Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.
Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act
Great Seal of the United States
Acronyms (colloquial) FATCA
Enacted by the 111th United States Congress
Effective March 18, 2010 (26 USC § 6038D); December 31, 2012 (26 USC §§ 1471-1474)
Public law 111-147
Statutes at Large 124 Stat. 97-117
Titles amended 26
U.S.C. sections created 26 U.S.C. §§ 14711474, § 6038D
U.S.C. sections amended 26 U.S.C. § 163, § 643, § 679, § 871, § 1291, § 1298, § 4701, § 6011, § 6501, § 6662, § 6677
Legislative history
  • Introduced in the House and Senate as Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act of 2009 (S. 1934, H.R. 3933) by Max Baucus (DMontana); Charles Rangel (DNY-13) on October 27, 2009
  • Committee consideration by Senate Finance, House Ways and Means
  • Passed the Senate on February 24, 2010 (70-28)
  • Passed the House as the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act, Title V, Subtitle A on March 4, 2010 (217-201) with amendment
  • Senate agreed to House amendment on March 17, 2010 (68-29)
  • Signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 18, 2010

The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) is a United States federal law requiring United States persons (including those living outside the U.S.) to have yearly reported themselves and their accounts to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN), and requires all non-US (Foreign) Financial Institutions (FFI's) to search their records for suspected US persons for reporting their assets and identities to the US Treasury. Congress enacted FATCA to make it more difficult for (resident and non-resident) U.S. persons to have financial assets which are not located in the United States, by adding further asset-reporting law with consequences, and thus to enable further federal tax revenues and penalties from a wider global population of newly discovered US persons and their partners, at the expense of non-US banks.[1] The FATCA is the revenue-raising portion of the 2010 domestic jobs stimulus bill, the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act,[2][3] and was enacted as Subtitle A (sections 501 through 541) of Title V of that law.


FATCA was reportedly enacted for the purpose of detecting the non-U.S. financial accounts of U.S. domestic taxpayers rather than to identify non-resident U.S. citizens and enforce collections. There might be thousands of resident U.S. citizens with non-U.S. assets, such as astute investors, dual citizens, or legal immigrants. FATCA was enacted with the purpose of having non-U.S. financial institutions identify approximately 8.7 million U.S. citizens[4] believed to reside outside of the United States and those persons believed to be U.S. persons for tax purposes.[5] FATCA will also be used to help identify non-U.S. person family members and business partners who share accounts with U.S. persons. Another benefit of FATCA is that U.S.-person signatories of accounts will be identified. This feature allows the reporting of the assets of non-U.S. corporations, volunteer organizations, and any other non-U.S. entity where a U.S.-person can be identified.

FATCA is used to locate U.S. citizens (usually non-U.S. residents but also U.S. residents) and "U.S. persons for tax purposes" and to collect and store information including total asset value and social security number. The law is used to detect assets, rather than income. The law does not include a provision imposing any tax. In the law, financial institutions would report the information they gather to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS). As implemented by the Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) (discussed below) implemented within many countries, each financial institution will send the US-person's data to the local government first. For example, according to Ukraine's IGA, the US-person data will be sent to US via the Ukraine government. Alternatively, in a non-IGA country, such as North Korea, only the North Korean bank will store the U.S.-person data and will send it directly to the IRS.

FATCA is used by government personnel to detect U.S. persons and their assets and to enable cross-checking where assets have been self-reported by individuals. FATCA data is used to crosscheck a U.S. person's self-reported data at the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN). U.S. persons, regardless of residence location and regardless of dual citizenships, are required to self-reported their non-U.S. assets to FINCEN on an annual basis.[6] According to qualification criteria, individuals are also required to report this information on IRS information-reporting form 8938. FATCA will allow detection of persons who have not self-reported, enabling collection of large penalties.[7] FATCA allows government personnel to locate U.S. persons not living in the United States, so as to assess U.S. tax or penalties.

Under FATCA, non-U.S. (Foreign) Financial Institutions (FFI's) are required to report asset and identify information related to suspected U.S. persons using their financial institutions.[8]

Under U.S. tax law, U.S. persons (regardless of country of residence) are generally required to report and pay U.S. federal income tax on income from all sources.[9] Eritrea also taxes its non-resident citizens, although it states[10] that the tax is voluntary. U.S. is unique[11] in taxing not only non-resident citizens but also non-resident "U.S. Persons for Tax Purposes". The law requires U.S. citizens living abroad to pay U.S. taxes on foreign income if the foreign tax should be less than U.S. tax ("taxing up"), independently within each category of earned income and passive income.[12][13][14] For this reason, the increased reporting requirements of FATCA have had extensive implications for U.S. citizens living abroad. Taxpayer identification numbers and source withholding are also now used to enforce asset reporting requirements upon non-resident U.S. citizens. For example, mandatory withholding can be required via FATCA when a U.S. payor cannot confirm the non-U.S. status of a foreign payee.[15]

The IRS previously instituted a Qualified Intermediary (QI) program under Internal Revenue Code § 1441,[16] which required participating foreign financial institutions to maintain records of the U.S. or foreign status of their account holders and to report income and withhold taxes.[17] One report included a statement of a finding that participation in the QI program was too low to have a substantive impact as an enforcement measure and was prone to abuse.[18] An illustration of the weakness in the QI program was that UBS, a Swiss bank, had registered as a QI with the IRS in 2001 and was later forced to settle with the U.S. Government for $780 million in 2009 over claims that it fraudulently concealed information on its U.S. person account holders.[18] Non-resident US citizens' required self-reporting of their local assets was also found to be relatively ineffective.[19]

The Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (of which FATCA is a part) was passed on party lines: It narrowly passed the House, with no Republican members voting "yes"[20] and passed the Senate with only one Democrat member voting "no".[21] President Obama (D) signed the bill into law.[22]

Senator Levin (D-MI) has stated that the U.S. Treasury loses as much as 100 billion USD annually to "offshore tax non-compliance" without stating the source of the data.[3][23] (Another source stated 40-70 billion USD without citing the source). Accurate figures on unreported income have not been supported.[24] On March 4, 2009 the IRS Commissioner Charles Shulman testified before the Subcommittee that there is no credible estimate of lost tax revenue from offshore tax abuse.[25]

Supplementing the reporting regimes already in place was stated by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)to be a means of acquiring more financial data and raising government revenue.[26] After committee deliberation, Sen. Max Baucus and Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY)introduced the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act of 2009 to Congress on October 27, 2009. It was later added to an appropriations bill as an amendment, sponsored by Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), which also renamed the bill the HIRE Act.[27] The bill was signed into law by President Obama on March 18, 2010.

A legal challenge against the constitutionality of FATCA, its IGA's, and FBAR reporting requirements was filed in a federal district court in Ohio on July 14, 2015 (see below). The case is Crawford v. U.S. Department of Treasury.[28] Arguments for an injunction against the FATCA Intergovernmental agreements were held on Sept 4, 2015.


FATCA has these main provisions:

  • It requires non-US (foreign) financial institutions, such as banks, to enter into an agreement with the IRS to search through their customer databases to identify those customers suspected of being U.S. persons and to disclose the account holders' names, TINs, addresses, and the transactions of most types of accounts.[29] Some types of accounts, notably retirement savings and other tax-favored products, may be excluded from reporting on a country by country basis. U.S. payors making payments to non-compliant foreign financial institutions are required to withhold 30% of the gross payments.[30][31] Foreign financial institutions which are themselves the beneficial owners of such payments are not permitted a credit or refund on withheld taxes absent a treaty override.[32] Identification is done by detecting "FATCA indicia" or if a bank employee has knowledge that a customer is a suspected US person. After identification, the FFI has the responsibility to further question the individual before allowing the individual to have the identification of suspicion removed.
    • To facilitate the implementation of the foregoing statutory requirement, the IRS promulgated Form W-8BEN in February 2014. The IRS requires all FFIs to require all foreign accountholders to certify their foreign status on Form W-8BEN unless an intergovernmental agreement is in place to authorize an alternative method of certification.[33] In other words, all accountholders of FFIs are expected to comply with FATCA reporting requirements.
  • U.S. persons owning or having signatory authority of these foreign accounts or other specified financial assets must report them on a new IRS Form 8938, Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets, which is filed with the person's U.S. tax returns if the accounts are generally worth more than US$50,000;[34] a higher reporting threshold applies to US persons who are overseas residents and joint filers.[35][36][37] Account holders would be subject to a 40% penalty on understatements of income in an undisclosed foreign financial asset.[31][38] Understatements of greater than 25% of gross income are subject to an extended statute of limitations period of 6 years.[39] It also requires taxpayers to report financial assets that are not held in a custodial account, i.e. physical stock or bond certificates.
  • It changed a method where foreign investors had not been due U.S. dividends by converting them into "dividend equivalents" through the use of swap contracts.[40][41]
  • FATCA increased penalties and imposed certain negative presumptions[42] on Americans whose accounts are not located in U.S.

These reporting requirements are in addition to the requirement for all U.S. persons for reporting of non-U.S. financial accounts to the U.S. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network;[43] this most notably includes Form 114, "Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts" (FBAR) for foreign financial accounts exceeding US$10,000 required under Bank Secrecy Act regulations issued by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).[44]

Banks which are performing functions according to FATCA law will be searching according to FATCA indicia, which includes:[45]

  • A U. S. place of birth
  • A current U.S. residence or mailing address ( including a U.S. PO Box)
  • A current U.S. telephone number
  • Standing instructions to pay amounts from a foreign (meaning non U.S.) account to an account maintained in the United States
  • A current power of attorney or signatory authority granted to a person with a U.S. address
  • A U.S. “in-care-of” or “hold mail” address that is the sole address with respect to the account holder
  • Special note: Others affected by FATCA include
    • any non U.S. person who shares a joint account with a U.S. person or otherwise allows a U.S. person to have signatory authority on the account.
    • Any business or not for profit organization that allows a U.S. person to have signatory authority on a financial account.

