In this issue of The Globe, Shannon Jackson has provided her “Message from the Chair” and Section Council member Scott D. Pollock has provided his fourth “Immigration Consultation Corner,” this one dealing with the B-2 overstay dilemma.
Y. Judd Azulay of Azulay, Horn and Seiden, LLC is a recent addition to the International and Immigration Law Section Council. His first article for The Globe appears, “One plus one equals three or in an immigration context applying for a waiver.”
“Oil and Gas Investments in Algeria – A Legal and Tax Primer from an Algerian Perspective” is provided by Michael L. Coleman and Celine Van Zeebroeck. They have provided articles in the past including “Retention of Sales, Agents or Representatives in Algeria,” which appeared in the March 2004 issue of The Globe and “Overview of the Algerian Code of Public Tenders of July 24, 2002,” which appeared in the April 2004 issue of The Globe.
John T. Baun is a third-year law student at The John Marshall Law School and submitted “Immigration Strategies: Getting the U.S. off the Dime.” Jason Gunnell is a third-year law student at Southern Illinois University and provided “Suppression of evidence is not a remedy for violating the VCCR.”
The Illinois International Business Calendar is produced through the collaboration of the International Trade Association of Greater Chicago, The Office of Trade and Investment, The Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity and the Illinois District Export Council on behalf of The U.S. Export Assistance Center Chicago Office. The excerpt from their recent calendar provides Web site information to obtain updated information on events that may be of interest to you or your clients who are involved in trade or investments.
Over the past year the membership in the section has grown by over ten percent. This is a tribute to the work of the officers and other members of the International and Immigration Law Section Council. The quality of the newsletters is one of the most often sited reasons that people join the Illinois State Bar Association and the various sections. In order to maintain the frequency and the quality of The Globe we need a continuous and wide range of articles. Please continue to submit articles and help us with the objective of strengthening the section membership.
Lewis F. Matuszewich
Matuszewich, Kelly & McKeever, LLP
Telephone: (312) 726-8787
Facsimile: (773) 279-8872
E-MAIL: lfmatuszewich@mkm-law.com
Welcome to the fourth edition of The Globe for 2006-2007! It is quite an accomplishment to have four newsletters out already when many sections strive for a total of four. Continued thanks to our great contributors and our co-editors, Lewis F. Matuszewich, and Violeta Balan for keeping our members informed.
The Section Council will be sponsoring a book drive in the upcoming months to benefit immigrants being detained throughout Illinois. Members with books on immigration law, criminal law, and family law are encouraged to clean off their shelves and donate to this worthy cause.
Additionally, we would like to offer other reading materials such as novels that are in foreign languages, for the benefit of the detained. Conditions in detention facilities are less than desirable, and there is not a great deal of opportunity for entertainment. Providing these books will assist the detained in helping themselves by learning the law, as well as entertaining themselves when they can relax with a novel in their native language.
A drop box will be available at the ISBA regional office, 20 S. Clark Street, 9th Floor. Please be generous!
Shannon M Jackson
Azulay Horn & Seiden LLC
Chicago, IL 60601
312-832-9200 x150
Fax: 312-363-6150
sjackson@ahslaw.com
Angelique, a citizen of Belgium, has run her own hair salon in Chicago for the past year. She has no family members in the United States. The business enjoys a growing reputation for quality and style. She comes to you and explains that she first entered the U.S. as an au pair, returned to Belgium for a short while and applied for a B-2 visitor visa. Six years ago, she used the visa to enter the U.S. for six months and then extended her status for another six months. She thought she would marry her U.S. boyfriend, but the relationship did not work out. Meanwhile, time flew by and she established what she calls a “beautiful life for myself.” Angelique has a business partner who is a U.S. citizen, she employs and trains several U.S.C. workers in the salon, pays taxes, owns an apartment, a car and a dog, and is involved in the local chamber of commerce. She has a hairdresser’s certificate but no college diploma. She says that she knows she should not have overstayed her permission to be in the U.S., she misses being able to see her family and is heartbroken that she was unable to return when her father passed away three years ago. But she also says she is happier in the U.S. than in Belgium, and she does not want to lose everything she has built if she were forced to return there. She has been reading information on immigration Web sites for years but cannot find anything that could help her.
Summary conclusions:
I. As a B-2 overstay, the client is ineligible to change her nonimmigrant status or apply for an adjustment of status in the United States;
II. The one exception to her inability to adjust status is through marriage to a United States citizen;
III. If she were to leave the U.S. she would trigger a 10-year bar on returning to the U.S., unless she obtained a waiver of inadmissibility to return sooner.
Discussion
One of the most difficult but necessary services an immigration attorney must sometimes perform is to confirm a prospective client’s gut feeling that there is little to be done to resolve a situation. In this case, the only service that an attorney can likely provide is to verify her facts by reviewing her passport, visa(s), and visa extension, explain how U.S. immigration law operates, identify issues from the facts and advise her with regard to possible future events.
As a B-2 overstay, Angelique is removable (i.e., deportable) from the United States. If the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) were to begin a removal proceeding against her (for example she were to be brought to DHS’ attention as a result of an automobile accident or arrest, or an anonymous tip from a disgruntled employee or ex-boyfriend), she would have no claim to remain in the U.S. Some persons who overstay or enter illegally may qualify for “cancellation of removal,” but only if they have been in the U.S. for at least 10 years and have a qualifying family member who will suffer extremely unusual hardship. Angelique would need both of these elements but has neither. But that could change with time.
Angelique naturally wants to get back into a lawful nonimmigrant status, and she should understand both what visa categories may exist for her type of work and the obstacles for her to obtain legal status in those categories. An obvious possibility would be the E-2 treaty investor category, which is available to nationals of countries with which the U.S. has a bilateral treaty of friendship, commerce and trade. Checking the State Department’s Web site at <http://foia.state.gov/masterdocs/09fam/0941051X1.pdf>, one discovers that the U.S. does have a treaty with Belgium. But even if Angelique has made a qualifying investment in her business, she is unable to change her status because of her overstay of several years. To change status, one must maintain status. The only exception to this rule is where a failure to timely file for the change of status was due to extraordinary circumstances beyond the person’s control- which is clearly not the case here.
Angelique seems to know already that she cannot leave the U.S. without triggering an adverse consequence. Sometimes, nonimmigrants who have violated their status in the U.S. are able to depart the U.S. and return on a different status. This is mostly available to persons who entered on a visa, like the F-1 student or J-1 exchange visitor, for a period designated as “duration of status” or “D/S.” Those persons do not trigger a bar upon departing because they have not overstayed a date certain on their I-94 Arrival/Departure Record. Not so with B-2 visitors. Visitors are given a specific date after which they are supposed to leave the U.S. If they overstay that date for more than 180 days, a departure will trigger a three-year bar. If the overstay is for a year or more, a departure triggers a 10-year bar. Since Angelique was given an initial six-month period and extended it for another six months, her “unlawful presence” is counted from the expiration of her extension. If she leaves the U.S. for any reason before becoming a lawful permanent resident (LPR), she will trigger a 10-year bar. And Angelique should know that an illegal entry by someone who is subject to a 10-year bar will trigger a permanent bar on immigrating to the U.S.
