TABLE OF ARTICLES
Article 1———————————— Personal Scope
Article 2———————————— Taxes Covered
Article 3———————————– General Definitions
Article 4————————————- Resident
Article 5———————————– Permanent Establishment
Article 6———————————– Income from Real Property
Article 7———————————— Business Profits
Article 8———————————– Shipping and Air Transport
Article 9———————————— Associated Enterprises
Article 10———————————– Dividends
Article 11———————————– Interest
Article 12———————————– Royalties
Article 13———————————– Capital Gains
Article 14———————————- Independent Personal Services
Article 15———————————- Dependent Personal Services
Article 16———————————– Directors’ Fees
Article 17———————————- Artistes and Sportsmen
Article 18——————————— Pensions
Article 19——————————— Public Remuneration
Article 20———————————- Teachers and Researchers
Article 21———————————- Students and Trainees
Article 22———————————– Other Income
Article 23———————————— Capital
Article 24——————————— Relief from Double Taxation
Article 25———————————- Non-discrimination
Article 26———————————- Mutual Agreement Procedure
Article 27——————————– Exchange of Information
Article 28———————————- Assistance in Collection
Article 29——————————— Miscellaneous Provisions
Article 30——————————— Limitation on Benefits of the Convention
Article 31——————————— Diplomatic and Consular Officers
Article 32———————————– Provisions for Implementation
Article 33———————————– Entry into Force
Article 34———————————– Termination
Letter of Submittal———————- of 9 September, 1994
Letter of Transmittal——————– of 19 September, 1994
Treaties » INCOME TAX CONVENTION WITH SPAIN
INCOME TAX CONVENTION WITH SPAIN, WITH PROTOCOL
GENERAL EFFECTIVE DATE UNDER ARTICLE 29: 1 JANUARY 1991
TABLE OF ARTICLES
TABLE OF ARTICLES
Article 1———————————— Personal Scope
Article 2———————————— Taxes Covered
Article 3———————————– General Definitions
Article 4————————————- Resident
Article 5———————————– Permanent Establishment
Article 6———————————– Income from Immovable Property
Article 7———————————— Business Profits
Article 8———————————– Shipping and Air Transport
Article 9———————————— Associated Enterprises
Article 10———————————– Dividends
Article 11———————————– Interest
Article 12———————————– Royalties
Article 13———————————– Capital Gains
Article 14———————————- Independent Personal Services
Article 15———————————- Dependent Personal Services
Article 16———————————– Directors’ Fees
Article 17———————————- Artistes and Athletes
Article 18——————————— Pensions, etc.
Article 19——————————— Government Service
Article 20———————————- Professors and Teachers
Article 21———————————- Students and Trainees
Article 22———————————– Other Income
Article 23———————————— Relief from Double Taxation
Article 24——————————— Non-Discrimination
Article 25———————————- Mutual Agreement Procedure
Article 26———————————- Exchange of Information
Article 27——————————– Diplomatic Agents and Consular Officials
Article 28———————————- Entry into Force
Article 29——————————— Termination
Protocol—————————— of 17 April, 1984
Notes of exchange————————- of 17 April, 1984
Letter of Submittal————————- of 22 June, 1984
MESSAGE
FROM
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
TRANSMITTING
THE CONVENTION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF
DOUBLE TAXATION AND THE PREVENTION OF FISCAL EVASION
WITH RESPECT TO TAXES ON INCOME, TOGETHER WITH A RELATED PROTOCOL,
SIGNED AT MADRID ON FEBRUARY 22, 1990
LETTER OF SUBMITTAL
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, March 21, 1990.
The PRESIDENT,
The White House.
THE PRESIDENT. I have the honor to submit to you, with a view to its transmission to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification, the Convention between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income, together with a related Protocol, signed at Madrid on February 22, 1990.
The Convention is the first income tax treaty to be negotiated between the United States and Spain. It is based on the model income tax conventions published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in 1977 and by the United States Department of the Treasury in 1981. Changes in United States income tax law resulting from the enactment of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 are reflected in the Convention.