Revenue and Cost[edit]

There are varying estimates of the revenues gained and likely cost of implementing the legislation.


With implementation, FATCA was estimated by the United States Congress Joint Committee on Taxation to produce approximately $8.7 billion in additional tax revenue over 11 years (average $792 million a year).[46] A later analysis from Texas A&M includes an estimate that revenues would be less than 250 million USD per year (2.5 bllion USD total).[25] (Gravelle stated this to be small relative to his own estimate of $40 billion per year cost of international tax evasion.)[47]:36 "The actual annual tax revenue generated since 2009 from offshore voluntary disclosure initiatives and from prosecutions of individual’s tax evasion is running significantly lower than the JCT’s estimated annual average, at less than $400 million, and will probably result in less than that over the decade 2010 to 2020."[25] Recently, a calculation showed that $771 million of tax revenue loss from U.S. banks could nearly nullify the reported revenue gain reported by the Joint Committee.[48]

Implementation cost[edit]

The estimates of the costs to be incurred in the private sector, by the IRS, and by foreign revenue authorities are less precise.

  • Global: The compliance cost to financial institutions has been roughly estimated by Forbes at US$8 billion a year,[49] approximately ten times the amount of estimated revenue raised. Based on implementation costs known in a few countries, projected costs exceed $200 billion for all the financial institutions of the world to implement FATCA. This projection excludes annual administration costs.[50] A chapter of the Chamber of Commerce estimated FATCA global implementation costs to be 1-2 trillion USD[51]
  • Canada: According to the Financial Post, the Scotia Bank in Canada has already spent[52] almost $100 million.[53][54]
  • Australia: The government of Australia has estimated[55] that locating approximately 77,000 resident US citizens (54% of whom are of dual citizenship) would cost the country about $482,680,000. That cost would equal approximately 6,270 AUD per resident US citizen, or about 20.2 AUS per capita. The same analysis showed that costs without the IGA ($1.066 billion AUS) would have been 4,4l6 AUS per capita, or 13,800 AUS per resident US citizen. This is the only published non-IGA country cost identified.[citation needed] Australia only succeeded to locate 30,000 of those US citizens (39% effectiveness) in its first FATCA submission to USA.[56] It was determined that each located US citizen bank account averaged 160,000 AUS.
  • New Zealand: The government of New Zealand has estimated that locating approximately 21,462 resident US citizens would cost the government alone about $20,600,000. That cost would equal approximately 960 NZD per resident US citizen, or about 4,48 NZD per capita.[57] Country costs (including costs at the institutions) was not included in the reporting, nor was the financial impact made when the IGA was signed.[58][59]
  • Europe: The costs of implementation in Europe are shown (below) with available documentation to be greater than U.S. revenue estimates in only 3 of its countries. Implementation in UK, Germany, and Sweden alone will cost more than 10 billion USD.
    • United Kingdom: The United Kingdom government has estimated that the cost to British businesses will be £1.1 billion to £2 billion for the first five years (approximately two thirds of the estimate total additional global tax revenue expected), in order to locate approximately 177,185 US citizens.[60][61][62] The cost there is then approximately £6000 to £11000 per resident US citizen or 17-31 GBP per capita.
    • Germany: The costs in Germany are estimate to be 386 million EUR for implementation, and 300 million EUR for 10 years of maintenance.[63] With 108,845 US citizens residing in Germany and known population, the implementation cost is 6300 EUR per residing US citizen or 8.46 EUR per capita.[64]
    • Sweden: The costs to the Swedish government were estimated to be above 15 million SEK for implementation and 15 million SEK per year thereafter.[65] With 9,784,445 inhabitants and 16,555 US citizens, the Swedish government cost is 1,53 SEK per capita per year o 906 SEK per year per US person. Sweden could not estimate the business effect of FATCA, despite that Swedish law requires that the business impact must be evaluated for legislations.[66] In following discussions, it was estimated that each small financial institute (comprising 95% of the FFI's) would incur 1 million SEK yearly FATCA administration costs.[67] Documentation of the costs to larger institutions has not been located. IRS lists 734 FFI's to date, which would have an estimated yearly cost of more than 734 million SEK (excludes the cost of the 5% larger institutions).[68] This is more than 75 SEK per capita per year and more than 44,337 SEK per resident US citizen per year. (Over the 10-year period, this is 750 SEK per capita and 444,000 SEK per resident US citizen.)[68][69][better source needed] The Swedish government administration stated that the costs of implementation should be considered versus the threatened 30% sanctioned tax which could be applied for non-compliance.[70]
  • United States: There are few reliable estimates[citation needed] for the additional cost burden to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, although it seems certain[citation needed] that the majority of the cost seems likely to fall on the relevant financial institutions and (to a lesser degree) foreign tax authorities who have signed intergovernmental agreements. The FATCA bill approved 800 additional IRS employees (cost estimated to be $40 – $160 million per year). According to a TIGTA report, the cost to develop the FATCA XML data website is $16.6 million (which is $2.2 million over the budgeted amount).


Certain aspects of FATCA have been a source of controversy in the financial and general press.[71] The Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Tax Affairs at the U.S. Department of the Treasury states the administration position that the controversies are incorrect (myths).[72] The controversy primarily relates to several central issues:

