FATCA UPDATE

By Armin Gray* 

IRS PUBLISHES 1ST FFI LIST

On June 2, implementation of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA”) reached another milestone. On that date, the IRS published its first list of foreign financial institutions (“FFI’s”) that have registered with the IRS to show intent to comply with FATCA and have received a Global Intermediary Information Number (“GIIN”) to document that compliance. The IRS list is important since U.S. withholding agents who are being asked by FFI’s not to remit the 30% withholding tax imposed under FATCA must first obtain a GIIN from the FFI and then confirm on the IRS published list that the GIIN is accurate and in full force.

More than 77,000 FFI’s appear on this first list and include foreign affiliates of some of the U.S.'s largest financial institutions. Among those financial institutions are Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Merrill Lynch, and Franklin Templeton.

Withholding agents and others looking to search the website are given three options. First, the GIIN of an FFI can be entered to see if it is accurate and has not been revoked. Second, the name of the FFI can be entered. If the full name of the FFI is not known, the website allows entry of part of the name and will then show all FFI’s whose name includes the entry so that the desired FFI can then be found. Third, the website allows entry of the country of the FFI or its branch; this list will produce the most options, requiring the most review.

The website will now be updated each month to add the names of new FFI’s that agree to participate in the FATCA program or are registered deemed compliant FFI’s that fit within one of the exceptions to full compliance. The list will also be updated to remove the names of any FFI whose FATCA compliant status may have been lost.

IRS UPDATES FATCA FAQs

On May 29, the IRS updated its FATCA FAQs by addressing the protocol for a taxpayer whose registration under FATCA is put into “registration under review” status. The IRS said if a taxpayer's registration status is noted as being under review, the taxpayer should contact e-Help at 866-255-0652 and indicate that status. In addition, the taxpayer should provide the name of the financial institution and its FATCA identification and the name, telephone number, and e-mail address of either the FATCA responsible officer or a point of contact.

NEW I.G.A. COUNTRIES ADDED

The, Antigua and Barbuda, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Barbados, Georgia, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Paraguay, Seychelles, Solvenia, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Turks and Caicos Islands, United Arab Emirates, have entered into intergovernmental agreements (“I.G.A.’s”) or I.G.A.’s in substance under FATCA The countries listed above, except Paraguay which signed a Model 2 I.G.A. in substance, agreed to Model 1 I.G.A.’s or Model 1 I.G.A.’s in substance.

At this time, the countries that are Model I partners by execution of an agreement or concluding an agreement in principle are:

Antigua and Barbuda
Belarus
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Barbados
Belgium
Brazil
British Virgin Is.
Bulgaria
Canada
Cayman Islands
Colombia
Costa Rica
Croatia
Curacao
Czech Republic
Cyprus
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Georgia
Germany
Gibraltar
Grenadines Guernsey
Hungary
Honduras
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Isle of Man
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Jersey
Kosovo
Kuwait
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Mauritius
Mexico
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Panama
Peru
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Seychelles
Singapore
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
Romania
The U.K.
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Turks & Caicos Is.
UAE

The countries that are Model II partners are: Armenia, Austria, Bermuda, Chile, Hong Kong, Japan, Switzerland, and Paraguay.

___________________

* The following article was published in Insights, by Ruchelman P.L.L.C.  Insights was originally designed, created, and edited by Armin Gray. Kyu Kim of Kyu & A LLC, a design company, substantially assisted in its design as well. Co-authors originally included Philip Hirschfeld, who substantially contributed to the article. We thank them for their support. 

U.S. V. ZWERNER: WILLFUL NON-FILINGS RESULT IN MONSTROUS CIVIL PENALTIES

By Armin Gray

United States v. Zwerner{C}[1] illustrates the potential for monstrous civil penalties resulting from willful failure to file F.B.A.R.’s. It further confirms the point that, if evidence of willfulness exists even in a sympathetic case, the I.R.S. may assert willful penalties in the case of “silent” or “quiet” disclosures, which the I.R.S. and its officials have consistently warned in official and non-official statements.{C}[2]

The facts of the case in brief are as follows:

From 2004 through 2007, Carl Zwerner, currently an 87-year-old Florida resident, was the beneficial owner of an unreported financial interest in a Swiss bank account that he owned indirectly through two successive entities. He did not report the income on the accounts for the period of 2004 through 2007, according to the complaint filed by the United States, but in his answer to the complaint, Zwerner, while admitting that he filed a delinquent F.B.A.R. for 2007, denied filing an amended return for that year, stating that his financial interest in the foreign account was reported on his timely-filed 1040 for that year. The complaint also alleged that, for 2006 and 2007, he represented to his accountant that he had no interest or signature authority over a financial account in a foreign country. Zwerner denied those allegations.

According to the answer to the complaint, Zwerner made, what he thought to be, a voluntary disclosure. However, he was poorly represented. His attorneys advised him that a voluntary disclosure occurred, and that he should file amended returns and delinquent F.B.A.R.’s based on the advice of his then “counsel,” and he was subsequently audited in 2010. His defense appeared to be reasonable reliance on what he thought to be competent attorneys and for the fact that, under past and then-existing programs, the penalties would be substantially reduced if not eliminated, to the extent that an actual voluntary disclosure would have been made.

Pursuant to an audit, Zwerner apparently admitted that he was aware of his reporting obligations in a statement addressed to the I.R.S. in hopes – or promise – of reduced penalties.[3]  Citing this admission, the I.R.S. assessed a penalty for willful failure to file an F.B.A.R. in an amount of 50% of the highest balance of the unreported account for every year of this four-year period. The penalties were as follows:

·                2004 - $723,762, assessed on June 21, 2011;

·                2005 - $745,209, assessed on August 10, 2011;

·                2006 - $772,838, assessed on August 10, 2011; and

·                2007 - $845,527, assessed on August 10, 2011.

Zwerner refused to pay the fines. The U.S. filed a complaint to collect on June 11, 2013. The total sum of the amount of the fines, plus interest and additional amounts, owed to the United States as of the date of filing was $3,488,609.33. Zwerner responded in an answer to the complaint with multiple defenses, including a defense based on the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits excessive fines.

On May 28, 2014, a U.S. District Court jury ruled against the taxpayer finding three willful violations of failing to file an F.B.A.R.