As a practical matter, a former visa violator asking to return to the U.S. on a temporary nonimmigrant visa would only be successful if returning in a status where the requirement of nonimmigrant intent is not required, such as for the H-1B or L-1 visa categories. These two categories are specifically exempt from the requirement of overcoming the presumption that any person coming to the U.S. is an intending immigrant. E-2 visa applicants must establish nonimmigrant intent.
It may also be important to advise Angelique about possible accusations that she may have committed visa fraud, which could result in a permanent state of inadmissibility. The attorney should question her about her initial admission as an au pair, whether she complied with the conditions of that visa, and also determine her intention when she came as a B-2 visitor. Did she misstate her previous periods in the U.S. on her visa application? Applications filed with U.S. consulates abroad have a nasty habit of reappearing as incriminating evidence of fraud years later. Did she intend to overstay when she came to the U.S.? If so did she make a material misrepresentation in obtaining her visa or entry to the U.S.?
Angelique also naturally wants to know if there is an immigrant visa category available to her? Sometimes clients with the same dilemma as Angelique wonder whether they can obtain LPR status through their employment. Often they have an employer who is willing to sponsor them. Or perhaps they have been informed that they were selected for the “Diversity Visa Lottery” program, which permits certain persons to immigrate to the U.S. But neither of these would generally present a viable option. They cannot adjust their status in the U.S. due to their overstay, and applying for their employment based visa abroad would be futile due to the three- or 10-year bar.
There are only a few situations in which a person who has overstayed a B-2 visa and who would trigger a bar by departing the U.S. can successfully immigrate to the U.S. The first way is as an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen, either through marriage to a U.S. citizen or as the parent of a U.S. citizen over 21 years of age. These “immediate relative” categories permit such persons to adjust their status in the U.S. as long as they entered the U.S. legally, notwithstanding a subsequent violation or overstay of their temporary status. The second way is if the person has been grandfathered into the former Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, 8 U.S.C. Section 1255(i). This provision permitted certain persons who had visa petitions or labor certification applications on file by certain dates to cure their visa violations and apply for an adjustment of status if they paid a penalty fee. Section 245(i) sunset on May 1, 2001, so only persons who had petitions or labor certification applications on file before that date may be grandfathered into and benefit from the provision. Anglique has neither an immediate relative relationship or Section 245(i) grandfathering.
Conclusion
Angelique is presently unable to correct her B-2 overstay. She cannot change or extend her nonimmigrant visa status, and she does not have an appropriate family relation through whom she might apply to adjust her status to that of an LPR. If she departs the U.S. she will trigger a 10-year bar. Under current law, only through a future bona fide marriage to a United States citizen can she obtain lawful status in the U.S. She should therefore make efforts to engage in a meaningful social life and cultivate personal relationships if she hopes to escape from her B-2 overstay dilemma.
Still, Angelique presents an opportunity for an attorney to provide useful information and warnings. She should beware of immigration attorneys or consultants who offer to fix her problem when no viable solution presents itself. She must know the specific consequences of her actions and understand how to avoid potentially irreparable harm in the future. By providing a sympathetic and knowledgeable consultation, the client without good options will still appreciate your candor and seek you out in the future as her trusted advisor if there is a change of circumstances.
__________
1. © 2006 Scott D. Pollock & Associates, P.C. Immigration Consultation Corner is a periodic summary of an actual consultation.
Over the years, practicing in the immigration field has gone from a “gentlemen’s” practice where everyone knew each other, respected each other and generally knew “who & what was on first,” to an adversarial practice having all the surprises, deceit, unpredictability and intrigue of the Perry Mason TV show.
One of the areas where it is very difficult to predict, much less be extremely confident about is waivers. There are many different type waivers. There are many different people who are responsible for waiver determination. Most importantly, the rules as to what are required and the weight to be given each factor is, while known, indeterminate.
Oftentimes, it has been said that waivers are determined based on “hardship.” If the waiver is not granted will the US Citizen or LPR immediate relative experience hardship. Will it be medical, psychological, social, economic, religious or even educational? What is most important? What is the degree of hardship required? Is a self imposed hardship sufficient to obtain a waiver?
When is a waiver required? Does every violation of immigration law require a waiver? Do children under a certain age require a waiver?
INA 212(h)(1)(B), provides in part that the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) has discretion to waive inadmissibility in the case of an immigrant who is the spouse or parent of a US Citizen if it is established that denial of admission to such immigrant would result in extreme hardship to his or her US Citizen spouse, son or daughter, and/or INA 212(a)(9(B)(v), which provides in part that the Secretary has sole discretion to waive inadmissibility in the case of an immigrant who is the spouse of a US Citizen if it is established that the refusal of admission of such immigrant would result in extreme hardship to his or her US Citizen spouse. The key term in both provisions is “extreme.” Common results of separation such as financial difficulties, loneliness, and anxiety, by themselves insufficient to warrant approval of a waiver unless combined with much more extreme aspects.
In determining when a waiver can be granted, one must first look to Congressional intent in originally having waivers as part of the immigration law. A review of the initial enabling legislation and later court interpretations clearly shows that Congress effectively allowed for waivers only in those exceptional cases where the degree of hardship was greater than the anxiety, loneliness and altered financial circumstances normally anticipated from family separation.
Children have oftentimes been given unusual weight in determining qualification for waivers. Will the US Citizen children be able to acclimate themselves socially in the new foreign environment? How old must the children be when their US background becomes a determinative factor?
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in Matter of Kao & Lin, 23 I&N Dec. 45 (BIA 2001) found that a 15-year-old child who lived his entire life in the US, was completely integrated into the American Lifestyle and was not fluent in Chinese would suffer extreme hardship if permanently relocated to Taiwan. In other cases where teen age children have lived and been educated in the US, the various courts have ruled similarly.
Establishing extreme hardship and eligibility for a waiver under INA 212, does not create an entitlement to that relief, rather, extreme hardship, once established, is but one favorable factor to be considered. The Secretary has the authority to consider all negative factors in deciding if to grant a favorable exercise of discretion in granting immigrant status. Negative factors may include arrest records, number of past immigration law violations, ages of children, lack of income tax filings and nonparticipation in organizational activities. Favorable factors may include age individual came to the US as well as number of years here. Further, lack of any criminal activity, involvement in the community, taxes paid, family members legally in the US, number of years with same employer and number of years at same address, all may be considered as favorable factors. All of the factors are weighed and dependant upon the weight given all the factors, the waiver or may not be granted.
Many unlawful aliens have been in the US for periods exceeding 180 days. Oftentimes these individuals have been in the US for periods over one year. Under current INS law, these individuals, unless they are eligible for status under some INS “amnesty” provision, are subject to either a three or ten year bar. In other words, if they depart the US for any reason, they cannot return to the US for a period of three or 10 years. Should they wish to return to the US earlier or should they qualify for immigrant status earlier, they require a waiver (forgiveness for past immigration violation) from the attorney general or his designated representative, the INS.