  • Cost. Robert Stack provides the administration position that "Treasury and the IRS have designed our regulations in a way that minimizes administrative burdens and related costs."[73] Although numbers are still somewhat speculative, estimates of the additional revenue raised seem to be heavily outweighed by the cost of implementing the legislation. The Association of Certified Financial Crime Specialists (ACFCS) claims FATCA is expected to raise revenues of approximately US$800 million per year for the U.S. Treasury; however, the costs of implementation are more difficult to estimate. ACFCS also claims it is extremely likely that the cost of implementing FATCA (which will be borne by the foreign financial institutions) will far outweigh the revenues raised by the U.S. Treasury, even excluding the additional costs to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service for the staffing and resources needed to process the data produced.[74] Unusually, FATCA was not subject to a cost/benefit analysis by the Committee on Ways and Means. Perhaps not considered by Congress, the cost to the global financial institutions to implement FATCA could be $200 plus billion dollars, based on per capita costs for Australia and the UK.[50]
  • Benefits versus cost. The intention of locating US persons and their non-US financial accounts would be to increase tax revenues from the interest, dividends, and gains of those assets. The majority of assets located will be (the international equivalent of) standard checking and savings accounts, where the applicable interest is less than 0.5% (during 2015). The majority of that income is already (by tax treaty) attributable to the country where it resides. (IRS form 1116 is normally used to credit foreign taxes upon passive income). Another source of revenue where FATCA intends to raise revenue is in the identification of a wider population of US persons. However, the majority (82%) of US persons filing owe no tax to US (due to tax treaties).[75]
  • Capital flight. The primary mechanism for enforcing the compliance of foreign financial institutions is a punitive withholding levy on U.S. assets. This may create a strong incentive for foreign financial institutions to divest (or not invest) in U.S. assets, resulting in capital flight.[76] When implementing FATCA, Congress did not publish the source of the revenue data, neither had it performed a cost/benefit analysis.
  • Relevance. United States does not have a wealth tax or any other tax upon financial assets. Without a tax upon wealth, it is questioned as to why wealth is required to be reported.[77]
  • Fairness. Residents of the United States are not, in general, required to report their financial assets to the Internal Revenue Service. Non-residents are required to report asset values.[78]
  • Foreign relations. Forcing foreign financial institutions and foreign governments to collect data on U.S. citizens at their own expense and transmit it to the IRS has been called divisive. Canada's former Finance Minister Jim Flaherty raised an issue with this "far reaching and extraterritorial implications" which would require Canadian banks to become extensions of the IRS and would jeopardize Canadians' privacy rights.[79] There are also reports of many foreign banks refusing to open accounts for Americans, making it harder for Americans to live and work abroad.[80]
  • Extraterritoriality. Robert Stack of the IRS presented the administration that extraterritoriality was incorrect (a myth) "FATCA has received considerable international support because most foreign governments recognize how effective FATCA, and in particular our intergovernmental approach, will be in detecting and combatting tax evaders"[73] The legislation enables U.S. authorities to impose regulatory costs, and potentially penalties, on foreign financial institutions who otherwise have few if any dealings with the United States.[81] The U.S. has sought to ameliorate that criticism by offering reciprocity to potential countries who sign intergovernmental agreements, but the idea of the U.S. Government providing information on its citizens to foreign governments has also proved controversial.[82] The law's interference in the relationship between individual Americans or dual nationals and non-American banks led Georges Ugeux to term it "bullying and selfish."[83] The Economist has called FATCA's "extraterritoriality stunning even by Washington's standards."
  • Differentiation by National Origin and Discrimination In each country of the world, those residents which are suspected to be US Citizens are separated out at their financial institutions for deferential treatment, based upon their place of birth and nationality.[84] Discrimination according to national origin is prohibited in most countries. For example, the European Union article 14" Prohibition of discrimination: The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as ...... national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."[85] Those suspected to be of US nationality are treated differently than any of the other residents. Few precedents exist in the last 70 years, where any particular nationality has been searched out to be identified strictly by virtue of nationality.,[86][87] Previous identifications by national characteristic have only occurred within regions. Other global instances have not been identified.[citation needed]
  • Effect on "accidental Americans". The reporting requirements, including penalties, apply to all U.S. citizens, including those who are unaware that they have U.S. citizenship. Since the U.S. considers all persons born in the U.S., and most foreign-born persons with American parents, to be citizens, FATCA affects a large number of foreign residents, who are unaware that the U.S. considers them citizens.[88][89]
  • Effects on Non-Americans Persons who are not U.S. residents AND are not U.S. persons AND do not share accounts with U.S. persons AND do not share accounts with U.S. persons still must self certify said status when opening a bank account outside U.S.A. at any F.F.I. According to the FATCA IGA, if such person does not self-certify said status, that person cannot open a bank account at that institution.[90] Canada and United Kingdom have interpreted the IGA's differently. Those countries believe that such non-US persons who fail to self-certified shall not be refused a bank account. However, such non-cooperating non-US persons shall be FATCA reported in the same way as those persons who have U.S. indicia[91][92]
  • Citizenship renunciations.
    • Robert Stack of the IRS presented the administration' IRS position that renunciation due to FATCA are incorrect (a myth), because: "FATCA provisions impose no new obligations on U.S. citizens living abroad." The statement ignores the FATCA self-certification processes and filings of form 8938.[73] The US State Dept admits that the rise of renunciation figures are related to US taxation policy.[93] The State Department acknowledged the rise in relinquishments and renouncements, and expects them to rise further in the future.[94]
    • Time magazine reported a sevenfold increase in Americans renouncing U.S. citizenship between 2008 and 2011, attributing this at least in part to FATCA.[95] According to BBC Magazine, the act is one of the reasons for a surge of Americans renouncing their citizenship—a rise from 189 people in Q2/2012 to 1,131 in Q2/2013.[96] Another surge in renunciations in 2013 to record levels was reported in the news media, with FATCA cited as a factor in the decision of many of the renunciants.[97][98] According to the legal website International Tax Blog, the number of Americans giving up U.S. citizenship started to increase dramatically in 2010 and rose to 2,999 in 2013, almost 6-fold the average level of the previous decade.[99] The trend has continued in 2014 with 3415 people reported by the Federal Register as having giving up citizenship or Long-term residency.
    • The numbers of those renouncing their citizenship are understated, some say considerably.[100][101] According to a survey reported by Forbes, “5.5 million Americans eye giving up U.S. citizenship”.[102] There are serious differences between the figures cited by the Federal Register (which include renunciations, relinquishments, and loss of long-term resident (green-card) status to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System gun control database (“NICS”) (which only contain renunciations) .[103] Where as the Federal Register states that 3415 people renounced or relinquished their citizenship or long-term residence, the IRS states that 1100 people renounced citizenship at only one particular US consulate during the first ten months of 2014.[104][105] This contradicted prior claims that such statistics are not maintained at the consulates.[106][107]
    • FY2015: The State Department estimates 5986 renunciants and 559 relinquishers during FY2015[108] This is despite the 422% hike in renunciation and relinquishment fees (where the FY2015 data was released to the public).
  • American citizens living abroad. According to, many Americans living abroad may face large fines as a result of this legislation.[109] According to Time magazine, American citizens living abroad are unable to open foreign bank accounts.[110] The Wall Street Journal reports that "FATCA worsens the already profoundly unjust the tax treatment of millions of middle-class Americans living abroad." "FATCA rules were intended to correct a tax loophole. Applied to Americans living abroad, they are absurd."[111][112] The Guardian reports that Americans living abroad feel financially terrorized by FATCA requirements.[113] According to research by Democrats Abroad: "These survey results show the intense impact FATCA is having on overseas Americans. Their financial accounts are being closed, their relationships with their non-American spouses are under strain, some Americans are being denied promotion or partnership in business because of FATCA reporting requirements and some are planning or contemplating renouncing their US citizenship."[114] Robert Stack states the IRS position that "FATCA withholding applies to the U.S. investments of FFIs whether or not they have U.S. account holders, so turning away known U.S. account holders will not enable an FFI to avoid FATCA."[73]
  • Lack of Reciprocity Regarding reciprocity from USA, the model IGA states: "The Parties are committed to working with Partner Jurisdictions and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development on adapting the terms of this Agreement and other agreements between the United States and Partner Jurisdictions to a common model for automatic exchange of information, including the development of reporting and due diligence standards for financial institutions." There is no U.S. legislation to allow reciprocity[115] The president's budget for year 2014 included a proposal to allow the Treasury Secretary to collect information which could be used for FATCA reciprocity.[116] The proposal stated that its intent was to "would facilitate such intergovernmental cooperation by enabling the IRS to reciprocate in appropriate circumstances", however the proposal did not request to allow the Secretary to have further transmittal authority. The president's federal budget proposals of 2014, 2015 and 2016 did not list either costs or revenues for reciprocity implementation in any of the coming 10 years—thus assuming that this collection was either cost neutral or, more logically it would be interpreted as to not be budgeted in any of the coming 10 years.[117][118] The President's FY2014 budget was not enacted, rather a different version was passed. The President's FY2015 budget was defeated in the House of Representatives on a vote of 2-413. The President's FY2016 budget was defeated in the Senate on a vote of 0-97.[119]
  • Reciprocity not authorized by Congress FATCA as implemented by Congress included no mention of reciprocity.[120] FATCA as being implemented with the Executive Branch's IGA implementation has made reciprocity promises to foreign governments.[121][122]
  • The FATCA IGA is not a treaty. A treaty requires two thirds consent in the U.S, Senate in order to become applicable in U.S. law. It's applicability is being challenged in U.S. court. The plaintiffs state that the IGA's are not valid Executive Agreements. The IGA documents are all signed by officials lower than the President. Phillipines has delayed FATCA data transmittal, citing that the IGA "Treaty" has not yet been ratified by the U.S. Senate.[123]
  • IRS not ready. According to The New York Times, it is unclear whether the IRS is ready to handle millions of new complicated filings per year.[43] On May 2, 2014, the IRS issued Notice 2014-33 providing that 2014 and 2015 will be regarded as a transition period for purposes of enforcement and administration relating to entity but not individual investors.[124]
  • Complexity. Doubts have been expressed as to workability of FATCA due to its complexity,[125] and the legislative timetable for implementation has already been pushed back twice.[126] According to US National Tax Advocate Nina Olsen in regards to FATCA:"This is a piece of legislation that is so big and so far-reaching, and [has] so many different moving pieces, and is rolling out in an incremental fashion . . . that you really won’t be able to know what its consequences are, intended or otherwise,’ Olson said. “I don’t think we’ll know that for years. And by that point we’ll actually be a little too late to go, “Oops, my bad, we shouldn’t have done this,’ and then try to unwind it.”[127] Bloomberg reported in 2015 that the IRS help center is not able to provide adequate taxpayer customer service.[128]
  • Identity theft. The IRS reports that identity thieves are using fraudulent compliance requests as a "phishing" ruse to obtain sensitive account-holder information. As of April, 2015, more than 150,000 financial institutions throughout the world are storing social security numbers and asset values of US citizens.[129]
  • Security. As piracy, kidnapping, and global terrorism dominate the political and media climate, some thinkers have questioned the entire FATCA mentality, where non-US banks and non-US governments are entrusted with the private data of US citizens. The following countries have been entrusted with FATCA's private data of US persons: Brazil, Croatia, Israel, Kosovo, Mexico, Qatar, Uzbekistan, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, China, Columbia, Georgia, Serbia, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, UAE, Angola, Cambodia, Kazakhstan, Tunisia.[130] FFI's are required via FATCA to identify US persons and store their asset values and US Social Security numbers. There are many countries which have been, could be, or are at war or cold war, where FFI's have implemented FATCA. There is no control over which government or which individuals at these locations have control of the identity of US persons. Here are some examples of the quantity of FFI's registered in troubled areas: Afghanistan: 15, Chad: 5. China: 1021. North Korea:1, Nigeria: 92. Iraq: 16. Russia: 1117. Ukraine: 217. Venezuela; 179. Yemen: 13
    • Many countries have US sanctions upon the country and the country's leaders and their assets. Many of those countries have FATCA programs in their banks, where US person customers are being identified, such as these countries and the quantity of FFI's: Côte d'Ivoire (35) Zimbabwe (12)[131]
  • Minimum requirements without limits on the upper end. FATCA has minimum standards in its methodology of finding US persons. For example, the accounts with minimum end balance of 50,000 USD must be investigated with at least the US indicia criteria specified. The FATCA rules do not require any FFI to not investigate or report or FATCA-process accounts as low as zero. The FFI's are not prohibited from using any indicia to identify[132] US persons. There are no restrictions in FATCA regulations as to what is not allowed to be used against US persons.
  • Marketability of American Financial Products. European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee public hearing on FATCA May 29, 2-13, Robert Stack stated ", I believe the, the members here present today and the participants understand that the United States, ah, put its markets at risk in doing FATCA"[132][133]
  • FATCA and the European Union: Robert Stack of the IRS stated the administration position that it was incorrect (a myth)"that legislation could force foreign banks to violate laws in their own countries: Treasury’s decision to implement FATCA through IGAs that are respectful of the individual laws and customs of partner jurisdictions has contributed to the significant international interest in participating in FATCA compliance efforts. "[73]
    • Private data rules in Europe. The Swedish law Personuppgiftslagen (PUL) or personal data law, requires (unforced) consent of the individual in order to send data to a third country.[134] The need for the information must also be greater than the need for the persons integrity.[135] It is forbidden to deliver data that is not protected to a level adequate to EU standard[136]
    • FATCA and the ECHR: All members of the EU are required to fulfill the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Each law must have respect for an individual's private life except in cases of the state's or population safety, or the country's economic health.[137] FATCA's data is not used for the benefit of any EU member state. An EU member's economic health is not improved by FATCA, it only avoids the threatened 30% tax sanctions by complying with FATCA.[138]
    • E.U. Datasharing requirements FATCA does not fulfill the E.U. data sharing requirement demanding that sharing only occur with organizations following the Safe Harbor principles.[139] The IRS is not listed to meet this demand.[140]
    • E.U. member requirements for bank accessibility Many EU countries require access to bank accounts (because this is the only method to receive salary). FATCA's mechanism to close bank accounts if FATCA demands are not met violates such laws (see insättnings garanti in Sweden).[141] New FATCA IGA requirements demand that banks shall not open accounts for US persons or accounts for non-US persons if the individual refuses to declare US-person status upon bank account applications.[142]