The consequences to the 87-year old taxpayer were chilling: he faced civil penalties amounting to 150% of the highest balance on the unreported account plus interest and additional amounts. This by far exceeded the value of the defendant’s unreported account. Attorneys representing Zwerner stated they would present an Eighth Amendment challenge to the fines. In U.S. v. Bajakajian,{C}[4] the Supreme Court ruled that forfeiture of $357,114 transported out of the country in violation of statute requiring reporting of transport of more than $10,000 would constitute an excessive fine. The Supreme Court stated:

The forfeiture of respondent’s entire $357,144 would be grossly disproportional to the gravity of his offense. His crime was solely a reporting offense. It was permissible to transport the currency out of the country so long as he reported it. And because §982(a)(1) orders currency forfeited for a “willful” reporting violation, the essence of the crime is a willful failure to report. Furthermore, the District Court found his violation to be unrelated to any other illegal activities. Whatever his other vices, respondent does not fit into the class of persons for whom the statute was principally designed: money launderers, drug traffickers, and tax evaders. And the maximum penalties that could have been imposed under the Sentencing Guidelines, a 6-month sentence and a $5,000 fine, confirm a minimal level of culpability and are dwarfed by the $357,144 forfeiture sought by the Government. The harm that respondent caused was also minimal. The failure to report affected only the Government, and in a relatively minor way. There was no fraud on the Government and no loss to the public fisc. Had his crime gone undetected, the Government would have been deprived only of the information that $357,144 had left the country. Thus, there is no articulable correlation between the $357,144 and any Government injury. 

Ultimately, the I.R.S. and the defendant settled, leaving the Eighth Amendment challenge for another day.

Under the terms of the settlement, Zwerner agreed to pay to the U.S. two of the 50% FBAR penalties assessed against him relating to 2004 and 2005 in the amounts of $723,762 and $745,209 respectfully, plus interest thereon of $21,336.11 and $20,947.52 respectively, plus statutory penalties on the FBAR penalty assessments for 2004 and 2005 of $128,016.64 and $125,685.11 respectively.

The end result in Zwerner is bitter sweet for taxpayers. Facing four willful F.B.A.R. penalties, through litigating, Zwerner reduced it to two. However, two F.B.A.R. penalties, plus interest and penalties for late payment, is devastating to the taxpayer as the penalties exceed the balance of the unreported account. Further, although the U.S. settled, indicating doubt as to the strength of their position on the Eighth Amendment challenge, they can use this, and other cases, to incentivize taxpayers into compliance through voluntary disclosures as the Eighth Amendment issue remains unsettled.

 

 

{C}[1]           United States v. Zwerner, S.D. Fla., No. 1:13-cv-22082, 5/28/14.

{C}[2]           See, e.g., O.V.D.P. FAQ #15, encouraging participation in the O.V.D.P. and stating that “[t]hose taxpayers making ‘quiet’ disclosures should be aware of the risk of being examined and potentially criminally prosecuted for all applicable years.”

{C}[3]           The answer alleges that the I.R.S. agent coerced an admission through an empty promise of reduced penalties.

{C}[4]           524 U.S. 321 (1998).

U.S. V. HOM: NON-WILLFUL PENALTIES ON VARIOUS POKER RELATED ACCOUNTS

By Armin Gray

U.S. v. Hom[1] held that a taxpayer's accounts at an online financial company and at two online poker companies were F.B.A.R. reportable assets. As the assets were not reported on a timely filed F.B.A.R., the court upheld non-willful penalties that were assessed by the I.R.S.

The facts of the case can be summarized as follows:

During 2006, pro se defendant John Hom (“D”) gambled online through internet accounts with PokerStars.com and PartyPoker.com. In 2007, D continued to gamble online through his PokerStars account. Both poker websites allowed defendant to deposit money or make withdrawals.

D used his account at FirePay.com, an online financial organization that receives, holds, and pays funds on behalf of its customers, to fund his online PokerStars and PartyPoker accounts. He deposited money into his FirePay account via his domestic Wells Fargo bank account or other online financial institutions, such as Western Union. In 2006, FirePay ceased allowing United States customers to transfer funds from their FirePay accounts to offshore internet gambling sites, so D used Western Union and other online financial institutions to transfer money from his Wells Fargo bank account to his online poker accounts. D admitted that at some points in both 2006 and 2007, the aggregate amount of funds in his FirePay, PokerStars, and PartyPoker accounts exceeded $10,000 in United States currency.

After the I.R.S. detected discrepancies in D’s federal income tax returns for 2006 and 2007, the I.R.S. opened an F.B.A.R. examination. D did not file his 2006 or 2007 F.B.A.R.’s until June 26, 2010. Moreover, the 2006 submitted F.B.A.R. did not include his FirePay account.

On September 20, 2011, the I.R.S. assessed D with civil penalties for his non­willful failure to submit F.B.A.R.’s regarding his interest in his FirePay, PokerStars, and PartyPoker accounts. The I.R.S. assessed a $30,000 penalty for 2006, which included a $10,000 penalty for each of the three accounts, and a $10,000 penalty for 2007 based solely on defendant's PokerStars account.

The critical issue was whether D had an interest in a “bank, securities, or other financial account” for F.B.A.R. purposes. The Court stated as follows:

While our court of appeals has not yet answered what constitutes “other financial account[s]” under 31 C.F.R. 103.24, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that an account with a financial agency is a financial account under Section 5314 … Under Section 5312(a)(1), a “person acting for a person” as a “financial institution” or a person who is “acting in a similar way related to money” is considered a “financial agency.” Section 5312(a)(2) lists 26 different types of entities that may qualify as a “financial institution.” Based on the breadth of the definition, our court of appeals has held that “the term “financial institution” is to be given a broad definition.” . . . The government claims that FirePay, PokerStars, and PartyPoker are all financial institutions because they function as “commercial bank[s].” … The Fourth Circuit in Clines found that “[b]y holding funds for third parties and disbursing them at their direction, [the organization at issue]functioned as a bank [under Section 5314].” …

Thus, the court further held that “[a]s FirePay, PokerStars, and PartyPoker functioned as banks, defendant's online accounts with them are reportable.”

D also argued that even if he is liable, the amount of penalty assessed was too high because it might contravene the Internal Revenue Manual (“I.R.M.”). However, the court stated:

Our court of appeals, however, has foreclosed that argument by holding that “[t]he Internal Revenue Manual does not have the force of law and does not confer rights on taxpayers.” Fargo v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 447 F.3d 706, 713 [97 AFTR 2d 2006­2381] (9th Cir. 2006). Thus, defendant's argument fails.

The case is interesting for a number of reasons, which include the following:

·                D did not argue that the penalty should be on a per form basis and the court allowed assessment of the penalty on a per account basis.

·                D was liable for $40,000 for non-willful violations for playing poker by simply failing to report his poker related accounts. It is unclear from the case what aggravating circumstances existed for the agent not to give an F.B.A.R. warning letter.

