Posts Tagged ‘Switzerland’
Swiss Banks Lost $383 Billion So Far Due To Tax Evasion Investigations
Posted by William Byrnes on September 1, 2014
Posted in FATCA, Money Laundering | Tagged: banks, Swiss, Switzerland, Tax Evasion | Leave a Comment »
FATCA and Switzerland: Model II
Posted by William Byrnes on July 22, 2013
Note: The following is an excerpt from Chapter 19 of the LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance* – The title is now shipping to customers world-wide.
In General
…
Unlike Model I, the “Swiss” Model II does not establish automatic information exchange between governments. The Swiss government has thus not agreed to automatic information exchange between governmental authorities. Instead, the Swiss government has agreed that it will ensure that the Swiss financial institutions will be able to enter into an FFI agreement with the U.S. Treasury Department to directly report to the IRS (to become a “participating FFI”). In other words, the underlying mechanics of Model II are the same as under FATCA itself. The financial institutions organized under Swiss law annually report the U.S. accountholders and their U.S. beneficial owners.
For Switzerland it has become necessary to negotiate Model II, as Swiss law prohibits financial institutions from acting on behalf of a foreign government. Article 271 (1) of the Swiss Criminal Code states that “[a]ny person who carries out activities on behalf of a foreign state without lawful authority . . .”2 commits a crime. This provision would have put financial institutions in Switzerland in an untenable position where they would have had to decide whether they want to be in conflict with the Swiss Criminal Code or with FATCA. With the Model II Agreement, Swiss financial institutions have the guarantee that they will not be prosecuted in Switzerland if they report bank information to the IRS.3
… As regards existing U.S. accounts (and U.S. accounts yet to be opened), the relevant financial institution is to obtain prior consent from the accountholder regarding the reporting of bank information to the IRS. In particular, there is a duty to proceed actively. Where the accountholder declines consent, the financial institution may not deliver information to the IRS. Without prior consent it would violate Swiss banking secrecy rules, which are still in effect. What is reported, however, are “nameless aggregates” and the number of accounts that, in FATCA terms, belong to the “Recalcitrant Accountholders”.
This information is to form the basis of an IRS group request, through which the IRS, on request, can demandcomplete information on the Recalcitrant Accountholders.4 The group request provides the IRS, after a time lag, with the information that the financial institution would have reported according to the FATCA rules had it received consent to report (see article 2 2(c) of Model II).
It is interesting how the Model II agreement governs this group request mechanism, as the agreement includes no independent regulation, but refers in this regard to provisions of the double tax convention (article 2 2(a) of Model II). Nevertheless, the Model II itself provides that the group request and the requested information are “foreseeably relevant” within the meaning of the applicable relevant double tax convention. See article 2 2(b) of Model II: “The information requested […] shall be considered information that is foreseeably relevant […] covered by the Convention […].”5 The U.S. – Switzerland IGA Article 5 Exchange of Information provides that such requests shall be made pursuant to the Protocol of the Article 26 of the U.S. – Switzerland Double Tax Agreement when the Protocol enters into force. Furthermore, such requests shall apply only to information beginning upon the IGA’s entry into force. The requested information will be considered “…information that may be relevant for carrying out the administration or enforcement of the domestic laws of the United States …, without regard to whether the Reporting Swiss financial Institution or another party has contributed to noncompliance of the taxpayers in the group.”6
…
Analysis
…
The question now is what legal implications FATCA will entail in Switzerland, especially with regard to the group request reporting. The group request provision in Model II will, in our prediction, be tested in Swiss courts once the first account data of Recalcitrant Accountholders are the subject of an IRS group request. As regards the legal issues concerning this group request, the following points should suffice.
… read the entire chapter analysis excerpt at Lexis’ FATCA Central
______
[1] Agreement between the United States of America and Switzerland for Cooperation to Facilitate the Implementation of FATCA (February 14, 2013) (“U.S. – Switzerland IGA”) available at http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/treaties/Documents/FATCA-Agreement-Switzerland-2-14-2013.pdf .
[2] Article 271 (1) of the Swiss Criminal Code. Emphasis added.
[3] Art. 4 of the U.S. – Switzerland IGA.
[4] Art. 5, Para. 1 of the U.S. – Switzerland IGA.
[5] Emphasis added. Model II also includes an exchangable phrase “may be relevant”.
[6] Article 5, para. 2 of the U.S. – Switzerland IGA.
[7] Article 6 of the U.S. – Switzerland IGA.
[8] Article 9 of the U.S. – Switzerland IGA.
[9] Annex II, Art. II, Para. A – Deemed-Compliant Financial Institutions.
…
Posted in Compliance, FATCA, Taxation | Tagged: FATCA, Financial institution, Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, Internal Revenue Service, LexisNexis, Switzerland, United State, United States Department of the Treasury | Leave a Comment »
IRS Kicks Off New Offshore Amnesty Program
Posted by William Byrnes on April 6, 2011
Taxpayers with assets hidden in offshore accounts will get a second chance to voluntarily declare their assets to the IRS in return for reduced penalties under the new Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative (“OVDI”).