Republican National Committee[edit]

On January 24, 2014, the Republican National Committee passed a resolution calling for the repeal of FATCA.[143]

American expatriates[edit]

American Citizens Abroad, Inc., (ACA) a not-for-profit organization claiming to represent the interests of the millions of Americans residing outside the United States, asserts that one of FATCA's problems is citizenship-based taxation (CBT). ACA calls for the U.S. to institute residence-based taxation (RBT) to bring the United States in line with all other OECD countries.[144][145]

In March 2015 the United States Senate Committee on Finance sought public submissions to a number of Tax Reform Working Groups.[146] Over 70 percent of all submissions to the International Taxation Working Group[147] and close to half of all submissions to the Individual Taxation Working Group[148] came from individual US expatriates, many citing specific consequences of FATCA in their countries of residence, and nearly all calling both for residence-based taxation and the repeal of FATCA.

Legal challenge[edit]

As reported in the Washington Times,[149] a legal challenge has been launched by attorney James Bopp. The suit is backed by a group called Republicans Overseas, based on the assertion that FATCA violates the Senate's power with respect to treaties, an 8th Amendment Excessive Fines claim, and a 4th Amendment Search and Seizure claim.[150][151] Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is among the individuals suing the U.S. Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service.[152] The case is Crawford v. U.S. Department of Treasury, and includes seven plaintiffs.

  • Count 1: The IGA's are Unconstitutional Sole Executive Agreements Because they Exceed the Scope of the Presidents Executive Powers
  • Count 2: The IGA's are Unconstitutional Agreeents Because They Override FATCA
  • Count 3: The Heightened Reporting Requirements for Foreign Financial Accounts Deny U.S. Citizens Living Abroad the Equal Protection of the Laws
  • Count 4: The FATCA FFI Penalty is Unconstitutional under the Excessive Fines Clause
  • Count 5: The FATCA Pass through Penalty is Unconstitutional under the Excessive Fines Clause
  • Count 6: The FBAR Willfulness Penalty is Unconstitutional under the Excessive Fines Clause
  • Count 7: FATCA's Information Reporting Requirements are Unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment
  • Count 8: The IGA's Information Reporting Requiremets are Unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

On Sept 4, a hearing was held to hear oral arguments for a preliminary injunction, challenging the constitutionality of the FATCA agreements. The suit charges that the president does not have the authority to negotiate the agreements absent congressional authority. The decision will be received prior to the Sep 30 deadline for FATCA IGA reporting.[153][154]

An injunction is also sought against FATCA's asset reporting requirements on Form 8966 and on the form for the report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR). The plaintiffs declare that these requirements violate the constitution and that the government should not be allowed to enforce them.[153][155]

Canadians, particularly those considered to be American persons for taxation purposes[edit]

An organization called the Alliance for The Defense of Canadian Sovereignty is challenging a Canadian law that implements FATCA. The organization claims that the Canadian law violates the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms, particularly the provisions related to discrimination on the basis of citizenship or national origin.[156] This is not technically a direct opposition to FATCA — as the United States Congress has no legislative authority over Canada — but is instead an opposition to the parallel Canadian federal legislation.[157] On August 11, 2014, in an action supported by the Alliance for the Defense of Canadian Sovereignty, two Canadian citizens filed suit in the Federal Court of Canada challenging the constitutionality of the Canadian law that implements FATCA in Canada. Both of the citizens were born in the United States, with at least one Canadian parent, but they returned to Canada in childhood and have had no residential ties to the United States since that time. They state that this would result in them having U.S. indicia, and therefore being discriminated against by Canadian banks.[158][159] On August 12, 2014, Canadian government spokesman Jack Aubry defended the constitutionality of the legislation, but otherwise declined to comment on the pending litigation.[160]

A Canadian Federal Court ruling would not involve jurisdiction over the relationship of United States citizens with the United States Government, but would affect those individuals' rights as Canadians. Such a ruling would therefore be a finding of unconstitutionality as a matter of Canadian Constitutional law, as to the two litigants. It would allow a remedy under Canadian law, but would not relieve them of their responsibilities to the United States under FATCA, as United States citizens. Thus, such a ruling would not remove the effect of the provisions of FATCA on U.S. citizen-taxpayers, no matter where their bona fide non-U.S. tax home is located.[citation needed] However, a Human Rights Complaint submitted to the United Nations, by members of The Isaac Brock Society and Maple Sandbox, that the U.S. system of taxation, and requirements, compliance reporting, and excessive penalties therewith, of its citizens tax resident in other countries including taxation of their income and assets in those countries, represents violation of their Human Rights. This complaint is suggestive that such taxation violates the IRS Taxpayer Bill of Rights provision #10 "The Right to a Fair and Just Tax System."[161][162]

On October 7, 2014, the legal claim by the Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty was amended to include the allegation that the FATCA IGA and enabling legislation are in violation of both the Income Tax Act of Canada and the Canada U.S. Tax Treaty.[163]



FATCA added 26 U.S.C. § 6038D (section 6038D of the Internal Revenue Code) which requires the reporting of any interest in foreign financial assets over $50,000 after March 18, 2010. FATCA also added 26 U.S.C. §§ 14711474 requiring U.S. payors to withhold taxes on payments to foreign financial institutions (FFI) and nonfinancial foreign entities (NFFE) that have not agreed to provide the IRS with information on U.S. accounts. FATCA also added 26 U.S.C. § 1298(f) requiring shareholders of a passive foreign investment company (PFIC) to report certain information.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury issued temporary and proposed regulations on December 14, 2011 (26 C.F.R. 1.6038D-0T et seq.) for reporting foreign financial assets, requiring the filing of Form 8938 with income tax returns.[164][165] The Department of the Treasury issued final regulations and guidance on reporting interest paid to nonresident aliens on April 16, 2012 (26 C.F.R. 1.6049-4 et seq., 26 C.F.R. 31.3406(g)-1).[166] Treasury issued proposed regulations regarding information reporting by, and withholding of payments to, foreign financial institutions on February 8, 2012,[167][168][169] and final regulations on January 17, 2013 (26 C.F.R. 1.1471-0 et seq.).[170][171] On December 31, 2013 the IRS published temporary and proposed regulations (26 C.F.R. 1.1291-0T et seq.) on annual filing requirements for shareholders of PFICs.[172] On February 20, 2014, the IRS issued temporary and proposed regulations making additions and clarifications to previously issued regulations and providing guidance to coordinate FATCA rules with preexisting requirements.[173][174]

On April 2, 2014, the U.S. Department of the Treasury extended from April 25, 2014 to May 5, 2014 the deadline by which an FFI must register with the IRS in order to appear on the initial public list of "Global Intermediary Identification Numbers" (GIINs) maintained by the IRS, also known as the "FFI List."[175][176] In June 2014, the IRS began publishing a monthly online list of registered FFIs, intended to allow withholding agents to verify the GIINs of their payees in order to establish that withholding is not required on payments to those payees.[177]

International implementation[edit]

Implementation of FATCA may involve legal hurdles; it may be illegal in foreign jurisdictions for financial institutions to disclose the required account information.[178] There is a controversy about the appropriateness of intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) to solve any of these problems.[179][180]

France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom announced in 2012 they consented to cooperate with the U.S. on FATCA implementation,[181][182] as did Switzerland, Japan[183] and South Africa.

The deputy director general of legal affairs of the People's Bank of China, the central bank of the People's Republic of China, Liu Xiangmin said "China's banking and tax laws and regulations do not allow Chinese financial institutions to comply with FATCA directly."[184] The U.S. Department of the Treasury suspended negotiations with Russia in March 2014.[185] Russia, while not ruling out an agreement, requires full reciprocity and abandonment of US extraterritoriality before signing an IGA.[186][187] Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a law on June 30, 2014 that allowed Russian banks to transfer FATCA data directly to US tax authorities—after first reporting the information to the Russian government. Russian banks are required to obtain client consent first but can deny service if that consent is not given.[188]

A 2014 Swiss referendum against the act did not come to fruition.[189]

Intergovernmental agreements[edit]

As passed by Congress, FATCA was meant to form the basis for a relationship between the U.S. Department of the Treasury and individual FFI's. Personnel at some FFIs responded by asserting,[190] however, that it was not possible to follow for the FFIs to follow their own countries' laws (privacy, confidentiality, discrimination, etc.) and simultaneously to comply with FATCA as is.[191][192] Discussions resulted in the creation of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA's) between the Executive Branch of the United States government with foreign governments. This development resulted in foreign governments to implement the US FATCA requirements into their own legal systems, which in turn allowed those governments to change their privacy and discrimination laws[193] to allow the identification and reporting of US persons via those governments.[193] In an IGA, a government agrees that all of its financial institutions shall comply with FATCA (whereas without the IGA each FFI would have been able to decide if it were to comply with FATCA or not). WIth the IGA's, the private data of suspected US persons would be collected and handled by the FFI's, whereas the many governments would then collect and store that data for further transmittal.[citation needed] The IGA added the applicable government to the list of handlers of the data.