Waivers require setting out the “extreme” hardship experienced by the qualifying relative. A qualifying relative is the first requirement. Once that threshold is met, an in depth assessment is required as to what the hardship will be to that individual relative or to several relatives. As set out above, lack of opportunity, altered financial circumstances, anxiety, and loneliness alone are not enough to establish the requisite hardship level. There must be a finding that one factor or a combination of factors makes the situation “extreme”/ exceptional.
Waiver applications, when required, are submitted to the INS as part of the process to obtain lawful resident status. They may be submitted at the local INS office, one of the adjudication centers, the consulate abroad at the time of application for status, or before the Immigration Judge. The application/s before each one is the same. However, the ability to present ones case before reach one is different. In most instants one presents the application along with supporting documents and never has the opportunity to meet, greet or argue the merits of the waiver to the adjudicating officer. Before an immigration judge, one does have that opportunity. In each & every case, the threshold is the same, “extreme.”
In each case what is extreme will depend upon the individual circumstances. Sometimes, age may be a positive factor. Sometimes education may be a positive factor. In other cases medical condition and the ability to obtain either appropriate treatment or cure can be factors.
While Congress, USCIS and the courts have given hints as to what is required and what is “extreme,” there is no real definite definition of same. Each case depends upon the level of “extreme” as well as a weighing of positive and negative factors. In addition, each case depends upon the adjudicator of the application. An application granted in Bangkok, may not be granted in Athens. An Application, denied in Chicago, may be granted in Dallas.
Waivers are a wonderful gift when adjudicated positively. They allow families to either be reunified or remain together and allow forgiveness for past violations of immigration related statutes. It would be even more wonderful if there were a definite set of rules and one plus one did not equal three.
__________
Y. Judd Azulay is with Azulay Horn & Seiden LLC , Chicago, IL 60601 and can be reached at 312-832-9200 and yjazulay@ahslaw.com
U.S. oil and gas companies have significantly contributed to the increase of foreign direct investment in Algeria in recent years.1
With the new 2005 Hydrocarbons Law2 (the “Hydrocarbons Law”) in place, U.S. companies saw new investment opportunities in the Algerian oil and gas sector. The Hydrocarbons Law established a more transparent, competitive and liberalized Algerian market as well as a simplified legal and tax regime. In particular, Sonatrach, the state owned hydrocarbons company, lost its regulatory role in favor of the National Agency for the Valorization of Hydrocarbon Resources (ALNAFT) to devote itself exclusively to its industrial and commercial missions. It was required to bid on domestic exploration and exploitation projects alongside foreign firms, and was no longer an automatic partner with a majority stake in all projects. In tenders that Sonatrach did not win, it retained a right to exercise an option of 20-30 percent of the equity of the project, allowing it to become a regular stakeholder with the same responsibilities as the foreign partner.
However, the Hydrocarbons Law, which was elaborated at a time of low oil prices in order to compete against other oil producing nations, lost a number of supporters when it was passed in 2005. The sharp increase in oil prices, which meant that maximizing production was no longer a priority, and discontent among the public, which viewed the new 2005 Hydrocarbons Law as a dilapidation of the nation’s wealth, forced the government to reverse the new legislation. A presidential ordinance was adopted in July of 2006 (the “Hydrocarbons Ordinance”)3 which restores the position of Sonatrach as a majority stakeholder (Sonatrach must take a mandatory stake of a least 51 percent in all exploration, production,4 and refining5 ventures) and imposes a windfall tax on surplus profits of foreign investors in the framework of association contracts concluded with Sonatrach under the old 1986 hydrocarbons law (the Old Hydrocarbons Law6).7
Another piece of legislation which may impact investment in the Algerian oil and gas sector was also enacted during the summer. Specifically, the 2001 Investment Code was amended to allow the National Investment Council (CNI) to prioritize the investment needs of the country by limiting the activities, goods and services which will benefit from the investment incentives.8
This article discusses the Algerian tax regime applicable to U.S. companies bidding for oil and gas contracts in Algeria, whether in the framework of an EPC contract or in the context of defined upstream or downstream hydrocarbon services, in light, in particular, of the recent legislative changes.
The 2005 Hydrocarbons Law as amended
The Hydrocarbons Ordinance, while bringing significant changes to the Hydrocarbons Law, also creates additional uncertainties as to its application as further explained below.
The Hydrocarbons Ordinance ignores the principle of non-retroactivity set forth in the Hydrocarbons Law9 by imposing on foreign partners who concluded an association contract with Sonatrach in the framework of the Old Hydrocarbons Law a new non-deductible tax on surplus profits applicable on the share of production they own whenever the monthly average of the Brent crude oil is above USD30 a barrel.10 The new tax is effective August 1, 2006.
The Hydrocarbons Ordinance provides that the tax rate applicable to the production output will range between 5 percent and 50 percent but is silent on how the rate will be set. Pending the adoption of implementing measures, investors are, therefore, unable to make projections.
The Hydrocarbons Ordinance is also silent as to the scope of application of the windfall tax. Is the measure applicable to oil production only, or will it also affect the gas sector? No distinction is made in the Hydrocarbons Law between oil and gas with respect to the hydrocarbon upstream energy services (exploration and geophysical services, drilling services, wells services and logging), as the services are rendered without prior knowledge of the nature of the Hydrocarbons to be discovered and developed.11 The Hydrocarbons Ordinance also provides that Sonatrach will deduct from the production accruing to the foreign partner corresponding “hydrocarbon quantities,” which could refer to both oil and gas. However, the Ordinance refers specifically to the price of Brent crude oil. The absence of a benchmark for gas could suggest that the new tax could only apply to oil production. This point will need to be clarified in implementing regulations.
The Hydrocarbon Ordinance is also vague as to the status of contracts signed between the effective date of the Hydrocarbons Law (i.e., July 19, 2005) and August 1, 2006. The risk exists that the Algerian government would argue that the Hydrocarbons Law was never implemented (because its detailed implementing measures were never published) and, therefore, that the recent amendment will apply to those contracts. In other words, Sonatrach would be able to retrieve a majority stake in any contract concluded under the new legislation. Incidentally, any dispute in this respect would, under the Hydrocarbons Law, need to be resolved in accordance with the provisions of Algerian law.12
Finally, the Hydrocarbon Ordinance provides that the Energy Minister may, in certain circumstances, upon approval of the Council of Ministers, not use standard tender procedures for upstream projects “in the general interest in the framework of the hydrocarbon policy.”13 This new rule could seriously interfere with the transparency of the selection process.
Resident vs. Non-resident Entities
Under the Hydrocarbons Law,14 the foreign investor may or may not be a resident. A non-resident is any entity whose registered office is not located in Algeria, including the Algerian branches of such enterprises. The entity keeps its non-resident status when it acquires an interest in an Algerian company provided that the stake in the Algerian entity is paid by means of a transfer of convertible currencies in accordance with Algeria’s foreign exchange regulations.
To further encourage foreign investment, such non resident status entitles the company to transfer abroad its profit from the exploitation of the deposits provided that it has covered all expenditures linked to its oil and gas activities (including development, research, exploitation, transportation by pipeline, management costs and payment of royalties, taxes and fees) through imported convertible currencies. The non-resident is also allowed to freely use proceeds from sales of hydrocarbons on the domestic market or to transfer abroad the amounts exceeding its costs and obligations.
