tax at Harvard Law School, where he was a member of the Harvard Club of Argentina. He is a member of the Argentine Association of Fiscal Studies (AAEF).
on international structuring, domestic tax planning and controversy. Rubén leads cross-border wealth structuring, multi-jurisdictional reorganisations, and trust and estate arrangements, while also handling Argentine tax litigation, M&A and complex audits. He holds a law degree and a master’s in Tax Law and Public Finance, and a specialisation in International Tax Law. He is admitted to the Buenos Aires and Tucumán bar associations and is a member of the Argentine Association of Fiscal Studies.
9 CHAMBERS.COM
ARGENTINA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Sebastián López Sansón, Rubén Darío Atim, Martina Pilar García Vidal and Bautista López González, Salaberren & López Sansón
Martina Pilar García Vidal is an associate in the international tax law practice at SyLS, advising local and international clients on cross-border transactions, tax structuring and wealth planning. She graduated top
Bautista López González is an associate in the international tax law practice at SyLS, focusing on regulatory analysis and legal memoranda related to cross-border tax structures and international tax
of her class from Universidad Torcuato Di Tella and received the Academic Excellence Award from the Buenos Aires City Bar Association’s Young Lawyers Committee. Martina advises on international tax planning, double taxation treaties, holding structures, cross-border reorganisations, taxation of passive income, and the international mobility of individuals and capital. She combines rigorous technical expertise with a strategic perspective to assess complex structures and tax risks from a comparative and international standpoint.
planning. His work covers double taxation treaties, supranational tax regulations, international fiscal standards and Argentine domestic tax matters in a cross-border context. He graduated as a lawyer from Universidad Torcuato Di Tella and has complemented his academic background with specialised training in international taxation.
Salaberren & López Sansón Arroyo 880 Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires Argentina Tel: +54 9 5278-5290 Email: info@syls.com.ar Web: syls.law/es
10 CHAMBERS.COM
ARGENTINA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Sebastián López Sansón, Rubén Darío Atim, Martina Pilar García Vidal and Bautista López González, Salaberren & López Sansón
A Shift Toward Predictability in Argentine Taxation: The 2024–2026 Reform Agenda Note: Monetary amounts are stated in Argentine pesos (ARS), with USD equivalents included only as illustra - tive references and subject to exchange rate variation. Introduction: a system built on distrust For decades, Argentina’s tax system evolved in a con - text of recurring macroeconomic instability, including sustained inflation, exchange controls and capital restrictions. In that setting, criminal tax exposure extended beyond cases of deliberate fraud. Because statutory thresholds were not adjusted in real terms for long periods, relatively modest discrepancies could trigger criminal proceedings, creating a climate of heightened enforcement risk. Over time, tax administration increasingly relied on broad audit powers, expansive reporting regimes and extensive legal presumptions. As inflation eroded the real value of fixed statutory thresholds, the practi - cal reach of criminal liability expanded, blurring the line between routine non-compliance and genuinely fraudulent conduct. This framework produced structural consequences. A significant share of household and individual savings remained outside the formal financial system, often held in US dollars or kept outside declared channels. Compliance was frequently approached defensively, in response to enforcement pressure, rather than as part of a stable and predictable regulatory environ - ment. Against this backdrop, the current administration has presented its reform agenda in an effort to recalibrate the relationship between the State and taxpayers. Law No 27,799, commonly referred to as the “Tax Inno - cence Law”, is the central legislative expression of that effort and marks an important institutional shift in Argentina’s approach to tax enforcement. A sequenced reform agenda: context before the law The Tax Innocence Law should not be read as an isolated statutory measure. Rather, it forms part of a deliberately sequenced reform process launched in
December 2023, aimed at restoring macroeconomic stability and rebuilding institutional credibility. The first phase took the form of broad legislative authorisation. Law No 27,742 (the Ley de Bases ) declared an economic and administrative emergency and enabled a sweeping reorganisation of the public sector. Although not limited to tax matters, it provided the structural foundation for subsequent reforms. From a tax and investment perspective, one of its most consequential features was the creation of RIGI ( Régi- men de Incentivo para Grandes Inversiones ), designed to attract large-scale capital projects through long- term commitments of legal, tax and foreign exchange stability for up to 30 years. This marked a broader policy shift toward predictability. Institutional restructuring followed. In late 2024, the federal tax authority was reorganised, replacing AFIP with ARCA ( Agencia de Recaudación y Control Adu- anero ) and redefining enforcement mandates. Law No 27,799: the “Tax Innocence Law” The reform can be grouped into five principal areas: • higher thresholds for criminal prosecution; • extinction of criminal liability through payment; • administrative penalties for failure to file; • new statute of limitations periods; and • creation of a Simplified Income Tax Return Regime. ARCA has described the purpose of the law as restor - ing “a framework of reasonableness and predictabil - ity”, and ending what it characterises as unjustified criminal and administrative persecution historically affecting individual taxpayers. Higher thresholds for criminal prosecution The law substantially increases the monetary thresh - olds required to trigger criminal prosecution, with the stated aim of reserving criminal enforcement for more significant cases of tax evasion. The new thresholds are as follows. • Simple evasion: the threshold increases from ARS1.5 million to ARS100 million per tax and per tax year (approximately USD70,000).