  United States
Countries with agreements (or agreements in substance) regarding FATCA implementation
  States with a Type 1 Agreement
  States with a Type 2 Agreement
  States with agreement in substance on a Type 1 Agreement
  States with agreement in substance on a Type 2 Agreement

The United States Department of the Treasury has published model IGAs which follow two approaches. Under Model 1, financial institutions in the partner country report information about U.S. accounts to the tax authority of the partner country. That tax authority then provides the information to the United States. Model 1 comes in a reciprocal version (Model 1A), under which the United States will also share information about the partner country's taxpayers with the partner country, and a nonreciprocal version (Model 1B). Under Model 2, partner country financial institutions report directly to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, and the partner country agrees to lower any legal barriers to that reporting.[194] Model 2 is available in two versions: 2A with no Tax Information Exchange Agreement (TIEA) or Double Tax Convention (DTC) required, and 2B for countries with a pre-existing TIEA or DTC. The agreements generally require parliamentary approval in the countries they are concluded with, but the United States is not pursuing ratification of this as a treaty.

In April 2014, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and IRS announced that any jurisdictions that reach "agreements in substance" and consent to their compliance statuses being published by the July 1, 2014, deadline would be treated as having an IGA in effect through the end of 2014, ensuring no penalties would be incurred during that time while giving more jurisdictions an opportunity to finalize formal IGAs.[175][194]

In India the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) said "FATCA in its current form lacks complete reciprocity from the US counterparts, and there is an asymmetry in due-diligence requirements." Furthermore, "Sources close to the development say the signing has been delayed because of Indian financial institutions' unpreparedness."[195]

With Canada's agreement in February 2014, all G7 countries have signed intergovernmental agreements. As of September 8, 2015, the following jurisdictions have concluded intergovernmental agreements with the United States regarding the implementation of FATCA, most of which have not entered into force.[194]

Intergovernmental agreements
Jurisdiction Type Ratified via signature Entry into force Approval process
partner state
 Australia 1 April 28, 2014 June 30, 2014[196]
 Austria 2 April 29, 2014 December 9, 2014[197]
 Bahamas 1 November 3, 2014
 Barbados 1 November 17, 2014
 Belarus 1 March 18, 2015 July 29, 2015[198]
 Belgium 1 April 23, 2014
 Bermuda 2 December 19, 2013 August 19, 2014[197]
 Brazil 1 September 23, 2014
 British Virgin Islands 1 June 30, 2014
 Bulgaria 1 December 5, 2014 June 30, 2015[198]
 Cambodia 1 September 14, 2015
 Canada 1 February 5, 2014 June 27, 2014[199] Implementation act published.[200]
 Cayman Islands 1B[201] November 29, 2013 July 1, 2014[197]
 Chile 2 March 5, 2014
 Colombia 1 May 20, 2015
 Costa Rica 1A[201] November 26, 2013
 Croatia 1 March 20, 2015
 Curaçao 1 December 16, 2014
 Cyprus 1 December 2, 2014
 Czech Republic 1 August 4, 2014
 Denmark 1 November 19, 2012 Implementation law L67 passed December 20, 2013.[202] Draft implementation regulation published, hearing ends May 8, 2014.[203] Due diligence deadlines June 30, 2015, and June 30, 2016.[204]
 Estonia 1 April 11, 2014 July 9, 2014[197]
 Finland 1 March 5, 2014 February 20, 2015[198]
 France 1 November 14, 2013 October 14, 2014[197]
 Georgia 1 July 10, 2015
 Germany 1 May 31, 2013 December 11, 2013[205]
 Gibraltar 1 May 8, 2014
 Guernsey 1 December 13, 2013 July 1, 2014[206] Draft implementation regulation published.[207]
 Honduras 1 March 31, 2014 February 19, 2015[198]
 Hong Kong 2 November 13, 2014
 Hungary 1 February 4, 2014 July 16, 2014[197]
 Iceland 1 May 26, 2015
 India 1 July 9, 2015 August 31, 2015[198]
 Ireland 1 January 23, 2013 July 1, 2014[208]
 Isle of Man 1 December 13, 2013 July 1, 2014[209] Draft implementation regulation published.[207]
 Israel 1 June 30, 2014
 Italy 1 January 10, 2014 August 17, 2015[198]
 Jamaica 1 May 1, 2014
 Japan 2 June 11, 2013 June 11, 2013[210]
 Jersey 1 December 13, 2013 Draft implementation regulation published.[207]
 Kosovo 1 February 26, 2015
 Kuwait 1 April 29, 2015
 Latvia 1 June 27, 2014 December 15, 2014[197]
 Liechtenstein 1 May 19, 2014 January 22, 2015[198]
 Lithuania 1 August 26, 2014
 Luxembourg 1 March 28, 2014
 Malta 1A[211] December 16, 2013 June 26, 2014[197]
 Mauritius 1 December 27, 2013 August 29, 2014[197]
 Mexico 1 November 19, 2012 January 1, 2013[212] Replaced by revised treaty on April 9, 2014, with no break in enforcement.[213]
 Moldova 2 November 26, 2014
 Montserrat 1 September 8, 2015
 Netherlands 1A[214] December 18, 2013 April 9, 2015[215]
 New Zealand 1 June 12, 2014 July 3, 2014[216]
 Norway 1 April 15, 2013 January 27, 2014[197]
 Philippines 1 July 13, 2015
 Poland 1 October 7, 2014
 Portugal 1 August 6, 2015
 Qatar 1 January 7, 2015 June 23, 2015[198]
 Romania 1 May 28, 2015
 Saint Kitts and Nevis 1 August 31, 2015
 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 1 August 18, 2015
 Singapore 1 December 9, 2014 March 18, 2015[198]
 Slovakia 1 July 31, 2015
 Slovenia 1 June 2, 2014 July 1, 2014[197]
 South Africa 1 June 9, 2014 October 28, 2014[197]
 South Korea 1 June 10, 2015
 Spain 1 May 14, 2013 December 9, 2013[217]
 Sweden 1 August 8, 2014 March 11, 2015[198]
  Switzerland 2 February 14, 2013 June 2, 2014[189] Parliamentary approval obtained;[218] insufficient supporters for a referendum.[219]
 Turkey 1 July 29, 2015
 Turks and Caicos Islands 1 December 1, 2014
 United Arab Emirates 1 June 17, 2015
 United Kingdom 1A September 12, 2012 June 30, 2014[220] Presented to parliament in September 2012.[221][a]
 Uzbekistan 1 April 3, 2015
  Vatican City 1 June 10, 2015 June 10, 2015[198]
  1. ^ In the UK, formal approval of treaties before ratification is not requirement, although according to the Ponsonby Rule, they need to be presented to Parliament with an explanatory memorandum, which the government did in September 2012.

The following jurisdictions have also reached "agreements in substance":[194]

Model 1 Model 1 Model 1 Model 1 Model 2

Delays in implementation of IGAs[edit]

Many jurisdictions are required to have their IGAs in effect and start exchange of information by 30 September 2015. The US IRS has issued Notice 2015-66, which relaxes the deadline for countries which have signed Model 1 IGAs "to hand over information regarding accounts held by U.S. taxpayers",[222][223] if the jurisdiction requests more time and "provides assurance that the jurisdiction is making good faith efforts to exchange the information as soon as possible.”[222]

Implementation is noted as delayed in the following countries:

  • Croatia "The Croatian tax authority announced September 10 (2015) that it would not implement reporting provisions of the intergovernmental agreement it signed with the United States by the September 30 deadline in the IGA but that Croatia would not be subject to the withholding tax."[224]
  • Philippines "The mandatory reporting of financial information on US nationals by local financial institutions, as required under the new treaty on Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (Fatca) between the Philippines and the US, has been moved to the second quarter of 2016. Internal Revenue Commissioner Kim Jacinto-Henares has advised Philippine financial institutions that the required reporting of financial information on US nationals will not take place on September 30, as originally intended. The deferment was because the intergovernmental agreement (Iga) on Fatca has yet to be ratified by the Senate as a treaty." It is known (see above) that the treaty is not ratified by the US Senate, but it is not determined in the text if Philippines has ratified the FATCA IGA in its own Senate.[225]
  • Belgium "the Belgian Ministry of Finance orally confirmed that the IRS agreed to delay the FATCA reporting deadline. Belgian financial institutions now will have until the 10th day following the publication of the Belgian FATCA law into the Belgian official gazette to report their 2014 FATCA information to the Belgian tax authorities. The Belgian FATCA law is expected to be voted on before 2015 year-end."[226][227]

Related international regulations[edit]

In 2014, the OECD introduced its Common Reporting Standard (CRS) proposed for the automatic exchange of information (AEOI) through its Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes. The G-20 gave a mandate for this standard, and its relation to FATCA is mentioned on page 5 of the OECD's report.[228] Critics immediately dubbed it "GATCA" for Global FATCA.[229]

The Common Reporting standard requires each signatory country to gather the full identifying information of each bank customer, including additional nationalities and place of birth. Prior to the implementation of CRS, there had been no other method of fully and globally identifying immigrants and emigrants and citizens by way of their identification numbers, birthplaces, and nationalities. Each participating government is tasked with collecting and storing the data of all its citizens and immigrants and of transferring the data automatically to participating countries. CRS is capable of transmitting person data according to the demands of either Residence Based Taxation or Citizenship Based Taxation (CBT) or Personhood-Based Taxation.