To the contrary, any resident entity, including any local subsidiary of a foreign corporation, is required to repatriate and transfer to the Bank of Algeria the revenues from its hydrocarbon exports in accordance with the foreign exchange regulations in force. It may, however, freely transfer abroad the portion of its dividends due annually to its non resident partners. All residents may also, after approval by the Currency and Credit Council, make any transfer abroad enabling it to carry out its exploitation activities.
Although the Hydrocarbons Ordinance is silent in this respect, the foregoing principles seem to be at odds with the amendment requiring Sonatrach to take at least a 51 percent stake in all exploration and exploitation projects. Under the Old Hydrocarbons Law, such requirement prevented foreign partners, who could hold only a minority stake, to claim non-resident status. This point may also need to be clarified by the Algerian tax administration.
Upstream vs. Downstream Activities
Whereas upstream activities are subject to the Hydrocarbons Law, downstream activities are subject to the ordinary principles of tax law (droit commun) and may, in principle, also benefit from the incentives proposed under the Investment Code.
Upstream activities
Exploration and exploitation activities are subject to the following taxes:
• A surface tax:15 this tax, which is based on the surface area covered by the contract and the location of the field, is payable on an annual basis to the Algerian Treasury;
• A monthly proportional royalty:16 the royalty is based on the location of the field and the level of hydrocarbon production and must be paid to ALNAFT in its capacity as mining title holder; the amount of the royalty is equal to the quantities of hydrocarbon extracted multiplied by the monthly average of the base price and a royalty rate of between 5.5 percent and 23 percent;
• A tax on oil revenues (TRP):17 this tax is based on a sliding scale which ranges between 30 percent and 70 percent, which increases as and when the cumulative value of hydrocarbon production increases. However, royalties, annual development and annual exploration investment installments, reserves for abandonment and/or restoration costs, training costs of Algerian personnel and gas purchases for assisted recovery constitute deductible charges for TRP purposes. The tax is payable to the Algerian Treasury on a monthly basis;
• An additional income tax (ICR):18 this tax, which is payable on an annual basis, is calculated at the ordinary corporate income tax (impôt sur les bénéfices de sociétés, IBS) rate, i.e., 30 percent or at the reduced rate of 15 percent provided that profits are reinvested. Royalties, TRP amounts and accrued depreciation constitute deductible charges for ICR calculation purposes;
• A tax on flaring19 in the amount 8000 dinars per thousand normal cubic meters, as this amount is updated;
• A tax on water20 in the amount of 80 dinars by cubic meter used, as this amount is updated;
• A contract transfer tax21 at the rate of 1 percent; and
• A tax on the use, abandonment or transfer of greenhouse gas emission credits.22
On the other hand, exploration and exploitation activities are exempt from the following taxes:
• VAT on the products and services connected with exploration or production activities;
• The tax on professional activities (taxe sur l’activité professionnelle, TAP);
• Customs duties, taxes and user fees; and
• Any tax other than those taxes specified in the Hydrocarbons Law.
Downstream activities
Article 96 of the Hydrocarbons Law provides that the tax framework applicable to hydrocarbon sector activities other than exploration and/or exploitation shall be the ordinary rules of tax law in effect. In the absence of double taxation treaty between Algeria and the United States,23 the following rules apply:
General tax law
Resident entities are subject to the following tax rates, unless they benefit from certain investment incentives pursuant to the Investment Code or in their capacity as subcontractors of Sonatrach or companies associated with Sonatrach as set forth below.
During the investment realization phase:
• Customs fees: 5 percent for raw products and equipment, 15 percent for half finished products and 30 percent for consumption goods ;
• VAT on purchase of equipment: 17 percent. Inside Algeria, Algerian VAT will, in principle, be due on services rendered and equipment or materials supplied by third party subcontractors;
• Transfer tax on real estate acquisitions: 4 percent; and
• Registration rights for incorporation deeds: 0.5 percent.
During the investment exploitation phase:
• IBS of 30 percent. This rate is reduced to 15 percent provided that profits are reinvested;
• VAT: 7 percent for raw materials;
• TAP: 2 percent24 on the gross revenues excluding value-added tax (“VAT”) generated in Algeria; and
• Property tax: 3 percent from the date of completion of the construction.
Transparent entities for income tax purposes, including a general partnership (societé en nom collectif) or a silent partnership (societé en participation), are not subject to IBS unless they affirmatively opt for IBS taxation. Their members, however, i.e., the Algerian branch offices of said transparent entities, each constitute a permanent establishment of the foreign entities and are, therefore, as any local subsidiary, subject to the ordinary rules of Algerian IBS and TAP.
Generally stated, provided that a foreign company does not acquire permanent establishment status in Algeria by providing services on a long term/permanent basis, performing civil works or attaching hardware to permanent structures in Algeria, a U.S. company would be taxed at the rate of 24 percent25 on the gross price of the contract with the Algerian customer (which is inclusive of the IBS, VAT and TAP) to the exclusion of any amount concerning the sale of equipment, provided that the sale of the equipment is invoiced separately. Accordingly, any fees paid by the Algerian entity for services such as the performance of feasibility studies, technical assistance, training or, generally, activities other than real estate works would trigger IBS at the special rate of 24 percent. In principle, the foregoing “non-resident” rate is assessable on the total monetary consideration allocable to the technical assistance, i.e., on a gross amount rather than a net amount.26
It is also possible for the U.S. entity to opt for taxation on a net profit/loss basis. This is an option that has to be affirmatively exercised by the taxpayer. Subject to the approval of the tax administration, the foreign company can, if it exercises the option, apply the 24 percent tax to the fees allocable to the services (including sourcing of technology) sourced outside Algeria and the regime of corporate taxation at the ordinary rate of 30 percent on an actual profit/loss basis to the services rendered in Algeria. Thus, although the foreign contractor is not supposed to have any fixed installation in Algeria for the application of the 24 percent tax, a derogatory interpretation by the tax administration allows said foreign company to be taxed in regard to its Algerian-sourced services as if the foreign company had a permanent establishment in Algeria.
Application to EPC contracts
Algerian authorities are increasingly resorting to engineering construction and procurement contracts (EPC), which include both upstream and downstream activities when awarding contracts for liquefied natural gas (LNG) and other petroleum and gas facilities.
In order to limit the tax burden on the foreign contractor, EPC contracts are typically split in two or more separate contracts. The importance of such division is underlined by the absence of double taxation treaty between Algeria and the United States.
In order to avoid Algerian taxes on services equipment and materials purchased outside Algeria, It is important that the EPC contract be comprised of distinct contracts so that the supply of design and engineering services and the delivery of equipment and materials sourced from outside Algeria is separated from the performance of the services performed in Algeria, the licensing of the technology and the civil engineering works (i.e., brick and mortar).
Moreover, it is important that separate invoicing and accounting of the different tasks to be performed by various entities involved in the project be maintained, since they will necessarily carry different risks/rewards. Simply stated, each basic task will be subject to a different direct (income) and indirect tax regime as explained above.