11 CHAMBERS.COM
ARGENTINA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Sebastián López Sansón, Rubén Darío Atim, Martina Pilar García Vidal and Bautista López González, Salaberren & López Sansón
• Aggravated evasion: the threshold increases from ARS15 million to ARS1 billion per tax and per tax year (approximately USD700,000). • Withholding/collection-related offences: for failure to remit withheld taxes, the threshold increases from ARS100,000 to ARS10 million per month (approximately USD7,000). • Other offences: thresholds for improper use of tax benefits, social security resources and withholding- related obligations were also updated. As a result, conduct involving amounts below the new thresholds is no longer subject to criminal prosecu - tion, although it remains administratively sanctionable. The law also provides for annual adjustment of crimi - nal thresholds based on the UVA index (an inflation- linked unit of account) beginning in January 2027, to reduce future erosion of the thresholds in real terms. Extinction of criminal liability through payment (often described as a “Silver Bullet”) The reform creates a structured regularisation mecha - nism with direct criminal law effects. If a taxpayer fully pays the outstanding tax, interest and administrative fines before a criminal complaint is filed, criminal pro - ceedings will not be initiated. Even after criminal proceedings have begun, crimi - nal liability may still be extinguished if the taxpayer pays the full amount due plus an additional 50% sur - charge within 30 business days of formal notice of the charges. This reflects a clear policy shift toward fiscal recovery over punitive enforcement. The law also clarifies that not every tax adjustment gives rise to criminal exposure. Criminal proceed - ings may not be initiated where discrepancies arise solely from technical or conceptual differences (such as disputes over legal interpretation, valuation meth - odologies or allocation criteria), provided there is no evidence of deceitful conduct or intentional conceal - ment. Consistent with this approach, ARCA is barred from filing a criminal complaint when the alleged liability is based exclusively on:
• differences in legal interpretation or technical accounting criteria; • legal presumptions unsupported by factual evi - dence; or • interpretive positions previously and transparently disclosed by the taxpayer. This distinction reinforces a central principle: criminal tax liability should require demonstrable fraud, not merely disagreement over legal interpretation. In addition, recent guidance referenced in practice (including Instruction No 1/2026) addresses the appli - cation of lex mitior (the retroactive application of the more lenient criminal law). Under that approach, where legislative amendments reduce penalties or establish more favourable thresholds or conditions, the more lenient regime should apply to ongoing proceedings, subject to the absence of a final judgment. In practi - cal terms, the increase in criminal thresholds under the Tax Innocence Law may require reassessment of cases initiated under the prior framework. Finally, this extinguishment mechanism (Silver Bullet) may be invoked only once per individual or legal entity, underscoring its exceptional character and its role as an incentive for voluntary regularisation rather than a recurring compliance strategy. Administrative penalties for failure to file Implementing guidance (referred to in practice as Guideline/Instruction 2/2026) clarifies the practical application of administrative fines for failure to file tax returns. Following the Tax Innocence Law, ARCA updated the automatic fine amounts as follows: • ARS220,000 for individuals and undivided estates (approximately USD150); and • ARS440,000 for corporations, legal entities, and permanent establishments (approximately USD300). Importantly, this guidance does not create new penal - ties. Rather, it standardises and systematises enforce - ment through a more gradual and structured proce - dure.