The court states that the I.R.M. does not confer rights to the taxpayer. The I.R.M. provides mitigation guidelines in order to provide uniform consistency among examinations and also gives substantial discretion to the examiner to lower the penalty amount. It is not clear whether the examiner followed the I.R.M. or not; the court simply states that the I.R.M. does not provide rights to the taxpayer. 

 

{C}[1]           113 AFTR 2d 2014-XXXX, (DC CA), 06/04/2014. 

FBAR ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTIONS PROCESSES: A PRIMER

By Armin Gray

With the June 30th deadline fast approaching and the recent cases addressing FBAR penalties, we thought it would be useful to provide a primer on FBAR assessment and collections processes. 

BACKGROUND

In general, a U.S. person having a financial interest in, or signature authority over, foreign financial accounts must file an FBAR if the value of the foreign financial accounts, taken in the aggregate and at any time during the calendar year, exceeds $10,000. 

The FBAR must be filed electronically by June 30 of the calendar year following the year to be reported. No extension of time to file is available for FBAR purposes. 

Failure to file this form, or filing a delinquent form, may result in significant civil and/or criminal penalties:

  • A non-willful violation of the FBAR filing obligation can lead to a maximum penalty of $10,000. If reasonable cause can be shown and the balance in the account is properly reported, the penalty can be waived.   
  • In the case of a willful violation of the filing obligation, the maximum penalty imposed is the greater of $100,000 or 50% of the balance in the account in the year of the violation. 
  • Criminal penalties apply only when the failure to report the foreign account is willful.

Depending on the context and the scope of the willful violation, the criminal penalties can go as high as a combination of a fine of $500,000 and imprisonment for up to ten years.  

ASSESSING THE PENALTY

Pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement between the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), FinCEN delegated the authority to assess the FBAR penalty to the IRS   Thus, the issue may arise during a standard income tax audit. 

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

The statute of limitation (“SOL”) to assess a civil FBAR penalty is six years from the due date of the F.B.A.R. or from the date of the IRS’s request for records. 

The SOL to file a suit for the collection of an assessed civil FBAR penalty is two years from the date of assessment or the date any judgment becomes final in any criminal action with respect to which the penalty is assessed.  

Absent any action brought within this two-year period, the Government may offset payments in order to collect the FBAR penalty. According to the IRM, the SOL for this latter option is 10 years from the date of assessment or the date any judgment becomes final in any criminal action with respect to which the penalty is assessed.   However, many, including tax practitioners and certain IRS officials, have noted that there is no SOL with respect to the collection of debt under 31 U.S.C. §3716(e)(1). 

The collection methods available include (a) administrative offsets, (b) tax refund offsets, (c) federal salary offsets, (d) non-federal employee wage garnishments, (e) debt referrals to private collection contractors, debt collection center, as well as the reporting of delinquencies to credit reporting agencies.

The SOL for criminal penalties is five years from the date the offense is committed. 

THE PROCESS 

If the potential violation is discovered in a Title 26 examination (i.e., in a federal income tax context), the examiner must first have the Territory Manager sign a Related Statute Memorandum (R.S.M.). This allows the examiner to be able to use the FBAR related information discovered in the Title 26 examination in compliance with Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as currently in effect (the “Code”). No R.S.M. is necessary if the potential violation is discovered under a Bank Secrecy Act examination.

After conduct of the examination, the examiner explains his or her conclusion in a Summary Memorandum.

  • If no violation was discovered, the examination is closed; 
  • If a violation was discovered but no penalty is asserted, a warning letter is issued and the examination is closed; 
  • If the examiner concludes that a violation occurred and assesses penalties, an internal procedure must be followed, including a potential referral to Criminal Investigation, the rendering of legal advice by the appropriate SB/SE Counsel Area FBAR Coordinator and the issuance of a 30-day letter to the filer (if recommended by Counsel).
  • If the taxpayer agrees to the civil penalties, the penalties are paid and the case is closed.
  • FBAR penalties are eligible for Fast Track Settlement only if the FBAR 30 day letter, Letter 3709 has not been issued to the taxpayer.
  • If the taxpayer disagrees to the assessment of the civil penalties, the taxpayer has 45 days to appeal. The case is then forwarded to Appeals   in a pre-assessment procedure.
  • If the taxpayer does not appeal, the penalties are assessed and the collection process can begin (in this scenario, post-assessment Appeals is still available to the taxpayer). 
  • Post-assessment Appeal will be handled on priority basis. These cases need to be completed within 120 days from the date the Appeals office is assigned to the case. 
  • Post-assessment FBAR cases in excess of $100,000 (excluding interest) cannot be compromised by Appeals without approval of the Department of Justice (“D.O.J.”).   
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution (A.D.R.) rights or Post Appeals Mediation (P.A.M.) rights are not available to taxpayer in a post-assessment Appeals procedure.

Penalties may be mitigated under the IRM It is unclear, however, whether the procedures under the IRM are being followed by all examiners, and, even if so, whether those rules are being applied consistently, which is one of the stated intents behind those procedures. As noted above, courts have held that the IRM does not provide substantive rights to the taxpayer. 

ENFORCEMENT

The Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act also known as F.D.C.P.A.  provides three remedies for enforcing civil judgments: (1) execution, (2) garnishment and (3) installment payment orders. 
Judgment for FBAR penalties must be collected under F.D.C.P.A., 28 U.S.C. 3001-3308. Here, the courts can issue any other writs under 28 U.S.C. §1651 to support these remedies. In order to enforce a judgment under any of these remedies, the government must prepare a notice to the debtor for service by the clerk of the court. The notice advises the debtor that property has been seized, identifies debt owed, prescribes potential exemptions, explains procedure and time (20 days) to request a hearing, and gives notice of intent to sell the property. In addition, the government may use other collection tools, such as sale of property, sale of stocks, bonds, notes and securities.  

JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES

According to the Tax Court, the Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and can only exercise jurisdiction to the extent expressly provided by Congress.  In addition, the provision under which FBAR penalties are asserted is under Title 31 and therefore it does not fall within the Tax Court's jurisdiction.  

The taxpayer may be able to file a complaint in either in District Court or the Court of Federal Claims to challenge the assessed penalty under the Tucker Act (and the Little Tucker Act), as many tax practitioners have noted, or wait until the U.S. attempts to collect the debt.   

A taxpayer has six years to bring his civil action,  but there is no right to a jury trial for an action to recover money from the Federal Government in a non-tax refund setting.  However, when the Government counterclaims for the unpaid balance, the plaintiff has the right to trial by jury.  