Finally, the Algerian entity in charge of the project rather than the foreign contractor should be the entity formally importing for Algerian customs and VAT purposes the equipment or other hardware. Ideally, at all times, the place of delivery should be right before Algerian customs clearance (“delivered duty unpaid” under Incoterms 2000).
Availability of tax and other cash incentives to oil and gas investors under the Investment Code
The Investment Code, which refers to the Hydrocarbons Law in its preamble, provides that the Code sets forth the applicable regime for “domestic and foreign investments made in economic activities of production of goods and services as well as the investments made in the framework of a concession or a license.”27 This wording seems to include oil and gas investments made in the framework of a concession contract with ALNAFT.
The National Agency for Investment Development (ANDI)28 is responsible, pursuant to the Investment Code, for facilitating investments, granting tax and quasi-tax exemptions, conferring cash or other incentives, and assisting investors to receive special authorizations for unique investments. However, ANDI is not in charge of promoting investments in hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation. This task was specifically entrusted to ALNAFT pursuant to the Hydrocarbons Law.29
The Investment Code30 also states that any contrary provision in the hydrocarbons laws remains in effect. Otherwise stated, the relevant provisions of the Investment Code do not supersede the relevant provisions of the Hydrocarbons Law. However, nothing in the Hydrocarbons Law or the Investment Code prohibits the granting of incentives by ANDI to downstream hydrocarbon activities, which, as stated above, contrary to upstream activities, fall under ordinary tax rules.31
This is particularly relevant in the framework of EPC contracts, which include both upstream and downstream activities. In this respect, we note that the fact that the Hydrocarbons Law authorizes fiscal consolidation of upstream and downstream activities of production and distribution of electricity and distribution of natural gas for ICR calculation purposes32 does not appear to prevent the investor from claiming the incentives under the Investment Code.
However, as a result of the recent amendment, the Investment Code33 now provides that a list of excluded activities, goods and services will be drawn up under a separate regulation based on the recommendations of CNI.34 Such list, however, remains to be established. It is unclear, at this time, whether this list would specifically include any downstream hydrocarbon activity.
Should downstream oil and gas activities, goods or services not be included in the negative list, the following advantages may be granted by ANDI:
Three types of incentives are available depending on the type and location of the investment project.
The following advantages may be granted to the investor under the general regime.35
During the investment realization phase:
• Exemption from customs duties;
• Exemption from VAT;
• Exemption from real estate transfer tax; and
• Total exemption from IBS for a period of five years for risk-bearing capital companies.
During the investment exploitation phase, for a three year term:
• Exemption from IBS; and
• Exemption from TAP.
Pursuant to the derogatory regime, projects which are located in certain designated development zones36 may be entitled to certain tax incentives. Said tax incentives and their duration are set forth in an agreement between the investor and ANDI and may include the following items:
During the investment realization phase:
• Exemption from the real estate transfer tax;
• Reduced registration right of 0.2 percent for incorporation and capital increase deeds;
• Infrastructure work paid in part or totally by the Algerian State;
• Exemption from VAT on goods and services; and
• Exemption from customs duties.
During the investment exploitation phase:
• Exemption from IBS, and TAP for a 10-year period;
• Exemption from the property tax on real estate acquired as part of the investment for a ten year period; and
• Certain additional advantages in order to improve or facilitate the investment such as the carrying forward of deficits or amortization payments.
Special investment agreements may also be concluded between ANDI and investors under the derogatory regime in order to grant special incentives as compensation for investments of particular benefit to the national economy or which present a specific interest for the national economy37 by reason, in particular, of the use of clean technology which helps protect the environment or natural resources, save energy or pursue sustainable development objectives. Such investment agreements may provide for the following incentives:
During the investment realization phase, for a maximum duration of five years:
• Exemption from customs duties and VAT;
• Exemption from the real estate transfer tax and related publication measures;
• Exemption from registration right for incorporation and capital increase deeds; and
• Exemption from property tax on real estate used in production.
During the investment exploitation phase, for a 10-year period:
• Exemption from IBS;
• Exemption from TAP; and
• Possibly, certain additional advantages at the discretion of the CNI.
Finally, it is worth noting that the foregoing incentives may not be cumulated with advantages of the same kind set forth under the ordinary tax rules.38
* * *
In sum, recent legislation has brought significant changes to the Algerian hydrocarbon industry, most of which provide greater certainty to the foreign investor. However, the expected liberalization of the exploration, production and refining activities has, effectively, been put on hold indefinitely.
Although the Algerian oil and gas sector seems to remain an attractive investment sector for U.S. companies, potential investors are advised to carefully monitor the implementing measures that will be adopted by the Algerian government both with respect to the Hydrocarbons Law and the Investment Code prior to making any investment decision.
__________
© Michael L. Coleman & Celine van Zeebroeck - October 19, 2006. Michael Coleman is a Partner at Baker & McKenzie, Chicago. He received a JD from the Free University of Brussels (Belgium) and a JD from Tulane University. He is admitted to the Illinois Bar. He does a significant amount of cross-border counseling in regard to the Maghreb and, in particular, Algeria, and may be reached at michael.l.coleman@bakernet.com. Celine van Zeebroeck is an Associate at Baker & McKenzie, Chicago. She received her JD from the Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium) and her LLM from The University of Chicago. She is admitted to the Brussels Bar. Her areas of practice include cross-border counseling on matters related to the Maghreb countries, and may be reached at celine.vanzeebroeck@bakernet.com.
1. In 2005 direct investment by U.S. companies in Algeria totaled $4.1 billion (on a historical-cost basis, according to statistics gathered by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis), the bulk of which was in the oil and gas sector.
2. Law No. 05-07 of April 28, 2005 concerning Hydrocarbons.
3. Ordinance No. 06-10 of July 29, 2006, which modifies and completes Law No. 05-07 of April 28, 2005 concerning Hydrocarbons published in the Algerian Official Journal of July 30, 2006.
4. Article 32 of the Hydrocarbons Law, as amended.
5. Article 77 of the Hydrocarbons Law, as amended. Sonatrach does not need to be involved in all hydrocarbon transformation activities. The right for any foreign entity to build and operate (without Sonatrach) its own transportation pipelines in accordance with its hydrocarbons transportation concession also remains unaffected.
6. Law No. 86-14 of August 19, 1986.
7. Article 101bis of the Hydrocarbons Law, as amended.
8. Ordinance No. 06-08 of July 15, 2006 modifying Ordinance No. 01-03 of August 20, 2001 on the development of investment. Other amendments to the Investment Code are meant to simplify the relevant administrative procedures.
9. Article 101 of the Hydrocarbons Law.
10. Article 101bis of the Hydrocarbons Law, as amended.
11. Article 101bis of the Hydrocarbons Law, as amended.
12. Article 58 of the Hydrocarbons Law. The parties may nevertheless choose international arbitration as the forum for the resolution of their disputes.