See also[edit]



  1. ^ Crassweller, Kary; Andrew C. Liazos, Todd A. Solomon, McDermott Will & Emery (22 March 2013). "What You Need to Know About Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act's (FATCA) Impact on Non-U.S. Retirement Plans". The National Law Review. ISSN 2161-3362. Retrieved 19 March 2014. 
  2. ^ "The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA)" (PDF). DLA Piper. 
  3. ^ a b 111 Cong. Rec. S1635-36 (daily ed. Mar 17, 2010) (statement of Sen. Levin) ("Right now, thousands of U.S. tax dodgers conceal billions of dollars in assets within secrecy-shrouded foreign banks, dodging taxes and penalizing those of us who pay the taxes we owe. The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations... estimated that these tax-dodging schemes cost the Federal Treasury $100 billion a year.")
  4. ^
  5. ^ Fully explained here and partially explained here
  6. ^
  7. ^ Those required to file an FBAR who fail to properly file a complete and correct FBAR may be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 per violation for nonwillful violations that are not due to reasonable cause. For willful violations, the penalty may be the greater of $100,000 or 50 percent of the balance in the account at the time of the violation, for each violation. For guidance on circumstances including natural disasters that prevent timely filing of an FBAR, see FIN-2013-G002 (June 24, 2013).
  8. ^ Bogaard, Jonathan H.; Michael E. Draz; Vedder Price (14 March 2013). "What...The FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act)?". The National Law Review. ISSN 2161-3362. Retrieved 19 March 2014. 
  9. ^ See generally 26 U.S.C. § 61, § 6012
  10. ^
  11. ^ International taxation
  12. ^ Fitz-Morris, James (November 25, 2013). "Canadian banks to be compelled to share clients' info with U.S.". CBC News. 
  13. ^ Harvey, J. Richard (February 2014). "Worldwide Taxation of U. S. Citizens Living Abroad: Impact of FATCA and Two Proposals" (PDF). George Mason Journal of International Commercial Law 4 (3): 319–357. 
  14. ^ Rousslang, Donald. "Tax Topics: Foreign tax credit". Retrieved September 7, 2014. 
  15. ^ See 26 U.S.C. § 1441.
  16. ^ 26 U.S.C. § 1441
  17. ^ U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Offshore Financial Activity Creates Enforcement Issues for IRS: Testimony Before the Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, March 17, 2009 (statement of Michael Brostek, Director, Strategic Issues Team) at 10, [hereinafter "GAO Report"]
  18. ^ a b GAO Report at 10-11
  19. ^ GAO Report at 5 (referring to the FBAR filing requirements of non-resident US citizens to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network)
  20. ^
  21. ^
  22. ^
  23. ^
  24. ^ "The $70 billion figure originated with Jack Blum, an attorney and former congressional researcher. Blum cited this figure in 2001Government .... And on the strength of this initial guess, the number has risen steadily from $70 billion to $100 billion to a mind-blowing total of $150 billion. ...... he asked Blum to give an on-the-record response on how he came up with his original $70 billion estimate. After dodging the question once, Blum finally admitted, “I guessed.” " Government “Stats” Strike Again
  25. ^ a b c
  26. ^ 111 Cong. Rec. S10,778 (statement of Sen. Max Baucus) ("This bill [S. 1934] would improve tax compliance without raising taxes on anyone. These are taxes that are already legally owed.")
  27. ^ 111 Cong., S.A. 3310
  28. ^ Crawford v. U.S. Department of Treasury, case no. 15-cv-00250-TMR, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio (Dayton).
  29. ^ 26 U.S.C. § 1471(c)(1)
  30. ^ 26 U.S.C. § 1471
  31. ^ a b Bell, Kay (March 23, 2010). "Jobs bill includes tax changes". MSNBC. 
  32. ^ 26 U.S.C. § 1474(b)(2)
  33. ^ Internal Revenue Service (2014). "Instructions for the Requester of Forms W–8BEN, W–8BEN–E, W–8ECI, and W–8EXP, and W–8IMY" (PDF). U.S. Department of the Treasury. p. 5. Retrieved 5 August 2015. [R]equest Form W-8BEN if you are a ... FFI required to establish the foreign status of an individual account holder for chapter 4 purposes or under the requirements of an applicable IGA[.] 
  34. ^ 26 U.S.C. § 6038D(a)
  35. ^ Wargo, Dave (August 15, 2014). "FATCA: Expat Bank Accounts Are Being Sent Home". 
  36. ^ e.g., 26 C.F.R. 1.6038D-2T(a)
  37. ^ Internal Revenue Service (January 15, 2013). "Do I need to file Form 8938, 'Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets'?". 
  38. ^ 26 U.S.C. § 6662(j)(3)
  39. ^ 26 U.S.C. § 6501(e)(1); the limitations period was presumably extended because it was determined that international audit cases can take an additional 500 days to fully investigate. GAO Report at 1.
  40. ^ 26 U.S.C. § 871(m); dividends such as those paid by a U.S. corporation became "U.S. source" and therefore subject to the 30% withholding tax for foreign payees. 26 U.S.C. § 871(1)(A), § 861(a)(2). The previous method was based on reclassifying the payment as income derived from the residence of the foreign payee and therefore the payment was not due U.S. taxation.
  41. ^ Morgenson, Gretchen (March 26, 2010). "Death of a Loophole, and Swiss Banks Will Mourn". The New York Times. 
  42. ^ "The Obama administration proposes changes that will ... shift the burden of proof to make it harder for foreign account-holders to evade U.S. taxes..."
  43. ^ a b Jolly, David; Knowlton, Brian (December 26, 2011). "Law to Find Tax Evaders Denounced". The New York Times. 
  44. ^ 31 C.F.R. 1010
  45. ^
  46. ^ Joint Committee on Taxation, JCS-6-10, Estimated Revenue Effects of the Revenue Provisions Contained in an Amendment to the Senate Amendment to the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2847, the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act. Referenced: "Why FATCA is Bad for America and Why it Should be Repealed". ACA Reports series 2. American Citizens Abroad. July 19, 2012. Archived from the original on June 1, 2013. 
  47. ^ Gravelle JG. (2013). Tax Havens: International Tax Avoidance and Evasion. CRS.
  48. ^ "This calculation would indicate that, when just looking at the assets of banks in the United States, FATCA would result in an annual decrease of $517 million in tax revenue for the US and a one-time loss of $2.6 billion. Over 10 years that would amount to $7.77 billion, almost the same as the estimate marginal revenue to be gained. "
  49. ^ Wood, Robert W. (November 30, 2011). "FATCA Carries Fat Price Tag". Forbes. 
  50. ^ a b
  51. ^
  52. ^
  53. ^ Greenwood, John (October 23, 2013). "Electronic spying 'a big issue' for banks, Scotia CEO Waugh says". Financial Post. 
  54. ^ Swanson, Lynne (September 17, 2013). "Dual Canadian-American citizens: We are not tax cheats". Financial Post. 
  55. ^ Tax Law Amendment, Australian Parliament
  56. ^
  57. ^
  58. ^
  59. ^ "Inland Revenue does not consider it is possible to estimate the fiscal costs/benefits of entering into an IGA with the United States?”
  60. ^ "The cost of complying with FATCA". Lexology. June 3, 2013. 
  61. ^ "The UK Government estimates it will cost UK financial institutions up to £1.6bn to implement FATCA in this country, with ongoing costs of up to £90m per year."
  62. ^ HMRC estimates the cost for UK business over the first 5 years to be £1.1bn-£2bn, running thereafter at an annual cost of £50m-£90m.
  63. ^
  64. ^
  65. ^ Denna engångssumma beräknas av Skatteverket uppgå till 15
  66. ^ Regelrådet anser att konsekvensutredningen inte uppfyller de krav som ställs i 6 och 7 §§ förordningen (2007:1244) om konsekvensutredning vid regelgivning.
  67. ^ Enligt en högst spekulativ uträkning gjord i promemorian skulle enbart inlämnandet av kontrolluppgifter till Skatteverket innebära en löpande administrativ kostnad på en miljon kronor var för varje mindre finansiellt institute
  68. ^ a b
  69. ^ Emigration from the United States#Statistics
  70. ^ Regeringens kommentar på remissinstansernas slutsatser gällande den ekonomiska och administrativa börda lagstiftningen medför är att det borde ses i ljuset av den 30-procentiga källskatt som påförs alla betalningar med amerikansk källa till svenska finansiella institut. Regeringen menar att bördan de finansiella instituten råkar ut för är försumbar i jämförelse med effekten en eventuell källskatt kommer ha på Sveriges ekonomi.
  71. ^ Graffy, Colleen (July 17, 2013). "How to Lose Friends, Citizens and Influence". The Wall Street Journal. 
  72. ^ Myth vs. FATCA: The Truth About Treasury’s Effort To Combat Offshore Tax Evasion, Robert Stack , 9/20/2013
  73. ^ a b c d e Myth vs. FATCA: The Truth About Treasury’s Effort To Combat Offshore Tax Evasion, Robert Stack, 9/20/2013
  74. ^ "FATCA may identify tax cheats, but its dragnet for financial criminals may produce an even bigger yield". Association of Certified Financial Crime Specialists. March 1, 2012. 
  75. ^ 82% of overseas filers owe no US tax and much of the tax paid relates to clear instances of double taxation"
  76. ^ "Scratched by the FATCA". The Economist. November 26, 2011. 
  77. ^ "As the United States does not have a wealth tax, reporting of financial information by banks within the United States is limited to the reporting of income, namely, in the case of bank accounts, to interest income earned in any account." International Tax Working Group Submissions, United States Senate Committee on Finance