BANKRUPTCY

At least one court has held that FBAR penalties are not dischargeable in bankruptcy.   The court based its rationale on the fact that the FBAR penalty is not a tax or tax penalty, which is an exception to nondischargeability of fines. The Court stated: 

A debt may be discharged if the debt is for one of two kinds of "tax penalties." Defendant argues that his debt is dischargeable under this exclusion. In order to be a tax penalty, the FBAR penalty would have to be linked in some way to an underlying tax. For Defendant's argument to have any viability, the FBAR itself would have to be a tax. The FBAR is a document, not a tax. 

FBAR UPDATE: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

By Armin Gray

Notwithstanding Official comments, Bitcoin Exchange Accounts Should Be Reported on FBAR’s

The IRS clarified the tax treatment of Bitcoin, ruling that Bitcoin will not be treated as foreign currency but will be treated as property for U.S. Federal income tax purposes. As a result, the IRS ruling may allow for capital gains treatment on the sale of Bitcoin. However, the ruling did not address whether Bitcoin is subject to Form 114 reporting.

This month, pursuant to a recent IRS webinar, an IRS official stated that Bitcoins are not required to be reported on this year’s Form 114. However, the official noted that the issue is under scrutiny, and caveated that the view could be changed in the future.

Notwithstanding the official’s comments, whether Bitcoin is a reportable asset will depend on the nature and manner it is held.

  •  If Bitcoin is treated as property (not currency), the situation is analogous to a U.S. person who directly holds non-U.S. real property or any other valuable asset, which is not a foreign financial account.
  • If Bitcoin is held through an entity (e.g., a (non-grantor) trust), the situation is analogous to the “look-through” rule, in which case reporting is required only with respect to the entities foreign financial accounts if and to the extent the indirect holder has control of the entity (using a greater than 50% test).
  • However, if and to the extent a U.S. person holds Bitcoin or shares of an entity that holds Bitcoin through, e.g., an offshore custodial account or other financial account, the account will likely be an FBAR reportable asset.

An interesting question involves exchange accounts. Exchanges that convert Bitcoin in and out of other currencies function similarly to brokerages and offer a variety of financial services similar to banks or other financial institutions. Without official guidance that can be relied upon, we would advise our clients to disclose these accounts under a protective filing. United States v. Hom, discussed above, is noteworthy. The court ruled an online poker player was liable for penalties after concluding that online poker sites PokerStars.com and PartyPoker.com operated as commercial banking financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act, and therefore, non-U.S. accounts held with them were FBAR reportable assets.

Mutual Funds in Brokerage Accounts Don't Have to Be Separately Reported on FBAR’s

Mutual funds held in brokerage accounts generally don't have to be separately reported on the FinCEN Form 114. Therefore, an IRS official recently confirmed that the taxpayer would be reporting only on the brokerage account that holds the mutual fund. However, if the mutual funds and the brokerage accounts were separate, they would each require separate FBAR’s. This would also be true of other types of financial holdings in the brokerage account.

Child Filing Requirements

Recent updates to the instructions to Form 114 (06/11/2014) provide that, in general, a child is responsible for filing his or her own FBAR report. If a child cannot file his or her own FBAR for any reason, such as age, the child's parent, guardian, or other legally responsible person must file it for the child. In addition, if the child cannot sign his or her FBAR, a parent or guardian must electronically sign the child's FBAR and in item 45 Filer Title enter “Parent/Guardian filing for child.” 

TRANSACTIONS IN FX: A PRIMER FOR INDIVIDUALS

By Armin Gray*

Previously, we discussed the recent I.R.S. guidance on bitcoins which, in general, stated that transactions in bitcoins should be treated as transactions in property under the general rules of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) rather than the special rules applicable to foreign currency. We therefore thought it would be useful to provide a primer on common transactions involving foreign currency (sometimes hereinafter referred to as “FX”) with respect to U.S. individuals.

IN GENERAL 

The first thing to note about engaging in transactions involving foreign currency is that foreign currency is treated as any other asset. Think stocks, bonds, or real estate. When an individual buys foreign currency, that individual has a basis in the FX (e.g., Euro) similar to any other investment. When the individual sells that foreign currency, that individual will have a realization event, in which case gain or loss may have to be recognized. Whether the character of that gain or loss is ordinary will depend on the specific transaction and the applicability of Code §988, as will be discussed in more detail below.

Example 1 

Mr. FX Guy, a U.S. citizen individual, buys real property located in the U.K. for 100,000 British pounds (£) on January 1, 2014. In order to effectuate the purchase, Mr. FX Guy uses £100,000 that he purchased for $150,000 on January 1, 2012 when the exchange rate was $1.5 to £1. Assume on January 1, 2014, the exchange rate was $2: £1 as the British pound appreciated against the U.S. dollar. The £100,000 has a basis of $150,000. It was acquired on January 1, 2012 and disposed of on January 1, 2014. The disposition is a sale of an asset (in this case, the FX). The amount realized is the fair market value of the consideration received, or $200,000. Accordingly, the taxpayer has a gain of $50,000 attributable to the foreign currency that must be recognized. The character of the gain, and the applicability of §988, will depend on whether the transaction was a “personal transaction.”

The second thing to highlight is the tax treatment of a foreign currency denominated transaction turns on the identity of the taxpayer's functional currency. When dealing with multiple currencies, a rule is required to provide the “default” currency for which transactions are entered into and gain or loss can be measured. Thus, §985(a) generally requires all U.S. Federal income tax determinations to be made

in a taxpayer's functional currency. Subject to one caveat, U.S. individuals are required to use the U.S. dollar as the functional currency. FN1. Additionally, U.S. individual taxpayers must measure income or loss from dealings in foreign currency in U.S. dollars, on a transaction-by-transaction basis.

To the extent a taxpayer has a “qualified business unit” (“QBU”), the taxpayer may be permitted to use a foreign currency as its functional currency. In that case, income or loss derived from a QBU is determined in a foreign currency (before translation into U.S. dollars). In general, the use of a foreign currency as the functional currency of a QBU will result in the deferral of exchange gain or loss from transactions conducted in that currency as there will not be a taxable disposition upon exchange of the FX.

QUALIFIED BUSINESS UNIT: FOR INDIVIDUALS 

As noted above, a QBU may be permitted to use a foreign currency as its functional currency. A QBU that does not conduct its activities primarily in U.S. dollars may use the currency of the economic environment in which a significant part of the QBU’s activities is conducted, provided that the QBU keeps (or is presumed to keep) its books and records in such currency. FN2. If a QBU has more than one currency, the QBU may choose any such currency as its functional currency.

A QBU is any separate and clearly identified unit of a trade or business of a taxpayer provided that separate books and records are maintained. The regulations specifically provide that an individual is not a QBU. However, an individual’s activities may qualify as a QBU if the activities constitute a trade or business and a separate set of books and records is maintained with respect to the activities. While not ordinarily the case, for these purposes, a trade or business is an independent economic enterprise carried on for profit, the expenses related to which are deductible under §§162 or 212. FN3. 