13. Article 32 of the Hydrocarbons Law, as amended.
14. Article 55 of the Hydrocarbons Law.
15. Article 84 of the Hydrocarbons Law.
16. Article 85 of the Hydrocarbons Law.
17. Articles 86 and 87 of the Hydrocarbons Law.
18. Article 88 of the Hydrocarbons Law, as amended.
19. Article 52 of the Hydrocarbons Law.
20. Article 53 of the Hydrocarbons Law.
21. Article 31 of the Hydrocarbons Law.
22. Article 67 of the Hydrocarbons Law.
23. Bilateral treaties for the avoidance of double income taxation signed between Algeria and the following nations are currently in force: A.M.U. (i.e. Libya, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia), Belgium, Egypt, France, Indonesia, Italy, Jordan, Romania, South Africa, Spain, Syria, Turkey and Ukraine.
24. A reduced rate of 1.4 percent applies to wholesale sales.
25. The actual percentage is 24.76 percent.
26. The foreign contracting company is not required to maintain any books and records for purpose of the determination of its net profits/losses and its taxable basis since, by definition, the 24 percent tax is analogous to a tax on gross receipts.
27. Article 1 of the Investment Code.
28. ANDI has a network of regional offices throughout Algeria to assist investors (domestic as well as foreign).
29. Article 14 of the Hydrocarbons Law.
30. Article 35 of the Investment Code.
31. Article 96 of the Hydrocarbons Law.
32. Article 96 of the Hydrocarbons Law.
33. Article 3 of the Investment Code, as amended.
34. The National Investment Council (CNI) was created to strengthen the legal and regulatory investment framework. The CNI is in charge of defining the investment strategy and its priorities, for approving special investment incentives in each sector, and for granting final authorization to special investment schemes.
35. Article 9 of the Investment Code.
36. Articles 11 and 12 of the Investment Code.
37. Articles 12bis and 13 of the Investment Code.
38. Last paragraph of the Investment Code, as amended.
In a recent National Law Journal article,1 reporter Sheri Quarters detailed a tack of how an immigration lawyer may get bureaucracy off the dime when immigration application processing is delayed or non-existent. In California a tactic for reinvigorating stalled immigration visa applications that has been successful using the Federal Courts to push the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Agency to process those applications in a more expeditious manner. The tactic is to file a writ of mandamus in Federal court.
Simply put, a Writ of Mandamus is a “writ issued by a superior court to compel a lower court or government officer to perform managerial or ministerial duties correctly.”2 In such a case, a writ of mandamus can be used to compel an agency “to render a decision on the visa application.”3
In Raduga,4 the Court found that the defendants had delayed the processing of a business visa application for over four years. In this case the plaintiff’s provided evidence that this delay cost the company over $2 million dollars in lost sales. The court said:
The Court finds the four year delay in deciding Plaintiff’s visa application unreasonable and therefore ISSUES (sic) a writ of mandamus against the United States consular officials named as defendants…5
As reported, the use of a writ of mandamus to speed up the process of visa applications for employees is fairly common in the Los Angles area. Quarters also points out that the use of this tool for expediting visa applications is also being used in jurisdictions such as Ohio, Massachusetts and Florida. While this process generally has been confined to use by employers who can demonstrate damages due to the delays of the visa process, if standing and the proper statutory requirements are met it may be possible that such a tactic could be used in personal application where delays cause severe hardships. As the District Court in the Raguda case pointed out:
Constitutional standing contains three elements: (1) plaintiff must have suffered and injury in fact, (2) the injury must be fairly traceable to the challenged action by the defendant; and (3) it must be likely that the injury will be redressed by a favorable court decision.6
In addition, one must be aware that all administrative remedies must be exhausted prior to asking the court for a writ of mandamus and that a writ of mandamus is discretionary and not a right.
The use of the federal courts and a writ of mandamus may not be applicable to all immigration issues. One has to research the applicability and previous cases can be useful in providing guidance. While a Lexis search reveals only one such case under “mandamus and visa” in Illinois in the last two years, in California there have been seven decisions rendered and many more pending. This may not be the best path but it may be an avenue of last resort to end delays and bring some justice to people needlessly entangled in the web of immigration bureaucracy.
__________
John T. Baun is a 3L law student at John Marshall Law School in Chicago and a PhD candidate at University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Mr. Baun has recently returned from a summer study and research at China University of Political Science and Law (CUPL) and Tsinghua University in Beijing. Mr. Baun was involved with international business for many years as the owner of a company exporting to Europe and Asia. He is concentrating on Constitutional and Human rights primarily in the international arena.
1. Sheri Quarters, Stalled Workers visa Solved in U.S. Courts, National Law Journal, August 28, 2006 (available at http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1156511793820).
2. Black’s Law Dictionary, 973 (7th ed. 1999).
3. Raduga U.S.A. Corp., v U.S. Department of State, et. al., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33043, 3
4. Raguda USA Corp., v. U.S. Department of state, et. al., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXDIS 22941
5. Id. at 23
6. Id. at 6
Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon: Suppression of the evidence is not an appropriate remedy when state authorities violate Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
In a recent consolidated U.S. Supreme Court decision, Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 126 S. Ct. 2669 (U.S. 2006), the Court held it lacks the authority to suppress evidence obtained by state authorities and admitted in state courts in violation of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
Petitioner Moises Sanchez-Llamas is a Mexican citizen. In December 1999, Sanchez-Llamas was arrested after allegedly shooting a police officer. Sanchez-Llamas was given his Miranda warnings in Spanish and English. However, he was never informed that the authorities would contact the Mexican consulate if he requested. After the Miranda warnings were given, he was interrogated and he made numerous incriminating statements. Before his trial, Sanchez-Llamas argued the incriminating statements should be suppressed, because they were made involuntary and the police failed to inform him of his Article 36 rights. The trial court denied the motion. Sanchez-Llamas was convicted and sentenced to 20.5 years in prison. He appealed his conviction to the Oregon Court of Appeals and the Oregon Supreme Court. The Oregon Supreme Court upheld his conviction and ruled Article 36 “does not create rights to consular access or notification that are enforceable by detained individuals in a judicial proceeding” Id at 2676 (citing State v. Sanchez-Llamas, 108 P.3d 573,578 (Or. 2005)).
In 1969, the U.S. ratified the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. There are currently 170 countries that are parties to the Convention. Article 36 of the Convention gives rights to any individual detained by authorities of a member state of which the individual is not a national. In summary Article 36 states, “When a national of one country is detained by authorities in another, the authorities must notify the consular officers of the detainee’s home country if the detainee so requests.” Id at 2675. Additionally, the authorities have an affirmative duty to inform the detainee without delay of his rights under Article 36. Finally, the Convention provides guidance on how to implement Article 36 rights.
In formulating its opinion, the U.S Supreme Court had to determine whether it had the authority to apply a judicial remedy to state supreme court decisions when foreign nationals’ Article 36 rights are violated. In Sanchez-Llamas, the Court granted certiorari on the following three issues: “(1) whether Article 36 of the Vienna Convention grants rights that may be invoked by individuals in a judicial proceeding; (2) whether suppression of evidence is a proper remedy for a violation of Article 36; and (3) whether an Article 36 claim may be deemed forfeited under state procedural rules because a defendant failed to raise the claim at trial.” Id at 2677
Sanchez-Llamas argued “that Article 36 grant[ed him] an individually enforceable right to request that [his] consular officers be notified of [his] detention, and an accompanying right to be informed by authorities of the availability of consular notification.” Id at 2677. The Court assumed he had this right and did not address the issue further. The Court “conclude[d] that Sanchez-Llamas is not in any event entitled to relief on their claims… ,” consequently it did not matter whether or not he had a right granted by Article 36. Id at 2677.