12 CHAMBERS.COM
ARGENTINA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Sebastián López Sansón, Rubén Darío Atim, Martina Pilar García Vidal and Bautista López González, Salaberren & López Sansón
Once a filing deadline expires, the taxpayer receives an automated reminder through the electronic tax domicile. If non-compliance continues, ARCA applies differentiated waiting periods based on the taxpayer’s compliance profile, reflecting a risk-based administra - tive approach. The fine is formally assessed and the corresponding notice issued only after those periods have elapsed – and after automated verification of the taxpayer’s status. New statute of limitations periods The reform introduces a reduced three-year statute of limitations for tax audits applicable to taxpayers who timely file and pay their returns. This abbreviated period replaces the prior five-year term and functions as a benefit for compliant taxpayers, subject to spe - cific conditions. Access to the reduced period is conditioned on the absence of a “significant discrepancy”. A significant discrepancy exists where: • the adjustment increases the tax payable by at least 15%; • the difference exceeds the statutory criminal threshold for simple evasion (legally defined in ARS; USD70,000 equivalents are illustrative only); or • the adjustment arises from the use of false or sham invoices (facturas apócrifas ), regardless of the amount involved. The implementing decree further clarifies that volun - tary amended returns filed before formal audit com - mencement are not considered for purposes of deter - mining whether a significant discrepancy exists. Consistent with the reform’s emphasis on voluntary compliance, the implementing framework also pro - vides for a 50% reduction in administrative fines where taxpayers regularise discrepancies within 45 days of the original due date. This strengthens the incentive structure behind the shortened limitations period by rewarding early correction and good-faith compliance.
Creation of a Simplified Income Tax Return Regime The Tax Innocence Law establishes an optional Sim - plified Income Tax Return Regime for resident individ - uals and undivided estates that meet certain thresh - olds (described in practice as having approximately USD700,000 in annual income and USD7 million in total assets, but legally measured in ARS). Under this regime, the following applies: • ARCA pre-loads an income tax return using information available in its systems and from third parties, based on the taxpayer’s gross income and computable deductions for the period; • the taxpayer may review, modify, confirm and file the return; • if the return is filed and the resulting balance is paid on time, the filing produces a liberatory effect, effectively closing the tax year and protecting the taxpayer against future civil or criminal actions for that period, subject to the legal exceptions; and • a presumption of accuracy applies to income tax and VAT returns for prior non-statute-barred periods, subject to the law’s conditions and the absence of a qualifying significant discrepancy in the relevant filing. The implementing regulations further clarify that, with - in the simplified regime, ARCA’s review is narrowed with respect to net worth increases under the regime’s specific rules. This is a strong taxpayer protection, but it is not absolute. The statute and implementing regulations preserve ARCA’s authority to challenge the simplified return and, where the statutory conditions are met, to displace the protection if a “significant discrepancy” is later identified. Under the regulatory framework, this may occur, among other cases, if ARCA verifies: • a tax adjustment (or an equivalent reduction of tax losses or taxpayer credits) of at least 15% relative to the taxpayer’s declared position; • a difference exceeding the monetary threshold for simple tax evasion under the Criminal Tax Regime (used here as a statutory benchmark, not neces - sarily as a criminal characterisation); or
13 CHAMBERS.COM
ARGENTINA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Sebastián López Sansón, Rubén Darío Atim, Martina Pilar García Vidal and Bautista López González, Salaberren & López Sansón
• the use of apocryphal (ie, non-genuine) invoices or other supporting documents, subject to the spe - cific corrective rules set out in the regulations. The best analogy is not a tax amnesty, but a condi - tional statutory safe harbour tied to truthful reporting and procedural compliance. In addition, a spontaneous amended return filed before ARCA’s formal intervention is excluded from the significant discrepancy analysis. A similar cor - rective mechanism applies in apocryphal document cases if the taxpayer rectifies before service of the tax assessment notice ( determinación de oficio ), and regularises the resulting tax difference and interest, as applicable. Updating reporting requirements and financial traceability In parallel with the Tax Innocence Law, the administra - tion has undertaken a significant recalibration of finan - cial reporting thresholds and automatic information reporting regimes. Although these measures do not formally amend the Tax Innocence Law, they operate alongside it and reinforce its broader objective of nar - rowing disproportionate enforcement mechanisms. Several automatic reporting obligations have been eliminated, and financial reporting thresholds have been materially increased. In particular: • the reporting threshold for transfers and credits in virtual wallets was raised to ARS50 million for indi - viduals and ARS30 million for legal entities (USD equivalents are approximate); • comparable thresholds now apply to bank trans - fers and account movements, which are reportable only above those amounts; and • fixed-term deposits and brokerage holdings are reportable only above ARS100 million for individu - als and ARS30 million for entities. Separately, ARCA increased the threshold for requir - ing customer identification in final consumer pur - chases to ARS10 million (approximately USD7,000). Transactions below that amount no longer trigger purchaser identification requirements, regardless of payment method.