Example 2

Mr. FX Guy is an individual resident of the United States and is engaged in a trade or business wholly unrelated to any type of investment activity. Mr. FX Guy also maintains a portfolio of foreign currency-denominated investments through a foreign broker. The broker is responsible for all activities necessary to the management of Mr. FX Guy's investments and maintains separate books and records with respect to all investment activities of the taxpayer. Mr. FX Guy's investment activities qualify as a QBU to the extent the activities generate expenses that are deductible under §212.

CHARACTER OF GAIN OR LOSS

Section 988(a) provides that any foreign currency gain or loss attributable to a “Section 988 transaction” is computed separately and treated as ordinary income or loss.

Thus, the first question is what types of transactions are Section 988 transactions. In general, Section 988 transactions include the following:

  • Any disposition of any nonfunctional currency.
    • As previously noted, in the case of U.S. individuals, a nonfunctional currency is any currency other than the U.S. dollar.
    • The acquisition of nonfunctional currency is relevant for determining basis.
    • For these purposes, nonfunctional currency includes coin and nonfunctional currency denominated demand or time deposits or similar instruments issued by a bank or other financial institution.

Any of the following transactions, if the amount that he taxpayer is entitled to receive (or is required to pay) is: (i) denominated in terms of a nonfunctional currency or (ii) determined by reference to the value of one or more nonfunctional currencies:

The acquisition of a debt instrument or becoming the obligor under a debt instrument.
Accruing (or otherwise taking into account) for purposes of this subtitle any item of expense or gross income or receipts which is to be paid or received after the date on which so accrued or taken into account.
Entering into or acquiring any forward contract, futures contract, option, or similar financial instrument. FN4.

However, certain types of transactions are excluded from §988. For example, regulated futures contracts and nonequity options subject to the mark-to-market regime of §1256 are excluded unless the taxpayer elects in. In this case, the election is for all transactions involving regulated futures contracts and nonequity options. FN 5.

A special rule exists for a forward contract, a futures contract, or option that is held as a capital asset and that is not part of a straddle. The taxpayer may elect to treat exchange gain or loss as capital gain or loss. The election must be made, and the transaction must be identified, on the same day the transaction is entered into by the taxpayer. FN 6.

Example 3

On January 1, 2014, Mr. FX Guy acquires 10,000 Canadian dollars. On January 15, 2014, Mr. FX Guy converts the 10,000 Canadian dollars to U.S. dollars. The acquisition of the 10,000 Canadian dollars is a Section 988 transaction for purposes of establishing Mr. FX Guy’s basis in such Canadian dollars. The conversion of the 10,000 Canadian dollars to U.S. dollars is a Section 988 transaction.

Example 4 

On January 1, 2014, Mr. FX Guy purchases at original issue a 3- year bond maturing on December 31, 2017 for £100,000 at a stated redemption price of £100,000. The bond pays 10% interest per annum. The acquisition of the bond is a Section 988 transaction.

Example 5 

On January 1, 2014, Mr. FX Guy purchases a one-year note at original issue for its issue price of $1,000. The note pays interest in dollars at the rate of 4% per annum. The amount of principal received by Mr. FX Guy upon maturity is equal to $1,000 plus the equivalent of the excess, if any, of: (a) the Financial Times One Hundred Stock Index (an index of stocks traded on the London Stock Exchange, hereafter referred to as the “FT100”) determined and translated into dollars on the last business day prior to the maturity date, over (b) £2.150, the “stated value” of the FT100, which is equal to 110% of the average value of the index for the six months prior to the issue date, translated at the exchange rate of £1 = $1.50. The purchase of this instrument is not a Section 988 transaction because the index used to compute the principal amount received upon maturity is determined with reference to the value of stock and not nonfunctional currency.

Example 5 

On January 1, 2014, Mr. FX Guy enters into an interest rate swap that provides for the payment of amounts by Mr. FX Guy to its counterparty based on 4% of a 10,000 yen principal amount in exchange for amounts based on yen LIBOR rates. The yen for yen interest rate swap is a Section 988 transaction.

Example 6

On January 1, 2014, Mr. FX Guy enters into an option contract for sale of a group of stocks traded on the Japanese Nikkei exchange. The contract is not a Section 988 transaction because the underlying property to which the option relates is a group of stocks and not nonfunctional currency.

RELIEF FOR PERSONAL TRANSACTIONS

Prior to the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (“1986 Act”), many of the rules for determining the U.S. Federal income tax consequences of foreign currency transactions were embodied in a series of court cases and revenue rulings issued by the I.R.S. The legislative history notes that there was some lack of clarity with respect to the pre-1986 law regarding the character, the timing of recognition, and the source of gain or loss due to fluctuations in the exchange rate of foreign currency. Thus, the 1986 Act provided a comprehensive set of rules for the U.S. tax treatment of transactions involving foreign currencies embodied in §988. With respect to individuals, the 1986 Act provided as follows:

(e) Application to individuals.

This Section shall apply to Section 988 transactions entered into by an individual only to the extent expenses properly allocable to such transactions meet the requirements of Sections 162 or 212 (other than that part of Section 212 dealing with expenses incurred in connection with taxes).

Accordingly, notwithstanding the 1986 Act, pre-1986 law continued to apply to personal transactions. Pre-1986 law provided that crossing in-and-out of currencies required calculation of gain and loss. For example, in Rev. Rul. 74-7, the IRS has ruled that an individual who converts U.S. dollars to a foreign currency for personal use while traveling abroad realizes exchange gain or loss on reconversion of appreciated or depreciated foreign currency and the transaction was not a “like-kind exchange.” The ruling further stated that the foreign currency at issue was a capital asset and any gain or loss realized was capital in nature.

In 1997, Congress made a de minimis exception to this regime for “personal transactions.” Current §988 now provides:

(e) Application to individuals.

(1) In general.

The preceding provisions of this Section shall not apply to any Section 988 transaction entered into by an individual which is a personal transaction.

(2) Exclusion for certain personal transactions. If—

(A) nonfunctional currency is disposed of by an individual in any transaction, and

(B) such transaction is a personal transaction.

so gain shall be recognized for purposes of this subtitle by reason of changes in exchange rates after such currency was acquired by such individual and before such disposition. The preceding sentence shall not apply if the gain which would otherwise be recognized on the transaction exceeds $200.

(3) Personal transactions.