Since the Court assumed an individual has an enforceable right granted by Article 36, Sanchez-Llamas argued that the trial court was required to suppress his statements to the police, because he was never informed of his Article 36 rights. He also argued that the Court had the “authority to develop remedies for the enforcement of federal law in state-court criminal proceedings” which would allow the Court to remand his case to state court with the instruction to suppress the evidence gained in violation of Article 36. Id at 2679.
Conversely, the State of Oregon argued the Court “lacked any authority over the state-court proceeding” and that the Court had the “supervisory authority” to suppress evidence in federal court proceedings but lacked the authority in state-court proceedings. The State of Oregon further argued that if the Court had the authority to create a remedy that would suppress evidence in state court the power must be found in the Vienna Convention another treaty. Id at 2679.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the State of Oregon and held that it lacked supervisory authority over the state court, because “[The Vienna Convention] expressly leaves the implementation of Article 36 to domestic law…” Id at 2678. “As far as the text of the Convention is concerned, the question of availability of the exclusionary rule for Article 36 violations is a matter of domestic law.” Id at 2678. In other words, it is up to state courts to decide what remedies they will apply when a foreign national’s Article 36 rights have be violated. Id at 2678. Additionally, the Court held for it to have the authority to adjudicate a judicial remedy on a state, the remedy must be provided for in the treaty “expressly or implicitly… it is not for the federal courts to impose on the States through lawmaking of their own.” Id at 2680. The court reasoned it could not impose a remedy on Oregon, because there was no express remedy set forth in the Convention.
Sanchez-Llamas further argued that the rights created by Article 36 “implicitly requires a judicial remedy” because without a judicial remedy Article 36 could not be enforced. Id at 2680. The Court assumed this argument to be correct but concluded, “the exclusionary rule is not a remedy we apply lightly… The violation of the right to consular notification, in contrast, is at best remotely connected to the gathering of evidence. Article 36 has nothing whatsoever to do with searches or interrogations.” Id at 2680-2681. The Court reasoned that evidence found in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments created coerced confessions that “tend to be unreliable” and suppressing evidence found in violation of the Fourth of Amendment deters authorities from violating this Amendment. Id at 2681 By contrast, “[t]he failure to inform a defendant of his Article 36 rights is unlikely, with any frequency, to produce unreliable confessions. And unlike the search-and-seizure context-where the need to obtain valuable evidence may temp authorities to transgress Fourth Amendment limitations-police win little, if any, practical advantage from violating Article 36.” Id at 2681. Additionally, the Court concluded foreign nationals are entitled to the same rights as all criminal defendants under the “Due Process Clause”. Id at 2681-2682. Finally, the Court did concede that there are other remedies available to foreign nationals under Article 36. For example, foreign nationals can raise an Article 36 right at trial that would allow them “benefits of consular assistance.” Id at 2683. Consequently, foreign national’s, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights are adequately protected against government coercion, and they do not evidence suppress by an Article 36 violation.
While Justice Ginsburg concurred with the holding of the Court, she agreed with the dissenters’ reasoning that “there are some times when a Convention violation, standing alone, might warrant suppression, or the displacement of a State’s ordinarily applicable procedural default rules.” Id at 2690. Contrary to the Court’s opinion that foreign nationals detainees are adequately protected by the Fourth and Fifith Amendments, Justice Breyer stated in his dissenting opinion, “[O]ne cannot guarantee in advance Miranda will adequately cure every seriously prejudicial failure to inform an arrested person of his right to contact his consular post.” Id at 2706. A foreign national who is unaccustomed to U.S. criminal procedural law might believe a police confession cannot be used against her in court. The foreign national would benefit greatly by speaking with a representative of her consulate in her native language. The consulate could then inform her that she has the right to have a lawyer present during interrogation and reassure her that she would not become a victim of police brutality if she did not confess. Id at 2706. In other words, Justice Ginsburg and the dissenters would not completely bar the Court from suppressing evidence, in state courts, found in violation of Article 36.
In conclusion, the Court assumed Article 36 gives a foreign national an enforceable right; however, the Court held it lacks the authority to apply a judicial remedy in state court that would suppress evidence obtained in violation of Article 36. Thus the question remains, what remedies are available to foreign nationals when their Article 36 rights are violated by state authorities?
__________
Jason Gunnell is a third year law student at Southern Illinois University graduating in May 2007. He may be contacted at jgunnell@siu.edu.
The Illinois International Business Calendar is a collaborative effort among the International Trade Association of Greater Chicago (ITA/GC), the Office of Trade and Investment of the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO), and the Illinois District Export Council (IDEC), on behalf of the U.S. Export Assistance Center Chicago (USEAC). The Calendar is also available on the ITA/GC’s website: www.itagc.org.
Nov. 30—BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES IN MALAYSIA
Conference organized by the Malaysian Industrial Development Authority and the Malaysian External Trade Development Corporation; co-sponsored by the: Illinois Department of Commerce & Economic Opportunity; Illinois Global Partnership; International Trade Association of Greater Chicago; World Business Chicago; World Trade Center Chicago; and others. Her Excellency Rafidah Aziz, Minister of International Trade & Industry, leads a trade and investment delegation of about 50 businessmen and senior government officials who are interested in seeking strategic alliances with U.S. companies. 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m., Hyatt Regency O’Hare, 9300 West Bryn Mawr Avenue, Rosemont, IL. No charge; advance registration requested. For information & registration, call 312/787-4532; e-mail: mida@midachicago.org; or visit: www.malaysiaconf.midachicago.org.
Nov. 30—STOP COUNTERFEITING IN MANUFACTURED GOODS ACT: EXPLORING THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Luncheon program sponsored by The John Marshall Law School’s Center for Intellectual Property and Center for International Business and Trade Law. Presentations by Thomas R. Dee, Vedder Price, and Lawrence M. Friedman, Barnes, Richardson and Colburn. 11:30 a.m. – 1:30 p.m., 315 South Plymouth Court, Room 1200, Chicago. Fee: $25; advance registration requested. For information & registration, please call 312/987-1420 or e-mail: events@jmls.edu.
Dec. 2—ANNUAL CHINA SYMPOSIUM 2006
Annual event sponsored by the U.S.-China Peoples Friendship Association – Chicago Chapter. Topics and speakers include: Publicly Traded Stocks of Chinese Companies in the U.S. and China – Sonny Yi Shen, Managing Director, Digilog Shen LLC; Challenges in Drafting English Chinese Bilingual Contracts – Preston Torbert, Partner, Baker & McKenzie; Intellectual Property Protection in China – Mark Croll, Vice President Patents & Technology, ITW; Chinese Agriculture: Recent and Prospective Changes Robert Easter, Dean, College of Agriculture, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign; Highlights of China’s 11th 5-Year Plan (2007-2011) – Mark Allee, Professor, Loyola University. 12:00 – 5:45 p.m., Loyola University Chicago, Lake Shore Campus, Crown Center, 6525 North Sheridan Road, Chicago. For information & registration, please call 847/251-1400 x0 or visit: www.uscpfa.org/chicago.
