Uncertainties remain under Chile’s new tax assessment provision

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Uncertainties remain under Chile’s new tax assessment provision

Sponsored by

sponsored-firms-pwc.png
Santiago, Chile

Loreto Pelegrí Haro and Rodrigo Winter Salgado of PwC Chile outline the main changes but note that the finalisation of an Internal Revenue Service circular letter will be crucial in clarifying the law’s application

On October 24 2024, Chilean Law No. 21,713 was published in the Official Gazette, relating to certain regulations to ensure tax compliance. Among the changes, a new rule replaced Article 64 of the Chilean Tax Code, which dealt with the tax assessment power of the country’s Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and tax-free reorganisations.

The IRS recently issued a draft circular letter interpreting the changes. However, the final version of the circular letter has not been released, so there are still some uncertainties regarding the application.

The following are among the changes of the new tax assessment provision, which entered into effect on November 1 2024.

An assessment provision in the case of a transfer

Under the old rule, a ‘transfer’ required an assessment of the price of the transaction. However, there are some operations that do not imply a transfer, such as a capital increase resulting in dilution, or a spin-off, which entails an assignment. The new wording of the law allows the IRS to assess the price of a transaction even if no transfer has occurred.

An appraisal provision if the transfer price varies from the market value

The old appraisal powers were only applicable if the transaction price was below the market price. Under the new regulation, the IRS is entitled to assess the price if it is above or below market value.

New definition of market value

Under the old standard, the definition of market value was not sufficiently clear. The new provision introduces a definition of market value as that which would have been agreed upon by non-related parties in comparable transactions and circumstances.

Safe harbour reorganisations

Under the old tax-free reorganisation provision, mergers and spin-offs were tax neutral as long as the assets and liabilities preserved the tax basis. Also, in the case of tax-free contributions, the old rule required the following:

  • A legitimate business purpose;

  • The contributor must continue to exist;

  • It must represent an increase of capital of a new or existing company;

  • No cash flows are triggered;

  • The assets must preserve the tax or accounting basis the previous owner used to register; and

  • The contributor must be subject to accounting standards.

The new tax-free reorganisation requirements are:

  • There must be a legitimate business purpose;

  • The tax basis must be preserved by the recipient; and

  • No cash flows are triggered.

The changes imply that, to perform a tax-free capital contribution, formal accounting is no longer needed, and an individual can therefore benefit without the need to present full accounting records.

Furthermore, since the contributor must no longer exist, the conversion of an individual enterprise – subject to corporate tax – into a company will no longer be a taxable operation.

Finally, since the old rule required contributions to be made on a tax or an accounting basis, there were some cases where fair value did not match the accounting or tax value, triggering corporate or accounting problems. Under the new rule, a contribution can be made at a different value provided that the tax basis is preserved in the recipient.

International reorganisations

The old regulation did not mention the tax treatment of international reorganisations producing effects in Chile. In some rulings, the IRS interpreted that as long as the effects were similar to Chilean reorganisations, they were captured under the safe harbour.

The new regulation mentions that an international reorganisation is covered by the safe harbour if the following requirements are all met:

  • There is a legitimate business purpose;

  • No cash flows are triggered and the tax basis is preserved;

  • Chilean taxation power is maintained; and

  • The recipient is not domiciled in a country named in Article 41H (low-taxation countries) or the recipient is not obliged to maintain accounting records.

Final thoughts on the Chilean reform

The above changes are highly significant, but there are several questions and doubts regarding the application of the regulation. Some of them are expected to be addressed in the circular letter to be published by the IRS.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The US president also unveiled a new 50% levy on copper imports; in other news, a UK wealth tax proposal has been criticised by the Institute for Fiscal Studies
Wim Wuyts, who had been head of the specialist tax network since 2017, is moving on to a new role with WTS’s Belgian member firm
MNEs are increasingly using algorithmic tools in TP. Sahasranshu Dash argues that data ethics should therefore plug directly into the TP design process
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales also queried whether HMRC resources could be better spent scrutinising larger entities
Grant Thornton’s Austria tax head likens his practice to an escape room, shares his football coaching ambitions, and explains why tax is cool
Awards
ITR is delighted to reveal all the shortlisted nominees for the 2025 EMEA Tax Awards
Awards
ITR is delighted to reveal all the shortlisted nominees for the 2025 Asia-Pacific Tax Awards
The fates of pillars one and two hang in the balance after the US successfully threw its weight around in G7 and Canadian negotiations
Rafael Tena tells ITR about the ‘crazy’ Mexican market, ditching the hourly rate, and refusing to grow his fledgling firm in an ‘unstructured way’
It should be easy for advisers to be transparent about costs, Brown Rudnick partner Matthew Sharp said in response to exclusive ITR in-house data
Gift this article