For purposes of this subsection, the term “personal transaction” means any transaction entered into by an individual, except that such term shall not include any transaction to the extent that expenses properly allocable to such transaction meet the requirements of—

(A) Section 162 (other than traveling expenses described in subsection (a)(2) thereof), or

(B) Section 212 (other than that part of Section 212 dealing with expenses incurred in connection with taxes).

Thus, if an individual acquires foreign currency and disposes of it in a personal transaction and the exchange rate changes between the acquisition and disposition of such currency, gain is not recognized if it does not exceed $200. However, no change is made with respect to losses, which are limited in the case of personal transactions. FN 7.

As noted above, a personal transaction is any transaction other than a transaction which is a trade or business expense or a §212 expense (i.e., an expense in a for profit activity).

The 1997 legislative history stated the reasons for the change as follows:

An individual who lives or travels abroad generally cannot use U.S. dollars to make all of the purchases incident to daily life. If an individual must treat foreign currency in this instance as property giving rise to U.S.-dollar income or loss every time the individual, in effect, barters the foreign currency for goods or services, the U.S. individual living in or visiting a foreign country will have a significant administrative burden that may bear little or no relation to whether U.S.-dollar measured income has increased or decreased. The Committee believes that individuals should be given relief from the requirement to keep track of exchange gains on a transaction-by- transaction basis in de minimis cases.

Although this exception appears to be favorable, for U.S. citizens living abroad or dealing with large sums of foreign currency, the exception is limited. Further, the non-deductibility of losses can be quite disadvantageous to the taxpayer in the case of, e.g., personal mortgages.

Example 7

Assume Mr. FX Guy, a U.S. citizen, exchanges $1,500 for 1000 British pounds (£) on April 1, 2014 for use in a personal vacation in the U.K. when the exchange rate was $1.5 to £1. Assume Mr. FX Guy spent £100 on transportation cost from the airport on April 1, 2014; £200 at a local restaurant on April 5, 2014; £100 on transportation cost to the local airport on his return flight on April 8, 2014; and converted the £600 back to U.S. dollars on April 8, 2014. Assume the exchange rates were $1.5 to £1 on April 1, 2014; $1.75 to £1 on April 5, 2014; and $2 to £1 on April 8, 2014. As a technical matter, Mr. FX Guy must determine his basis in the FX and calculate gain or loss on a per transaction basis. In this case, basis in each £1 is $1.5; gain on each transaction is, respectively, $0; $50; $50; and $300. The first three transactions’ gain will not be recognized because they do not exceed $200; the final transaction’s gain must be recognized as it exceeds $200.

Example 8

Assume Mr. FX Guy, a U.S. citizen, buys a U.K. home for personal use for 1,000,000 British pounds (£) when the exchange rate was $2 to £1. Assume Mr. FX Guy financed the home with a personal mortgage for £800,000. Assume no principal was repaid, and the property was sold for £2,000,000 when the exchange rate was $1.5 to £1, and £800,000 of the purchase price was used to repay the mortgage. In this case, there are two separate transactions: the sale of the real property and the repayment of the mortgage. With respect to the sale of the real property, the taxpayer has a gain of $1,000,000 [current U.S.D. value of $3,000,000 (1.5 x 2,000,000) less initial U.S.D. cost of $2,000,000] a portion of which may be excluded under the principal residence exclusion. With respect to the repayment of the mortgage, the taxpayer has a loss of $400,000 (current U.S.D. value of 1,200,000 less initial U.S.D. cost of 1,600,000). The loss, however, is not deductible as a personal transaction (i.e., it was not incurred in a trade or business or entered into for profit). FN 8

COMMON INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES

As noted above, investment (for profit) activities are Section 988 transactions. Common investments include deposits, debt, equity, and derivatives.

Determining Basis 

The basis of nonfunctional currency withdrawn from an account with a bank or other financial institution is determined under any reasonable method that is consistently applied from year to year by the taxpayer to all accounts denominated in a nonfunctional currency. For example, a taxpayer may use a first in first out method, a last in first out method, a pro rata method, or any other reasonable method that is consistently applied. However, a method that consistently results in units of nonfunctional currency with the highest basis being withdrawn first is not considered reasonable.10 The simplest method is to use a formula represented as follows: (FX withdrawn / total FX in the account) x (total U.S. dollar basis). This method is blessed in an example in the regulations.

Publically Traded Stock 

If stock or securities traded on an established securities market are sold for nonfunctional currency by a cash basis taxpayer, the amount realized with respect to the stock or securities (as determined on the trade date) is computed by translating the units of nonfunctional currency received into functional currency at the spot rate on the settlement date of the sale. If a cash basis taxpayer for nonfunctional currency purchases stock or securities traded on an established securities market, the basis of the stock or securities is determined by translating the units of nonfunctional currency paid into functional currency at the spot rate on the settlement date of the purchase. An accrual method taxpayer may also elect to use the same rule. FN 10

Example 9

On January 1, 2013 (the trade date), Mr. FX Guy, a calendar year cash basis U.S. individual, purchases stock for 100 British pounds (£) for settlement on January 5, 2013. On January 1, 2014, the spot value of the £100 is $140. On January 5, 2013, Mr. FX Guy purchases £100 for $141, which X uses to pay for the stock. Mr. FX Guy's basis in the stock is $141, or the U.S.D. value on the settlement date.

On December 30, 2013 (the trade date), Mr. FX Guy sells the stock for £110 for settlement on January 5, 2014. On December 30, 2013, the spot value of £110 is $165. On January 5, 2014, Mr. FX Guy transfers the stock and receives £110 which, translated at the spot rate, equals $166. Mr. FX Guy's basis in the £110 received from the sale of the stock is $166, which is the U.S.D. value on the settlement date.

Special Rules Relating to Certificates of Deposit 

As noted above, certificates of deposit can be Section 988 transactions if denominated in a foreign currency or if value is determined by reference to that foreign currency. However, there are special rules with respect to certificates of deposit. In particular, no exchange gain or loss is recognized with respect to the following transactions:

  • The deposit of nonfunctional currency in a demand or time deposit or similar instrument (including a certificate of deposit) issued by a bank or other financial institution if such instrument is denominated in such currency;
  • Withdrawal of nonfunctional currency from a demand or time deposit or similar instrument issued by a bank or other financial institution if such instrument is denominated in such currency;
  • Receipt of nonfunctional currency from a bank or other financial institution from which the taxpayer purchased a certificate of deposit or similar instrument denominated in such currency by reason of the maturing or other termination of such instrument; and
  • The transfer of nonfunctional currency from a demand or time deposit or similar instrument issued by a bank or other financial institution to another demand or time deposit or similar instrument denominated in the same nonfunctional currency issued by a bank or other financial institution.