The Convention provides for reduced taxation at source of investment income derived from one State by residents of the other State. The rate of tax withheld at source on dividends may not exceed 15 percent and is reduced to 10 percent in the case of dividends from 25 percent-owned subsidiaries to their parent corporations. The maximum tax on interest, royalties, and branch profits is 10 percent. In the case of interest, the general 10 percent limit is reduced to zero on interest derived by either State and on interest paid on long-term bank loans or on commercial credit for the importation of capital equipment. The tax on excess interest of bank branches is 5 percent. In the case of royalties, lower rates of 5 percent or 8 percent apply in certain cases, 5 percent on royalties for literary or artistic copyrights, and 8 percent on royalties for scientific copyrights, film rentals, and rentals of equipment. Gains on the sale of shares in a company which is a resident of one State may be taxed by that State in certain cases where the recipient owns at least 25 percent of the company’s capital or where the shares are represented by real property holdings; in other cases gain on the sale of corporate securities may be taxed only in the recipient’s country of residence.
In addition, the Convention provides rules for the taxation at source of business profits and employment income which are similar to those in the models and in other United States income tax conventions. Special tax relief at source, based on similar provisions in some other United States income tax conventions, is provided for visiting students, researchers, and trainees. The Convention also contains a provision limiting its benefits to persons properly entitled to receive them and excluding, for example, certain enterprises in either State owned by residents of third countries. Such provisions have been included in all recent United States tax treaties.
A technical memorandum explaining in detail the provisions of the Convention and Protocol is being prepared by the Department of the Treasury and will be submitted separately to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
The Department of the Treasury, with the cooperation of the Department of State, was primarily responsible for the negotiation of the Convention and Protocol. They have the full approval of both Departments.
Respectfully submitted,
LAWRENCE S. EAGLEBURGER.
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
THE WHITE HOUSE, April 18, 1990.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith for Senate advice and consent to ratification the Convention between the United States of America and the kingdom of Spain for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income, together with a related Protocol, signed at Madrid on February 22, 1990. I also transmit the report of the Department of State.
The convention is the first income tax treaty to be negotiated between the United States and Spain. Based in large part on model income tax treaties developed by the Department of the Treasury and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, it also reflects changes in tax law resulting from the enactment of the Tax Reform Act of 1986.
The convention provides rules governing the taxation by each State of income derived by residents of the other State. The convention also contains provisions that prevent “treaty shopping” and authorize the exchange of information and administrative cooperation between the tax authorities of the two States.
I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to the convention and protocol and give its advice and consent to ratification.
GEORGE BUSH.
CONVENTION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE TAXATION AND THE PREVENTION OF FISCAL EVASION WITH RESPECT TO TAXES ON INCOME
The United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain, desiring to conclude a Convention for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, have agreed as follows:
ARTICLE 1
General Scope
ARTICLE 2
Taxes Covered
ARTICLE 3
General Definitions
ARTICLE 4
Residence
ARTICLE 5
Permanent Establishment
For the purpose of computing the time limits in this paragraph, activities carried on by an enterprise associated with another enterprise within the meaning of Article 9 (Associated Enterprises) shall be regarded as carried on by the last-mentioned enterprise if the activities of both enterprises are substantially the same, unless they are carried on simultaneously.
ARTICLE 6
Income from Real Property (Immovable Property)
ARTICLE 7
Business Profits
ARTICLE 8
Shipping and Air Transport
ARTICLE 9
Associated Enterprises
and in either case conditions are made or imposed between the two enterprises in their commercial or financial relations which differ from those which would be made between independent enterprises, then any profits which, but for those conditions, would have accrued to one of the enterprises, but by reason of those conditions have not so accrued, may be included in the profits of that enterprise and taxed accordingly.
ARTICLE 10
Dividends
This paragraph shall not affect the taxation of the company in respect of the profits out of which the dividends are paid.
ARTICLE 11
Interest
ARTICLE 12
Royalties
Notwithstanding other provisions of this paragraph, royalties received as a consideration for technical assistance shall be taxable at the rate applying to the royalties stipulated in respect of the rights or property to which the technical assistance is related. To this effect, the taxable base shall be computed net of labor and of material costs incurred in producing such royalties.
ARTICLE 13
Capital Gains
ARTICLE 14
Branch Tax
ARTICLE 15
Independent Personal Services
ARTICLE 16
Dependentn Personal Services
ARTICLE 17
Limitation on Benefits
ARTICLE 18
Directors’ Fees
Directors’ fees and similar payments derived by a resident of a Contracting State for services performed outside such Contracting State in his capacity as a member of the board of directors of a company which is a resident of the other Contracting State may be taxed in that other State.