Taken together, these adjustments reflect a deliber - ate narrowing of automatic reporting mechanisms, aligning tax oversight with transactions of material economic significance rather than routine financial activity. Recent legislative developments: the new Labour Modernisation Act As this article was being finalised, the Labour Mod - ernisation Act was advancing through the final stages of the legislative process, and has now been passed as Law No 27,802. Although primarily framed as labour legislation, the Act also includes significant tax amendments with practical implications for both One of the most technically significant proposed changes concerns the treatment of tax losses under the Income Tax Law. The Act provides that tax losses generated in fiscal years beginning on or after 1 Janu - ary 2025 would be adjusted for inflation based on the Consumer Price Index (IPC), measured between the closing month of the fiscal year in which the loss arose and the closing month of the fiscal year in which it is used. Exemptions for individuals: rental income and real estate transfers corporate and individual taxpayers. Inflation adjustment of tax losses Another relevant proposed amendment affecting indi - viduals under the Income Tax Law would apply from tax years beginning on 1 January 2026 and includes: • an exemption for income derived from residential leases (house-habitation rentals); and • an exemption for capital gains derived from the sale of real estate and from transfers of rights over real estate, subject to regulatory conditions. RIMI – Regime for Incentivising Medium-Sized Investments The Labour Modernisation Act also creates RIMI ( Régimen de Incentivo para Medianas Inversiones ), a nationwide incentive regime aimed at promoting productive investment by micro, small and medium- sized enterprises. The regime applies to “productive investments” made during the first two years after its entry into force, and establishes minimum investment
14 CHAMBERS.COM
ARGENTINA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Sebastián López Sansón, Rubén Darío Atim, Martina Pilar García Vidal and Bautista López González, Salaberren & López Sansón
thresholds ranging from USD150,000 (for micro-enter - prises) to USD9 million (for medium-sized enterprises). For RIMI purposes, “productive investments” include: • the acquisition, manufacture, development or importation of new depreciable movable assets (excluding automobiles) for use in productive activities in Argentina; and • construction works and infrastructure projects directly allocated to income-generating operations in the country. Financial assets and portfolio investments are expressly excluded. The principal tax benefits include: • accelerated depreciation for income tax purposes (in some cases, in one or two instalments); and • early refund of VAT credits (after three monthly tax periods). The regime is subject to strict compliance conditions, including the exclusion of taxpayers with final criminal tax convictions, outstanding tax debts or participation in overlapping incentive regimes (such as RIGI). Conclusion: toward a new tax architecture Recent legislative developments reflect an ongo - ing adjustment of Argentina’s tax framework. The Tax Innocence Law significantly raises the monetary thresholds for criminal tax offences and narrows the circumstances in which tax adjustments may give rise to criminal proceedings. As a result, criminal liability is now more closely linked to cases involving material amounts and demonstrable intent. The new Labour Modernisation Act also introduces tax amendments with practical implications for both companies and individuals. Argentina has a long history of periodic tax amnesties ( blanqueos ), through which taxpayers were invited to disclose previously undeclared assets in exchange for reduced penalties or forgiveness. Those programmes were typically temporary, politically sensitive and