For these purposes, the taxpayer's basis in the units of nonfunctional currency or other property received in the transaction is the adjusted basis of the units of nonfunctional currency or other property transferred. FN 11

Translating Interest Income and Expense 

Demand Accounts 

Interest income received, with respect to a demand account with a bank or other financial institution which is denominated in (or the payments of which are determined by reference to) a nonfunctional currency, is translated into functional currency at the spot rate on the date received or accrued or pursuant to any reasonable spot rate convention consistently applied by the taxpayer to all taxable years and to all accounts denominated in nonfunctional currency in the same financial institution. For example, a taxpayer may translate interest income received with respect to a demand account on the last day of each month of the taxable year, on the last day of each quarter of the taxable year, on the last day of each half of the taxable year, or on the last day of the taxable year. FN 12

However, no exchange gain or loss is realized upon the receipt or accrual of interest income with respect to a demand account.

Debt Denominated or Determined by Reference to a Single Nonfunctional Currency 

Interest income or expense received or paid that is not required to be accrued by a taxpayer prior to receipt or payment is translated at the spot rate on the date of receipt or payment. A taxpayer may have to accrue interest income, e.g., if the instrument has original issue discount. FN 13. In this case, the regulations state that the taxpayer must, in general, translate accrued interest or expense at the average spot rate for the interest accrual period or, with respect to an interest accrual period that spans two taxable years, at the average spot rate for the partial period within the taxable year. FN 14. However, the taxpayer may elect to use a spot accrual convention, in which case income and expense are translated at the spot rate on the last day of the interest accrual period (and in the case of a partial accrual period, the spot rate on the last day of the taxable year). If the last day of the interest accrual period is within five business days of the date of receipt or payment, the regulations provide that the taxpayer may translate interest income or expense at the spot rate on the date of receipt or payment. The election is made by filing a statement with the taxpayer's first return in which the election is effective. FN 15.

With respect to exchange gain or loss, the taxpayer must realize exchange gain or loss with respect to accrued interest income on the date such accrued interest income is received or the instrument is disposed of. The amount of exchange gain or loss so realized with respect to accrued interest income is determined for each accrual period by:

  • Translating the units of nonfunctional currency interest income received with respect to such accrual period into functional currency at the spot rate on the date the interest income is received or the instrument is disposed of (or deemed disposed of); and
  • Subtracting from such amount the amount computed by translating the units of nonfunctional currency interest income accrued with respect to such income received at the average rate for the accrual period. FN 16. 

A similar rule is provided for accrued interest expense. FN 17.

In general, with respect to principal, the holder of a debt instrument realizes exchange gain or loss on the date principal is received from the obligor or the instrument is disposed of. For purposes of computing exchange gain or loss, the principal amount of a debt instrument is the holder's purchase price in units of nonfunctional currency. The amount of exchange gain or loss so realized by the holder with respect to principal is determined by:

  • Translating the units of nonfunctional currency principal at the spot rate on the date payment is received or the instrument is disposed of (or deemed disposed of); and
  • Subtracting from such amount the amount computed by translating the units of nonfunctional currency principal at the spot rate on the date the holder (or a transferor from whom the nonfunctional principal amount is carried over) acquired the instrument (is deemed to acquire the instrument).
  • In order to make these calculations for debt instruments issued with original issue discount, a series of ordering rules apply. In general, units of nonfunctional currency received or paid are treated: first as a receipt or payment of periodic interest, second as a receipt or payment of original issue discount to the extent accrued as of the date of the receipt or payment, and finally as a receipt or payment of principal. FN 18.

Example 11 

Mr. FX Guy is an individual on the cash method of accounting with the dollar as his functional currency. On January 1, 2012, Mr. FX Guy converts $13,000 to 10,000 British pounds (£) at the spot rate of £1 = $1.30 and loans the £10,000 to Y for 3 years. The terms of the loan provide that Y will make interest payments of £1,000 on December 31 of 2012, 2013, and 2014, and will repay Mr. FX Guy’s £10,000 principal on December 31, 2014. Assume the spot rates for the pertinent dates are as follows:

Date

Jan. 1, 2012; Dec. 31, 2012; Dec. 31, 2013; Dec. 31, 2014

Spot rate (pounds to dollars)

£1 = $1.30; £1 = $1.35; £1 = $1.40; £1 = $1.45

Mr. FX Guy will translate the £1,000 interest payments at the spot rate on the date received. Accordingly, Mr. FX Guy will have interest income of $1,350 in 2012, $1,400 in 2013, and $1,450 in 2014. Because Mr. FX Guy is a cash basis taxpayer, Mr. FX Guy does not realize exchange gain or loss on the receipt of interest income.

Mr. FX Guy will realize exchange gain upon repayment of the £10,000 principal amount determined by translating the £10,000 at the spot rate on the date it is received (£10,000 × $1.45 = $14,500) and subtracting from such amount, the amount determined by translating the £10,000 at the spot rate on the date the loan was made (£10,000 × $1.30 = $13,000). Accordingly, Mr. FX Guy will realize an exchange gain of $1,500 on the repayment of the loan on December 31, 2014.

Debt Denominated or Determined by Reference to Multiple Currencies 

FX debt subject to contingencies, or determined by reference to multiple currencies, is subject to special rules. FN 19.  In this case, a hypothetical model (“noncontingent bond method”) is created that eliminates the contingencies in order to calculate interest income, gain or loss on a per annum basis (to avoid deferral). Appropriate adjustments are made in order to ‘true-up’ actual interest income, gain or loss. In order to facilitate this model in the case of multicurrency debt, a “predominant” currency must be determined. In general, the predominant currency of the instrument is the currency with the greatest value determined by comparing the functional currency value of the noncontingent and projected payments denominated in, or determined by reference to, each currency on the issue date, discounted to present value (in each relevant currency), and translated (if necessary) into functional currency at the spot rate on the issue date. For this purpose, the applicable discount rate may be determined using any method, consistently applied, that reasonably reflects the instrument's economic substance. The predominant currency is determined as of the issue date and does not change based on subsequent events (e.g., changes in value of one or more currencies). If (i) no currency has a value greater than 50% of the total value of all payments and (ii) the difference between the discount rate in the denomination currency and the discount rate with respect to any other currency in which payments are made (or determined by reference to) pursuant to the instrument is greater than 10%, then the I.R.S. may determine the predominant currency under any reasonable method. FN 20. 

What can be said here is that the rules are incredibly complex, and the taxpayer will need to consult their professional tax advisor to properly report income on the instrument.