  78. ^ "If the laws were amended to require all American citizens to report all of their bank account balances and financial assets to the IRS every year, America would erupt! Such a law would be an unconstitutional invasion of citizen’s privacy because there is no justifiable government interest in the detailed financial asset levels of American citizens absent probable cause of tax evasion. Clearly, however, requiring all Americans to disclose all of their financial assets to the IRS could be very beneficial to catching tax evasion- just like allowing the warrantless search of everyone’s home could be very beneficial to catching other criminals. But that is not how America works and is not consistent with the protections of the Constitution." International Tax Working Group Submissions, United States Senate Committee on Finance
  79. ^ "Why FATCA is Bad for America and Why it Should be Repealed". ACA Reports series 2. American Citizens Abroad. July 19, 2012. Archived from the original on June 1, 2013. 
  80. ^ USA Today (September 27, 2012). "European banks shut Americans out over U.S. tax rules". Yan, Sophia (September 15, 2013). "Banks lock out Americans over new tax law". CNN. 
  81. ^ "Facing up to FATCA". Deloitte. Fall 2011. 
  82. ^ Posey, Bill (July 1, 2013). "Letter to Secretary of Treasury" (PDF). 
  83. ^ Browning, Lynnley (September 16, 2013). "Complying With U.S. Tax Evasion Law Is Vexing Foreign Banks". The New York Times. 
  84. ^
  85. ^ Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols No. 11 and No. 14, Rome, 4.XI.1950
  86. ^
  87. ^
  88. ^ *Effect on "accidental Americans". The reporting requirements, including penalties, apply to all U.S. citizens, including those who are unaware that they have U.S. citizenship. Since the U.S. considers all persons born in the U.S., and most foreign-born persons with American parents, to be citizens, FATCA affects a large number of foreign residents, who are unaware that the U.S. considers them citizens.
  89. ^ Accidental Americans may also include, but much fewer in number, those who innocently did not understand they were a U.S. citizen and, therefore, had U.S. tax and reporting obligations. .....
  90. ^ Q10. If a Reporting Model 1 FFI or a Reporting Model 2 FFI that is applying the due diligence procedures in section III, paragraph B, of Annex I of the IGA cannot obtain a self-certification upon the opening of a New Individual Account, can the FFI open the account and treat it as a U.S. Reportable Account? A: No. Pursuant to section III, paragraph B, of Annex I of the IGA, the FFI must obtain a self-certification at account opening. If the FFI cannot obtain a self-certification at account opening, it cannot open the account. (Added: 02-02-2015)
  91. ^
  92. ^
  93. ^ "the legislation caused an increase in consular workload that must be paid for by user fees" "At one post alone, renunciations rose from under 100 in 2009 to more than 1,100 in the first ten months of 2014."
  94. ^ "Requests for a Certificate of Loss of Nationality on the basis of a non-renunciatory relinquishment have increased significantly in recent years, and the Department expects the number to grow in the future, causing the total cost of this service to increase." Schedule of Fees for Consular Services, Department of State and Overseas Embassies and Consulates--Passport and Documentary Services Fee Changes A Rule by the State Department on 09/08/2015
  95. ^ "Mister Taxman: Why Some Americans Working Abroad Are Ditching Their Citizenships". Time magazine. January 31, 2013. 
  96. ^ "Why are Americans giving up their citizenship?". BBC Magazine. Sep 26, 2012. Retrieved Oct 2013. 
  97. ^ Saunders, Laura (August 17, 2013). "Overseas Americans: Time to Say 'Bye' to Uncle Sam?". The Wall Street Journal. 
  98. ^ "Americans renouncing citizenship in record numbers, seek to avoid tax". The Wall Street Journal (Fox News). August 12, 2013. Retrieved February 20, 2014. 
  99. ^ Mitchel, Andrew (February 6, 2014). "2013 Expatriations Increase by 221%". International Tax Blog. Retrieved December 2, 2014. 
  100. ^ Wood, Robert W. "Record Numbers Renounce U.S. Citizenship---And Many Aren't Counted". Forbes. 
  101. ^
  102. ^ Wood, Robert W. "5.5 Million Americans Eye Giving Up U.S. Citizenship, Survey Reveals". Forbes. 
  103. ^
  104. ^
  105. ^
  106. ^ Freedom of Information Request, denial response
  107. ^ Freedom of Information Request, denial response discussed
  108. ^ "The existing fee definition covers a projected 5,986 applicants renouncing their U.S. nationality in FY 2015. This rule expands the definition of the fee to cover an additional projected 559 applicants who will relinquish their nationality in FY 2015. The total volume of applicants paying this fee is projected to be 6,545, if in effect for all of FY 2015."
  109. ^ Hildebrandt, Amber (January 13, 2014). "U.S. FATCA tax law catches unsuspecting Canadians in its crosshairs". CBC News. 
  110. ^ Bachmann, Helena (January 31, 2013). "Mister Taxman: Why Some Americans Working Abroad Are Ditching Their Citizenships". Time. Retrieved February 20, 2014. 
  111. ^ Kuenzi, David (July 9, 2014). "American Expats' Tax Nightmare". The Wall Street Journal. 
  112. ^
  113. ^
  114. ^
  115. ^ It’s Official: There Will Be No American FATCA ‘Reciprocity’
  116. ^ p 202
  117. ^ Mandatory and Receipt Proposals—Continued Table S-9, p192
  118. ^ Mandatory and Receipt Proposals—Continued Table S-9, p122
  119. ^ The Hill, "President's budget sinks, 97-0", Alexander Bolton
  120. ^
  121. ^ "The Parties are committed to working with Partner Jurisdictions and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development on adapting the terms of this Agreement and other agreements between the United States and Partner Jurisdictions to a common model for automatic exchange of information, including the development of reporting and due diligence standards for financial institutions."
  122. ^ That’s why the Department is keen to pretend the IGAs – which are not treaties, whatever some foreign governments may think – are authorized in statute. They are not, as conclusively analyzed by Law Professor Allison Christians of McGill University.
  123. ^ "The deferment was because the intergovernmental agreement (Iga) on Fatca has yet to be ratified by the Senate as a treaty."
  124. ^ Loewy, Robert (9 May 2014). "Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) Transitional Relief and Extension of Time for the Implementation of New Account Procedures for Entity Investors". The National Law Review (Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP). Retrieved 15 June 2014. 
  125. ^ Wisconsin Law Review, Vol. 2013, No. 1, pp. 205-236 (April 9, 2013). "Using a Sledgehammer to Crack a Nut: Why FATCA Will Not Stand". 
  126. ^ Shapiro Tax Law LLC (July 6, 2013). "Good news: FATCA deadlines extended, and withholding delayed". 
  127. ^
  128. ^ Meanwhile, his staff has been overwhelmed with calls this year from Americans overseas who are confused about extra information they are supposed to furnish under the 2010 law combating tax cheating abroad. 'They are calling like crazy about that,' says Donna White, a customer service representative in the office. 'You kind of get burnt out.'" - Bloomberg Business Week, April 13–19, 2015.
  129. ^
  130. ^ List of IGA countries
  131. ^ FATCA Foreign Financial Institution (FFI) List at
  132. ^ a b
  133. ^
  134. ^ Till undantagen räknas de fall då den registrerade168 gett sin tillåtelse,om informationsutlämningen krävs på grund av myndighetsutövning
  135. ^ Vidare är behandlingen av personuppgifter tillåten om intresset av informationsutlämningen väger tyngre än skyddet för den personliga integriteten samt om personuppgiftsansvarige eller tredje man som tar emot personuppgifter ska kunna genomföra en arbetsuppgift på grund av myndighetsutövning
  136. ^ det är förbjudet att föra över personuppgifter till tredje land om landet inte har en adekvat skyddsnivå
  137. ^ Enligt artikel 8 punkt 1 har varje människa rätt till respekt för sitt privatoch familjeliv. Enligt artikel 8 punkt 2 får offentlig myndighet inte inskränka den rättigheten annat än med hänsyn till exempelvis statens säkerhet, den allmänna säkerheten, eller landets ekonomiska välstånd. "Är FATCA förenligt med svensk rätt och EU-rätt?" Simon Jisander, Uppsala University Juridiska institutionen, 2015 , p51
  138. ^ kan det konstateras att varken statens säkerhet, den allmänna säkerheten eller skydd för hälsa eller moraleller för andra personers fri- och rättigheter är relevanta undantagsgrunder i detta fall. De undantagsgrunder som däremot blir intressanta är landets ekonomiska välstånd på grund av den källskatt som påförs transaktioner "Är FATCA förenligt med svensk rätt och EU-rätt?" Simon Jisander, Uppsala University Juridiska institutionen, 2015 , p51
  139. ^ Enligt direktiv 2000/520/EG156, punkt 5, anses adekvat skyddsnivå uppnådd för USA endast då informationen skickas til en organisation som följer de så kallade Safe Harbor Privacyprinciperna. "Är FATCA förenligt med svensk rätt och EU-rätt?" Simon Jisander, Uppsala University Juridiska institutionen, 2015 , p54