explicitly framed as extraordinary regularisation win - dows. The Simplified Income Tax Return Regime follows a different logic. It is not presented as an extraordi - nary regularisation window and does not require the disclosure of previously undeclared assets. Instead, taxpayers may confirm a pre-filled return and obtain a liberatory effect for the relevant tax year. In addition, the regime may produce a stabilising effect on prior tax positions through the presumption-of-accuracy mechanism for non-statute-barred periods, subject to the legal thresholds and conditions discussed above, including the absence of a significant discrepancy in the most recent filing. Although the regime is not formally characterised as an amnesty, it may, in practice and under strict statu - tory conditions, generate effects comparable to a lim - ited regularisation mechanism: it can facilitate the use of lawfully sourced funds within the formal financial system and support economic activity, while reducing potential adverse tax consequences for non-statute- barred periods to the extent the regime’s protective effects remain available. Argentina’s Tax Innocence reform: a quick summary • Argentina’s Tax Innocence reform should be read as part of a broader shift toward greater predict - ability and proportionality in tax enforcement. • The reform raises criminal tax thresholds, narrow - ing criminal exposure to higher value cases. • It introduces an optional Simplified Income Tax Return Regime for eligible individuals, based on prefilled tax returns prepared by ARCA. • If properly filed and paid, the regime may provide a liberatory effect for the relevant tax year and support a presumption of accuracy mechanism for prior non-statute-barred periods, subject to condi - tions. • The regime is not unconditional: its protective effects may be challenged where ARCA identifies a significant discrepancy. • Although not formally characterised as an amnesty, the regime may, in practice and under strict condi - tions, operate as a limited regularisation mecha - nism by facilitating the use of lawfully sourced
15 CHAMBERS.COM
ARGENTINA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Sebastián López Sansón, Rubén Darío Atim, Martina Pilar García Vidal and Bautista López González, Salaberren & López Sansón
funds within the formal financial system and reduc - ing potential adverse tax consequences for non- statute-barred periods, to the extent the regime’s protective effects remain available. The framework also places strong emphasis on finan - cial traceability and the use of formal payment chan - nels.
16 CHAMBERS.COM
AUSTRIA
Czech Republic
Germany
Slovak
Vienna
Austria
Law and Practice Contributed by: Clemens Philipp Schindler and Mohamed Hemdan Schindler Attorneys
Hungary
Italy
Slovenia
Croatia
Contents 1. Corporate Structures, Residence and Tax Treatment p.19 1.1 Corporate Forms and Their Tax Treatment p.19 1.2 Use and Taxation of Transparent Business Structures p.19 1.3 Tests for Determining Tax Residence p.19 1.4 Applicable Corporate and Individual Tax Rates p.20 2. Corporate Tax Regime p.20 2.1 Taxable Profits p.20 2.2 Technology Investments p.21 2.3 Special Incentives p.21 2.4 Loss Relief p.21 2.5 Deduction of Interest p.21 2.6 Consolidated Tax Grouping p.22 2.7 Capital Gains p.22 2.8 Other Taxes on Transactions p.22 2.9 Other Notable Taxes p.22 3. Corporations and Non-Corporate Businesses p.23 3.1 Form of Closely Held Local Businesses p.23 3.2 Individual and Corporate Rates p.23 3.3 Restrictions on Retention of Earnings by Closely Held Corporations p.23 3.4 Taxation of Individuals on Shares in Closely Held Corporations p.23 3.5 Taxation of Individuals on Shares in Public Corporations p.23 4. Taxation of Inbound Investments p.23 4.1 Application of Withholding Taxes p.23 4.2 Key Treaty Jurisdictions for Inbound Investment p.24 4.3 Tax Authority Scrutiny of “Treaty Shopping” Practices p.24 4.4 Transfer Pricing Issues for Inbound Investors p.24 4.5 Challenges to Related-Party Limited Risk Distribution Arrangements p.25 4.6 Local Transfer Pricing Rules and OECD Standards p.25 4.7 Transfer Pricing Disputes and Mutual Agreement Procedures p.25 5. Taxation of Non-Local Corporations p.25 5.1 Compensating Adjustments p.25 5.2 Local Branches and Local Subsidiaries p.25 5.3 Capital Gains of Non-Residents p.25