Dec. 4—GLOBAL ECONOMIC & TRADE OUTLOOK 2007: THE IMPACT OF CHINA & INDIA.
Luncheon program sponsored by: Charter One; Royal Bank of Scotland; Illinois Global Partnership; International Trade Association of Greater Chicago. Presentation by Andrew Wilson, Deputy Chief Economist, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group, London. 11:30 a.m. – 2:00 p.m., Union League Club, 65 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago. Members & clients of sponsoring organizations - $35; Non-members - $50. For information & registration, please call 312/425- 7006 or e-mail: rsvp@illinoisglobal.org.
Dec. 5—EXPORTING BASICS
Seminar sponsored by the NAFTA Center at NORBIC. Presentations by Larry Friedman, Attorney, Barnes, Richardson & Colburn and Chris Press, NAFTA Center at NORBIC. 8:00 – 11:30 a.m., Wright College, 4300 North Narragansett Avenue, Room S-101, Chicago. NORBIC Members - $30; Non-members - $45. For information & registration, please call Nicole Tompkins at 773/594-9292 or e-mail: info@illinoismanufacturing.org.
Dec. 5—CHINESE CULTURAL BRIEFING SERIES #2: CHINESE VALUES
Program sponsored by the Chicago Chinese Cultural Institute. Program includes insights on: Guanxi; Face; Family; Authority; Chinese modesty & humility; Harmony & conflict management. 6:00 – 7:30 p.m., Chicago Chinese Cultural Institute, 2145-B South China Place, Chicago. Fee: $25. For information & registration, please call 312/842-1988 or e-mail: info@chicagocci.com.
Dec. 7-8—GLOBAL MANUFACTURING SERIES 2006.
Third annual conference sponsored by the: International Trade Club of Chicago; Society of Manufacturing Engineers; Tooling and Manufacturing Association, Illinois Institute of Technology; U.S. Export Assistance Center; The Economist Business Intelligence Unit; and others. Presenting companies/case studies include Atlas Technology (IL), Bi-Link (IL), GR Spring & Stamping (MI), Hydrox Laboratories (IL), Mathews Company (IL), North American Tool Corporation (IL), Prince Industries (IL), S•K Hand Tool Corporation (IL), and The Schebler Company (IA). In addition, Cardinal Health (OH, IL) in collaboration with one of their top local MBE suppliers (Hydrox Labs) will discuss Cardinal’s unique supplier diversity program. 8:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m., Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago. For information & registration, please call 312/368-9197; e-mail: events@itcc.org; or visit: www.itcc-gms.org.
Dec. 11—HOLIDAY NETWORKING RECEPTION.
Event sponsored by the International Trade Association of Greater Chicago and the Chicago International Trade Commissioners Association. Network with peers, colleagues and international trade commissioners from Chicago’s international business community. Hot & cold hors d’oeuvres, live music and more. 6:00 – 9:00 p.m., Gibsons Steakhouse Rosemont, 5464 North River Road, Rosemont, IL. ITA/GC Members - $25; Nonmembers- $35 (receive a $35 credit on your Membership Application this evening). For information and registration, please call 773/725-1106; e-mail: rsvp@itagc.org; visit: www.itagc.org.
Jan. 9—CHINESE CULTURAL BRIEFING SERIES #3: CROSS CULTURAL COMMUNICATION.
Program sponsored by the Chicago Chinese Cultural Institute. Program includes insights on the most important communication differences between Chinese and Americans. 6:00 – 7:30 p.m., Chicago Chinese Cultural Institute, 2145-B South China Place, Chicago. Fee: $25. For information & registration, please call 312/842-1988 or e-mail: info@chicagocci.com.
Jan. 10—UCP 600 FOR AMERICANS.
Seminar sponsored by the United States Council for International Business. Program reviews the 2007 revision of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits letter of credit rules. Presentations by Donald R. Smith, U.S. representative for this revision, and Frank Reynolds. 8:30 a.m. – 4:30 p.m., Doubletree Hotel, 1200 North Mittel Boulevard, Wood Dale, IL. Fee: $395. For information & registration, please visit: www.ucp600seminar.org.
Feb. 6—CHINESE CULTURAL BRIEFING SERIES #4: CHINESE ETIQUETTE.
Program sponsored by the Chicago Chinese Cultural Institute. Program includes insights on: Appointment making; Respecting authority; Business cards; Handshake/Greetings; Gift exchange; Table manners. 6:00 – 7:30 p.m., Chicago Chinese Cultural Institute, 2145-B South China Place, Chicago. Fee: $25. For information & registration, please call 312/842-1988 or e-mail: info@chicagocci.com.
Apr. 11-12—GLOBAL TREASURY MANAGEMENT 2007
Seminar sponsored by Treasury Alliance Group LLC. Seminar for treasury professionals on international treasury techniques, payments, practices and their application. 8:30 am. – 5:00 p.m., Union League Club of Chicago, 65 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL. Fee: $1,495. For information & registration, please call 630/717-9728 or e-mail: dlblumen@treasuryalliance.com.
__________
About the Sponsoring Organizations…
Founded in December 1977, The International Trade Association of Greater Chicago (ITA/GC) was incorporated in January 1979 as an Illinois not- for-profit, voluntary business association dedicated to promoting international commerce in all its forms by providing a forum for the exchange of practical information and insight within the international business community.
The Office of Trade and Investment (OTI) of the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO) is the State of Illinois’ lead international advocate in promoting job retention and creation in Illinois through International Trade and Investment. The OTI motto of offering assistance to the business community by being “State Focused – Globally Connected” is accomplished through a three-tier international network consisting of: International Trade/NAFTA Opportunity Centers regionally located throughout Illinois to provide local export training; Statewide counseling and assistance provided through the OTI Chicago headquarters’ staff; and foreign State of Illinois Regional Trade Offices providing in-country assistance for Illinois businesses. To contact the OTI of DCEO, please call 312/814-2828 or visit: www.illinoisbiz.biz/bus/ito/index.html.
The U.S. Export Assistance Center Chicago is part of the Commercial Service of the U.S. Department of Commerce and is committed to assisting U.S. firms in realizing their export potential. We do this by providing expert counseling and advice, information on markets abroad, international contacts and advocacy services. The U.S. Export Assistance Centers in Chicago, Peoria, Libertyville and Rockford are part of the Commercial Service of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Around the world, the 1,400 men and women of the Commercial Service promote and protect U.S. business interests abroad. The Export Assistance Centers throughout the United States offer a full range of export programs and services under one roof. Here in Chicago, we are co-located with the Small Business Administration and the U.S. Export-Import Bank to provide export financing assistance to companies in Illinois and throughout the Midwest. To contact the U.S. Export Assistance Center, please call 312/353-8040 or visit: www.buyusa.gov/uppermidwest.
Comprised of 26 volunteers appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, the Illinois District Export Council supports, assists and advises the U.S. Export Assistance Center Chicago in its mission to increase the exports of the United States. For further information, please e-mail: info@illinoisdec.org.