ARTICLE 19
Artistes and Athletes
ARTICLE 20
Pensions, Annuities, Alimony, and Child Support
ARTICLE 21
Government Service
ARTICLE 22
Students and Trainees
shall be exempt from tax by that other Contracting State with respect to the amounts described in subparagraph (b) of this paragraph for a period not exceeding five years from the date of his arrival in that other Contracting State.
shall be exempt from tax by that other Contracting State for a period of 12 consecutive months with respect to his income from personal services in an aggregate amount not in excess of 8,000 United States dollars or its equivalent in Spanish pesetas.
ARTICLE 23
Relief From Double Taxation
ARTICLE 24
Non-discrimination
ARTICLE 25
Mutual Agreement Procedure
ARTICLE 26
Exchange of Information
ARTICLE 27
Diplomatic Agents and Consular Officials
Nothing in this Convention shall affect the fiscal privileges of diplomatic agents or consular-officials under the general rules of international law or under the provisions of special agreements.
ARTICLE 28
Entry into Force
ARTICLE 29
Termination
This Convention shall remain in force until terminated by one of the Contracting States. Either Contracting State may terminate the Convention at any time after 5 years from the date on which this Convention enters into force provided that at least 6 months’ prior notice of termination has been given through diplomatic channels. In such event, the Convention shall cease to have effect:
Done at Rome in duplicate, in the English and Italian languages, the two texts having equal authenticity, this 12th day of April, 1984.
FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(s) Maxwell M. Rabb
FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ITALY
(s) Giulio Andreotti
FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(s) Pamela Harriman
FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF
FRENCH REPUBLIC:
(s) Nicolas Sarkozy
PROTOCOL
The Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Italy, desiring to conclude a protocol clarifying and supplementing the Convention for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income and the prevention of fraud or fiscal evasion to be signed simultaneously with the signing of this Protocol, have agreed upon the following provisions.
ARTICLE 1
ARTICLE 2
ARTICLE 3
The Convention shall not restrict in any manner any exclusion, exemption, deduction, credit, or other allowance now or hereafter accorded –
ARTICLE 4
It is agreed that a United States citizen resident in Italy who is a partner of a partnership that is a national of the United States shall be entitled to a refundable credit against that partner’s individual income tax (l’imposta sul reddito delle persone fisiche) imposed by Italy for the taxable period equal to the portion of the corporation income tax (l’imposta sul reddito delle persone giuridiche) imposed by Italy for the same period on the partnership that is attributable to that partner’s share of the partnership income.
ARTICLE 5
Taxes withheld at the source in a Contracting State at the rates provided by domestic law will be refunded by request of the taxpayer if the right to collect the said taxes is limited by the provisions of the Convention. Claims for refund, which shall be made within the time limit fixed by the law of the Contracting State which is obliged to make the refund, shall be accompanied by an official certificate of the Contracting State of which the taxpayer is a resident certifying the existence of the conditions required for being entitled to the benefits provided for by the Convention. This provision shall not be construed to prevent the competent authority of each Contracting State from establishing other modes of application of the benefits provided for by the Convention.
ARTICLE 6
Each of the Contracting States may collect on behalf of the other Contracting State such amounts as may be necessary to ensure that relief granted by the Convention from taxation imposed by such other State does not ensure to the benefit of persons not entitled thereto. The preceding sentence shall not, however, impose upon either of the Contracting States the obligation to carry out administrative measures which are of a different nature from those used in the collection of its own tax, or which would be contrary to its sovereignty, security, or public policy.
ARTICLE 7
ARTICLE 8
This Protocol shall remain in force as long as the Convention between the United States of America and Italy for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income and the prevention of fraud or fiscal evasion of this date shall remain in force.
Done at Rome in duplicate, in the English and Italian languages, the two texts having equal authenticity, this 17th day of April, 1984.
FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(s) Maxwell Rabb
FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ITALY
(s) Giulio Andreotti
NOTES OF EXCHANGE
April 17, 1984
The Honorable
Maxwell M. Rabb
Embassy of the United States of
America Rome
Excellency:
I have the honor to refer to the Convention and Protocol between Italy and the United States of America for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income and the prevention of fraud or fiscal evasion, signed today at Rome, and I should like to state on behalf of the Government of the Republic of Italy our understanding with respect to an important unresolved issue. It is the position of the Government of Italy that the so-called “unitary apportionment” method used by certain states of the United States to allocate income to the United States offices or subsidiaries of Italian companies results in inequitable taxation and imposes excessive administrative burdens on Italian companies doing business in those states. Under that method, the profit of an Italian company on its United States business is not determined on the basis of arm’s length relations but is derived from a formula taking account of the income of the Italian company and its worldwide subsidiaries as well as the assets, payroll, and sales of all such companies. For an Italian multinational company with many subsidiaries in different countries to have to submit its books and records for all of these companies to a United States state in English imposes a costly burden.
It is understood that the Senate of the United States has not consented to any limitation on the taxing jurisdiction of the states by treaty and that a provision which would have restricted the use of unitary apportionment in the case of United Kingdom corporations was rejected by the Senate. The Government of Italy continues to be concerned about this issue as it affects Italian multinationals. If an acceptable provision on this subject can be devised, the United States agrees to reopen discussions with Italy on this subject.
It is further understood that in the event the methods of taxation employed by states of the United States should change after today’s date in such a way as to have a substantial negative effect upon Italian residents, Italy reserves the right to reopen discussions with the United States.
It is further understood that if any State or locality of the United States imposes tax on profits of enterprises of Italy from the operation in international traffic of ships or aircraft, Italy may impose its local income tax (ILOR) on such profits of enterprises of the United States, notwithstanding subparagraph 2 (b) (iii) of Article 2 (Taxes Covered) and Article 8 (Shipping and Air Transport).
I have furthermore the honor to propose that the present Note and Your Excellency’s reply confirming the acceptance by the Government of the United States of America of the above proposals shall be regarded as constituting an agreement between the two Governments concerning the matters above mentioned.
Accept, Excellency the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
Guilio Andreotti
EMBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
April 17, 1984
No. 330
His Excellency
Giulio Andreotti
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Italy
Excellency:
I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your letter of today’s date which reads as follows:
“I have the honor to refer to the Convention and Protocol between Italy and the United States of America for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income and the prevention of fraud or fiscal evasion, signed today at Rome, and I should like to state on behalf of the Government of the Republic of Italy our understanding with respect to an important unresolved issue. It is the position of the Government of Italy that the so-called “unitary apportionment” method used by certain states of the United States to allocate income to the United States offices or subsidiaries of Italian companies results in inequitable taxation and imposes excessive administrative burdens on Italian companies doing business in those states. Under that method, the profit of an Italian company on its United States business is not determined on the basis of arm’s length relations but is derived from a formula taking account of the income of the Italian company and its worldwide subsidiaries as well as the assets, payroll, and sales of all such companies. For an Italian multinational company with many subsidiaries in different countries to have to submit its books and records for all of these companies to a United States state in English imposes a costly burden.
It is understood that the Senate of the United States has not consented to any limitation on the taxing jurisdiction of the states by treaty and that a provision which would have restricted the use of unitary apportionment in the case of United Kingdom corporations was rejected by the Senate. The Government of Italy continues to be concerned about this issue as it affects Italian multinationals. If an acceptable provision on this subject can be devised, the United States agrees to reopen discussions with Italy on this subject.
It is further understood that in the event the methods of taxation employed by states of the United States should change after today’s date in such a way as to have a substantial negative effect upon Italian residents, Italy reserves the right to reopen discussions with the United States.
It is further understood that if any State or locality of the United States imposes tax on profits of enterprises of Italy from the operation in international traffic of ships or aircraft, Italy may impose its
local income tax (ILOR) on such profits of enterprises of the United States, notwithstanding subparagraph 2 (b) (iii) of Article 2 (Taxes Covered) and Article 8 (Shipping and Air Transport).
I have furthermore the honor to propose that the present Note and Your Excellency’s reply confirming the acceptance by the Government of the United States of America of the above proposals shall be regarded as constituting an agreement between the two Governments concerning the matters above mentioned.”
I have the honor to inform you that the Government of the United States of America is in agreement with the above proposals.
Accept. Excellency the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
(s) Maxwell M. Rabb