5.4 Tax Implications of Change of Control p.26 5.5 Formula-Based Income Attribution p.26 5.6 Deductibility of Intra-Group Management and Administrative Charges p.26 5.7 Restraints on Related-Party Borrowing p.26 6. Taxation of Foreign Income of Local Corporations p.27 6.1 Foreign Income Exemptions p.27 6.2 Non-Deductible Local Expenses p.27 6.3 Dividends From Foreign Subsidiaries p.27 6.4 Taxation of Intangibles Developed by Local Corporations p.27 6.5 Controlled Foreign Corporation-Type Rules p.27 6.6 The Substance of Non-Local Affiliates p.28 6.7 The Sale of Shares in Non-Local Affiliates p.28 7. Anti-Avoidance Provisions p.28 7.1 Overarching Provisions p.28 8. Audit Cycles p.29 8.1 Regular Routine Audit Cycle p.29 9. BEPS p.29 9.1 Adoption of BEPS Recommendations p.29 9.2 Government Policy and Objectives Approach p.30 9.3 International Tax p.30 9.4 Competitive Tax Policy Objectives p.30 9.5 The Competitive Tax System p.31 9.6 Hybrid Instruments and BEPS Implementation p.31 9.7 Interest Deductibility and Territorial Tax Regime p.31 9.8 Controlled Foreign Corporation Reform p.31 9.9 Anti-Avoidance Rules p.31 9.10 Transfer Pricing and IP Taxation p.31 9.11 Country-by-Country Reporting and Transparency Provisions p.31 9.12 Digital Economy Businesses p.32 9.13 Approach to Digital Services Taxation p.32 9.14 Offshore IP Provisions p.32
17 CHAMBERS.COM
AUSTRIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Clemens Philipp Schindler and Mohamed Hemdan, Schindler Attorneys
Schindler Attorneys is a leading Austrian law firm for transactional work, with extensive experience in M&A, private equity, finance, real estate, corporate, employment, data protection, litigation, tax and se - curities law. The firm’s ambition is to provide top- quality services and to become an instrumental part of its clients’ businesses. Schindler Attorneys seeks long-term, collaborative relationships with clients and partner firms, as the team firmly believes that trusted co-operation is the key to success. The firm is fre -
quently involved in cross-border matters and co-ordi - nates or participates in multi-jurisdictional teams on a regular basis. It has a leading market position for both national and cross-border corporate reorganisa - tions; the Schindler Attorneys lawyers who focused on that area were among the first in Austria to imple - ment cross-border mergers, European Companies (SE) structures and corporate migrations. The firm’s legal tax services are provided by one partner, one counsel and one associate.
Authors
Clemens Philipp Schindler is a founding partner of Schindler Attorneys. Before establishing the firm, he spent six years at WOLF THEISS, where he led some of the firm’s most prestigious transactions
Mohamed Hemdan is an associate at Schindler Attorneys. He previously spent two years at Grant Thornton Austria, specialising in corporate and international tax. Mohamed focuses on national and international tax
and headed its Brazil operations. Clemens is admitted in Austria as an attorney-at-law and a certified public tax adviser, focusing on corporate and tax advice in relation to public and private M&A, private equity and corporate reorganisations, most of which have a cross-border element. He also specialises in international holding structures, including charter financing and leasing operations. His practice is complemented by private client work (eg, as counsel to families owning stakes in large corporations).
advice, M&A, corporate reorganisations and private client matters. He holds an LLM degree from the Vienna University of Economics and Business, where he graduated summa cum laude, and has also contributed to publications in the field of tax and transaction advisory. Mohamed also completed an exchange semester at the Law Faculty of the University of Aberdeen in the United Kingdom.
Schindler Attorneys Kohlmarkt 8-10 1010 Vienna Austria Tel: +43 1 512 2613 Fax: +43 1 512 2613 888
Email: office@schindlerattorneys.com Web: www.schindlerattorneys.com
18 CHAMBERS.COM
Page i Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 131 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 Page 143 Page 144 Page 145 Page 146 Page 147 Page 148 Page 149 Page 150 Page 151 Page 152 Page 153 Page 154 Page 155 Page 156 Page 157 Page 158 Page 159 Page 160 Page 161 Page 162 Page 163 Page 164 Page 165 Page 166 Page 167 Page 168 Page 169 Page 170 Page 171 Page 172 Page 173 Page 174 Page 175 Page 176 Page 177 Page 178 Page 179 Page 180 Page 181 Page 182 Page 183 Page 184 Page 185 Page 186 Page 187 Page 188 Page 189 Page 190 Page 191 Page 192 Page 193 Page 194 Page 195 Page 196 Page 197 Page 198 Page 199Powered by FlippingBook