  140. ^ På amerikanska handelsministeriets158 hemsida finns en lista över de organisationer som anslutit sig till dessa principer. IRS finns inte med i denna lista "Är FATCA förenligt med svensk rätt och EU-rätt?" Simon Jisander, Uppsala University Juridiska institutionen, 2015 , p54
  141. ^ Lagen om insättningsgaranti (1995:1571), hädanefter IGL, kan enligt Ulrika Hansson tolkas som att finansiella institut såsom banker kan omfattas av insättningsgarantin vilken innebär att ett inlåningskonto måste öppnas för den som så önskar. Om en FFI inte ser någon annan utväg än att avsluta konton ägda av motsträviga klienter kan detta strida mot rätten att inneha ett inlåningskonto menar hon."Är FATCA förenligt med svensk rätt och EU-rätt?" Simon Jisander, Uppsala University Juridiska institutionen, 2015 , p55
  142. ^
  143. ^ "Resolution to Repeal the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA)" (PDF). 
  144. ^
  145. ^ Why FATCA is Bad for America
  146. ^ Hatch, Wyden Launch New Effort to Seek Input on Bipartisan Tax Reform
  147. ^ International Tax Working Group Submissions
  148. ^ Individual Tax Working Group Submissions
  149. ^ "Superlawyer Jim Bopp takes on McCain-backed tax act that targets Americans overseas". The Washington Times. 
  150. ^ "Preliminary Opinion on Potential Claims against FATCA and FBAR" (PDF). 
  151. ^
  152. ^
  153. ^ a b
  154. ^ 135 DTR K-4, 7/15/15
  155. ^ 163 DTR K-7, 8/24/15
  156. ^ "Group plans constitutional challenge to budget bill". Toronto: June 30, 2014. 
  157. ^ See [1].
  158. ^ Wood, Robert W. "Canadians File Suit To Block FATCA And Prohibit Handover Of U.S. Names To IRS". Forbes. 
  159. ^ Trichur, Rita (August 12, 2014). "U.S. Expats Sue Over Canadian Deal to Tell Washington About Their Accounts". The Wall Street Journal. 
  160. ^ "Dual citizens sue feds over FATCA tax deal with U.S.". Global News. 
  161. ^
  162. ^;-10-Provisions-to-be-Highlighted-on-IRSgov,-in-Publication-1
  163. ^
  164. ^ "IRS Releases Guidance on Foreign Financial Asset Reporting". Internal Revenue Service. December 14, 2011. 
  165. ^ 76 FR 78553 of December 19, 2011. 76 FR 78594 of December 19, 2011.
  166. ^ 77 FR 23391 of April 19, 2012
  167. ^ "Treasury, IRS Issue Proposed Regulations for FATCA Implementation". Internal Revenue Service. February 8, 2012. 
  168. ^ "Treasury and IRS Issue Proposed Regulations Under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act to Improve Offshore Tax Compliance and Reduce Burden". United States Department of the Treasury. February 8, 2012. 
  169. ^ 77 FR 9022 of February 15, 2012
  170. ^ "Treasury and IRS Issue Final Regulations to Combat Offshore Tax Evasion". United States Department of the Treasury. January 17, 2013. 
  171. ^ 78 FR 5874 of January 28, 2013.
  172. ^ 78 FR 79602 of December 31, 2013. 78 FR 79650 of December 31, 2013. 78 FR 79652 of December 31, 2013.
  173. ^ "Treasury Releases Last Substantial Rules Package to Combat Offshore Tax Evasion". United States Department of the Treasury. February 20, 2014. 
  174. ^ 79 FR 12725 of March 06, 2014. 79 FR 12811 of March 06, 2014. 79 FR 12867 of March 06, 2014. 79 FR 12879 of March 06, 2014.
  175. ^ a b "Treasury to Treat Jurisdictions with FATCA Agreements in Substance as Agreements in Effect to Prepare for Start of Law". United States Department of the Treasury. April 2, 2014. 
  176. ^ Jones, Scott S; Amy G Drais; Amy Blackwood; Howard J Beber; Sarah K Cherry; Daniel J Davis (11 April 2014). "IRS Offers FATCA Relief, Extending Registration Deadline and Expanding Intergovernmental Agreement List - Internal Revenue Service, Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act". The National Law Review (Proskauer Rose LLP.). Retrieved 13 April 2014. 
  177. ^ "FFI List Schema and Test Files". IRS. 
  178. ^ "Key Aspects of the FATCA Regime" (PDF). Shearman & Sterling LLP. May 15, 2012. 
  179. ^ Christians, Allison (February 11, 2013). "The Dubious Legal Pedigree of IGAs (and Why it Matters)". Tax Notes International (Tax Analysts) 69 (6): 565. SSRN 2280508. 
  180. ^ Christians, Allison (July 4, 2014). "IRS claims statutory authority for FATCA agreements where no such authority exists". 
  182. ^ Coder, Jeremiah (June 28, 2012). "News Analysis: U.K. Hoping U.S. Will Make FATCA Easier to Swallow". Tax Notes Today. 
  183. ^ Cohn, Michael (June 21, 2012). "U.S. Strikes FATCA Deals with Switzerland and Japan". Accounting Today. 
  184. ^ Flaherty, Michael (November 28, 2012). King, Larry, ed. "China central bank official slams U.S. tax dodging law". Hong Kong: Reuters. 
  185. ^
  186. ^ "Moscow wants tax information exchanges with U.S. to be mutual, balanced". Russia Beyond the Headlines. Interfax. November 2, 2013. 
  187. ^ Комментарий Департамента информации и печати МИД России в связи с сообщениями СМИ о подготовке российско-американского соглашения об обмене налоговой информацией (Press release) (in Russian). Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. November 2, 2013. 
  188. ^ Intergovernmental agreement monitor, PwC 
  189. ^ a b "Federal Council brings FATCA Act into force". The Federal Authorities of the Swiss Confederation. June 6, 2014. 
  190. ^
  192. ^ "the US legislation prima facie breaches New Zealand privacy and tax laws, which will" p15, The Treasury Budget 2014 Information Release Release Document, July 2014
  193. ^ a b
  194. ^ a b c d "U.S. Treasury FATCA Resource Center". U.S. Treasury Department. 
  195. ^ SEBI Flags down...
  196. ^ "Australia-US Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to improve international tax compliance and to implement FATCA (the US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act)". Australia Department of the Treasury. 
  197. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l "2014 Treaties and Agreements". United States Department of State. 
  198. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k "2015 Treaties and Agreements". United States Department of State. 
  199. ^ "Entry into Force of the Information Exchange Agreement between Canada and the United States". Department of Finance Canada. July 2, 2014. 
  200. ^ "Legislative Proposals Relating To the Canada–United States Enhanced Tax Information Exchange Agreement". Department of Finance, Canada. Retrieved March 5, 2014. 
  201. ^ a b "Bilateral Pacts Represent First FATCA Agreements in the Caribbean". Tax Analysts. November 29, 2013. Retrieved December 3, 2013. 
  202. ^
  203. ^
  204. ^
  205. ^ "Treaties in Force 2014" (PDF). United States Department of State. 
  206. ^ "Notification of effective dates for the Intergovernmental Agreements with the UK and US relating to FATCA". States of Guernsey Treasury and Resources Department. 
  207. ^ a b c "TAXATION (International Tax Compliance) (Crown Dependency [CD]) Regulations 2014, Guidance notes" (PDF). January 31, 2014. Retrieved March 6, 2014. 
  208. ^ "Automatic Exchange of Information: The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA)". Office of the Revenue Commissioners, Ireland. 
  209. ^ "International Agreements". Isle of Man Government. 
  210. ^ "Statement of Mutual Cooperation and Understanding between the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Authorities of Japan to Improve International Tax Compliance and to Facilitate Implementation of FATCA" (PDF). United States Department of the Treasury. June 11, 2013. 
  211. ^ "2013 TNT 243-24 MALTA ANNOUNCES SIGNING OF FATCA AGREEMENT WITH U.S..". Tax Analysts. December 18, 2013. 
  212. ^ U.S.-Mexico FATCA agreement Article 10(1) "The Agreement shall enter into force on January 1st, 2013 and shall continue in force until terminated."
  213. ^ 2nd U.S.-Mexico FATCA agreement Article 10(1)
  214. ^
  215. ^ "Briefwisseling tussen Nederland en de VS". Government of the Netherlands. April 28, 2015. Retrieved April 28, 2015. 
  216. ^ "Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) - U.S. Reportable Accounts Guidance Notes" (PDF). Inland Revenue, New Zealand. July 9, 2014. p. 3, Introduction (1). 
  217. ^ "2013 Treaties and Agreements". United States Department of State. 
  218. ^ "Internationales Abkommen, Agreement between Switzerland and the United States of America for Cooperation to Facilitate the Implementation of FATCA" (in German). Retrieved March 7, 2014. 
  219. ^ "Entry into force of FATCA agreement between Switzerland and United States was delayed by six months". September 30, 2013. 
  220. ^ "International agreements to improve tax compliance". HM Revenue & Customs. 
  221. ^ "Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America to Improve International Tax Compliance and to Implement FATCA". The Stationery Office. Retrieved March 5, 2014. 
  222. ^ a b FATCA Update: Treasury Relaxes September 30 Deadline for Model 1 IGA Jurisdictions to Exchange Tax Information, , Tax Controversy Watch
  223. ^ Internal Revenue Service Notice 2015-66
  224. ^
  225. ^
  226. ^
  227. ^
  228. ^ "OECD". OECD. 
  229. ^ "The CRS is also informally called 'GATCA', referring to the 'globalization' of FATCA."William Byrnes blog, July 4, 2014

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]