This newest offshore amnesty program offers a reduced, 25% penalty which will be calculated based on the highest aggregate amount in the taxpayer’s offshore account between 2003 and 2010. In addition to penalties, program participants will be required to pay eight years of back taxes plus interest, accuracy related penalties, and delinquency penalties. Read this complete analysis of the impact at AdvisorFX (sign up for a free trial subscription with full access to all of the planning libraries and client presentations if you are not already a subscriber).
For previous coverage of offshore issues in Advisor’s Journal, see IRS Planning New Voluntary Disclosure Program for Offshore Assets (CC 10-118), Offshore’s Limited Shelf Life (CC 10-47) & IRS Proposed FATCA Guidance Expands Offshore Compliance Initiatives (CC 10-52)
Posted in Compliance, Tax Policy | Tagged: Douglas Shulman, Internal Revenue Service, IRS, Offshore bank, Switzerland, tax, UBS, United States | Leave a Comment »
Offshore Swiss Bank Indictments Follow Voluntary Disclosure Program
Posted by William Byrnes on April 1, 2011
Why is this Topic Important to Wealth Managers? This topic discusses the potential consequences of not playing by the rules; it is important to constantly keep in mind the balance between providing the most efficient and effective services to clients and crossing the line into illegal territory. Clients may not realize the harsh penalties associated with offshore activity, and although when performed by expert planners under the proper circumstances, that some offshore transactions may be legal and beneficial, it is the job of informed wealth managers to keep clients abreast of information that is useful in making long-term financial decisions.
Four bankers at an international bank incorporated and with its headquarters in Zurich, Switzerland, with offices worldwide, including New York City and Miami, were indicted by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia and charged with conspiring with other Swiss bankers to defraud the United States, the Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced Wednesday.
According to the indictment, the international bank’s managers and bankers engaged in illegal cross-border banking that was designed to assist U.S. customers evade their income taxes by opening and maintaining secret bank accounts at the bank and other Swiss banks. As of the fall of 2008, the international bank maintained thousands of secret accounts for customers in the United States with as much as $3 billion in total assets under management in those accounts.
The Justice Department announced the scheme dates back to 1953 and involved two generations of U.S. tax evaders including U.S. customers who inherited secret accounts at the international bank.
The indictment asserts that four foreign individuals, members of senior management, bankers and others assisted U.S. taxpayers in evading their U.S. taxes through the use of secret bank accounts in Switzerland.
According to the indictment, the defendants and their co-conspirators solicited U.S. customers to open secret accounts because Swiss bank secrecy would permit them to conceal from the IRS their ownership of accounts at the bank and other Swiss banks. It is further alleged that they provided unlicensed and unregistered banking services and investment advice to customers in the United States in person while on travel to here, including at the international bank’s representative office in New York City and by mailings, e-mail and telephone calls to and from the United States.
Read the analysis at AdvisorFYI
Posted in Compliance, Money Laundering | Tagged: Banking in Switzerland, Internal Revenue Service, New York City, Switzerland, UBS, United States, United States Department of Justice, Zurich | 2 Comments »
Wikileaks To Release Details of Secret Swiss Accounts
Posted by William Byrnes on March 1, 2011
Wikileaks is set to release confidential Swiss banking documents, and although the scope of information included in the documents isn’t yet clear, the release could pave the way for a new IRS surge against tax evaders. Similar disclosures by bank insiders were at the heart of the Justice Department’s UBS investigation. This most recent leak came from a former senior private banker and chief operating officer of Julius Baer’s Caribbean operation. He’s currently on trial in Switzerland for allegedly leaking client documents in 2005.
… the statute of limitations for criminal tax offenses is generally three years, but there are a number of exceptions that extend the statute to six years, including “willfully attempting to evade or defeat any tax.” Leaked documents from prior to 2002 would reveal activities that would generally fall outside the six-year statute of limitations; however, the six year statute only begins to run on the day the last affirmative act is committed by the defendant, so criminal prosecution of accountholders revealed by the leak may still be viable. Read this complete analysis of the impact at AdvisorFX (sign up for a free trial subscription with full access to all of the planning libraries and client presentations if you are not already a subscriber).
For previous coverage of the IRS’s offshore enforcement efforts in Advisor’s Journal, see Offshore’s Limited Shelf Life (CC 10-47), IRS Proposed FATCA Guidance Expands Offshore Compliance Initiatives (CC 10-52), and IRS Planning New Voluntary Disclosure Program for Offshore Assets (CC 10-118).
Posted in Money Laundering | Tagged: Banking in Switzerland, Caribbean, Julian Assange, Julius Baer Group, Offshore bank, Switzerland, UBS, Wikileaks | Leave a Comment »
William Byrnes' Tax, Wealth, and Risk Intelligence 