Derivatives 

As noted above, forward contracts, futures contracts, and option contracts on or referencing foreign currency are Section 988 transactions. With respect to determining exchange gain or loss:

A spot contract to buy or sell nonfunctional currency is not considered a forward contract or similar transaction unless such spot contract is disposed of (or otherwise terminated) prior to making or taking delivery of the currency. FN 21.  A spot contract is a contract to buy or sell nonfunctional currency on or before two business days following the date of the execution of the contract. FN 22. 

Exchange gain or loss is realized and recognized, in general, upon sale, exchange, or other disposition of the contract. FN 23. 

Further to point in the preceding sentence, any gain or loss determined is treated as exchange gain or loss. In addition, exchange gain or loss is determined by subtracting the amount paid (or deemed paid), if any, for or with respect to the contract (including any amount paid upon termination of the contract) from the amount received (or deemed received), if any, for or with respect to the contract (including any amount received upon termination of the contract). FN 24. 

 Finally, if the taxpayer makes or takes delivery in connection with the derivative contract, any gain or loss is realized and recognized in the same manner as if the taxpayer sold the contract (or paid another person to assume the contract) on the date on which he took or made delivery for its fair market value on such date. FN 25. 

Conclusion

Cross-border investments often result in significant complexity. Transactions in foreign currency are often overlooked. Taxpayers that engage in transactions involving foreign currencies should be prepared to account for significant administrative burdens.

FN 1. See Treas. Reg. §1.985-1(b)(1)(i).

FN 2. Treas. Reg. §1.985-1(c).

FN 3. See Treas. Reg. §1.989(a)-1(b), (c).

FN 4. Code §988(c)(1); see also Treas. Reg. §1.988-1.

FN 5. Code §988(c)(1)(D).

FN 6. Code §988(a)(1); see also Treas. Reg. §1.988-3.

FN 7. See Code §165(c).

FN 8. In the case where the currency gets stronger against the U.S. dollar, the taxpayer could also be disadvantaged, as the amount of foreign currency gain needs to be recognized as compared to real property where the principal residence exclusion could shield all or a portion of the gain.

FN 9. Treas. Reg. §1.988-2(a)(2)(iii).

FN 10. Treas. Reg. §1.988-2(a)(4)(iv)(A)-(C).

FN 11. Treas. Reg. §1.988-2(a)(1)(iii).

FN 12. Treas. Reg. §1.988-2(b)(1).

FN. 13. Treas. Reg. §1.988-2(b)(2)(ii)(B).

FN 14. Treas. Reg. §1.988-2(b)(2)(ii)(C).

FN 15. Treas. Reg. §1.988-2(b)(2)(iii).

FN 16. Treas. Reg. §1.988-2(b)(3).

FN 17. Treas. Reg. §1.988-2(b)(4).

FN 18. Treas. Reg. §1.988-2(b)(7).

FN 19. See Treas. Reg. §1.988-6.

FN 20. See Treas. Reg. §1.988-6(d)(1), (2).

FN 21. Treas. Reg. §1.988-2(d)(1).

FN 22. Treas. Reg. §1.988-1(b).

FN 23. Treas. Reg. §1.988-2(d)(2), (3).

FN 24. Treas. Reg. §1.988-2(d)(4)(i).

FN 25. Treas. Reg. §1.988-2(d)(4)(ii). 

 

* The following article was published in Insights, by Ruchelman P.L.L.C.  Insights was originally designed, created, and edited by Armin Gray. Kyu Kim of Kyu & A LLC, a design company, substantially assisted in its design as well.

The OECD Announce Global Standard for Automatic Exchange of Information

By Armin Gray

The Leaders of the G-20 Summit endorsed automatic exchange of information reporting to combat tax evasion in September 2013. In particular, they stated: 

We commend the progress recently achieved in the area of tax transparency and we fully endorse the OECD proposal for a truly global model for multilateral and bilateral automatic exchange of information. Calling on all other jurisdictions to join us by the earliest possible date, we are committed to automatic exchange of information as the new global standard, which must ensure confidentiality and the proper use of information exchanged, and we fully support the OECD work with G20 countries aimed at presenting such a new single global standard for automatic exchange of information by February 2014 and to finalizing technical modalities of effective automatic exchange by mid-2014. In parallel, we expect to begin to exchange information automatically on tax matters among G20 members by the end of 2015. 

On February 13, 2014, the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (“O.E.C.D.”) announced a global standard for automatic exchange of financial account information. Over 40 countries made a joint statement and committed to an early adoption of this standard.  On February 23, 2014, the G-20 finance ministers and central bank governors endorsed the proposal. 
The O.E.C.D. global model standard is based on the following key drivers:

  • A common standard on information reporting, due diligence and exchange of information; 
  • A legal and operational basis for the exchange of information, including confidentiality and protections against misuse of information gathered through this process; and
  • Common or compatible technical solutions.  

Essentially, the O.E.C.D. global model standard has adopted F.A.T.C.A. (and its intergovernmental agreement approach) for information reporting purposes. In particular: 

  • Financial institutions subject to reporting include depository and custodial institutions, investment entities, and specified insurance companies, unless they present a low risk of being used for evading tax. 
  • Reportable accounts include accounts held by individuals and entities (which includes trusts and foundations), and the standard includes a requirement to look through passive entities to report on the relevant controlling persons. In addition, accounts held by passive nonfinancial entities must also be reported, if they have as one or more of their controlling persons one of the above-listed individuals or entities. 
  • The financial information to be disclosed with respect to reportable accounts includes interest, dividends, account balances, income from certain insurance products, sales proceeds from financial assets, and other income generated with respect to assets held in the account or payments made with respect to the account. 
  • The required information will be exchanged within nine months after the end of the year to which the reported information relates. The currency in which the reported amounts are expressed must be stated. The competent authorities of the countries party to an agreement will settle on the data transmission method. The internal tax laws of the country exchanging the information will apply to determine the character and amount of payments made with respect to a reportable account.
  • Due diligence procedures distinguish between pre-existing and new accounts and high value and low value accounts. 
    • Due diligence for pre-existing individual accounts are based either on an “indicia” search or on enhanced due diligence procedures requiring a paper search and actual knowledge test of the relationship manager. For new individual accounts the standard contemplates self-certification. 
    • For entity accounts, financial Institutions are required to determine: (a) whether the entity itself is a reportable person, which can generally be done on the basis of available information (A.M.L./K.Y.C. procedures) and if not, a self-certification would be needed; and (b) whether the entity is a passive non-financial entity and, if so, the residency of controlling persons. Pre-existing entity accounts below 250,000 U.S.D. (or local currency equivalent) are not subject to review. 

What was once initially intensely resisted by much of the world is now being emphatically endorsed as a global standard. Even though political leaders cannot agree on many things, one thing can be said if this approach is adopted on a worldwide basis: raising revenue without raising taxes is politically tenable.