I am flabergasted that the only official Swiss government press release that I seem to be able to find on the FATCA IGA contains only and merely the same sort of general summary of the agreement that we saw in the announcement last summer about impending negotiations and the December announcement about pending signature.
[Addendum: As it turns out, while the press release did not give links to the agreement in its text, there was a link in the righthand column to a French translation of the agreement: http://www.news.admin.ch/NSBSubscriber/message/attachments/29631.pdf as well as a link to documents related to the parliamentary consulation on the agreement, which I had clicked on the other day but didn’t see anything related to FATCA–you have to scroll down several pages or CTRL-F and search for FATCA: http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/gg/pc/pendent.html I will be creating another post today on the response I received from the Swiss State Secretariat for International Financial Matters].
Almost a month later, the Swiss people are being kept in the dark. I wrote the Swiss federal government spokesman that issues the press releases today on this matter:
Bonjour Monsieur Tuor,
Je trouve aberrant que votre annonce sur admin.ch (http://www.admin.ch/aktuell/00089/index.html?lang=fr&msg-id=47779) à propos de FATCA ne donne ni référence au texte de l’accord, ni au texte du règlement d’application FATCA, à savoir :
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/treaties/Documents/FATCA-Agreement-Switzerland-2-14-2013.pdf
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/01/28/2013-01025/regulations-relating-to-information-reporting-by-foreign-financial-institutions-and-withholding-onLes implications de FATCA en termes de son complexité ainsi que les menaces posées par son application méritent une analyse approfondie par le peuple suisse et ses élus au parlement.
Il n’est également pas évident si le parlement va débattre l’accord pendant la session de mars 2013, ou plus tard. Auriez-vous des informations à ce propos ?
Aussi, comment est-ce que le conseil fédéral puisse signer un tel accord sans referendum obligatoire (Art 140a,b, 141a CFS) accompagné des modifications constitutionnelles nécessaires, vu que FATCA est incompatible avec des multiples protections garanties par la Constitution, comme par exemple : liberté d’opportunité économique, anti-discrimination, droit de famille ? Sans mentionner la loi réglant la question de nationalité dominante (RS291 Art 23). Si l’accord FATCA est approuvé, le résultat est l’adhésion à une communauté supranationale parce que le principe juridique américain en matière de taxation « Last in Time Rule » permet les autorités américains de changer les règles de jeu quand ils veulent, malgré des traités, conventions et accords. Et alors, le conseil fédéral n’agit pas en bonne foi et ne veut pas protéger les suisses contre l’arbitraire (Art 9 CFS).
Une acceptation d’une loi extraterritoriale étrangère comme FATCA est une claire violation du mandat constitutionnel « La Confédération suisse protège la liberté et les droits du peuple et elle assure L’indépendance et la sécurité du pays. » (Art 2 Al 1 CFS).
Et tout ça à l’insu du souverain peuple suisse !
Je demande des explications !
Salutations,
Jefferson D. Tomas
All Brockers who can speak and/or write in French, German, or Italian, please SWAT this guy (Special Writers and Theses): +41 31 322 46 16, mario.tuor@sif.admin.ch.
SVP has rejected FATCA:
SVP-Widerstand gegen Steuerabkommen Fatca
http://www.finews.ch/news/finanzplatz/11192-fatca-svp-widerstand-finanzplatz-banken-usa
CVP, FDP und BDP criticized the US but accepted Fatca.
It is interesting that many Americans are getting FATCA letters from their banks here, but I haven’t yet got one. Are Kantonalbanks exempt?
@CHF Forever I suspect it is just a question of time. I also haven’t received one yet from Raiffeisen.
Because of their recent entanglements, I think UBS & Credit Suisse are further along with this.
What really annoys me is that if I have to sign such a document, I’m giving up all my rights as a Swiss cititzen.
@Southerner, I’m sure that Raiffeisen would have already cancelled your account if it knew that you were also a US citizen.
One thing about the IGA models of which I am still unclear. In Model 1, should we assume the government of said nation (assuming they have such info) are meant to ask every bank whether or not you have an account? Or does it just streamline the flow from FFI to gov to IRS so that it us the government sharing your info instead of the FFI. If so, if your bank has no record of you being a USP, then what?
UBS,CS, JB ,Kantonalbank,Raiffeisen and Sparkasse to my knowledge they only close your account if you refuse to sign a W9 as dual citizen
@HKGS
In the model 1 agreement, the government acts as the intermediary to pass the information along to the IRS. It collects what is submitted from the banks and transmits it to the IRS. The banks are responsible for submitting the information and complying with the FATCA rules.
@Swisspinoy When I had an appointment about a year ago for an unrelated matter, the Raiffeisen asked me if I were a US person. They then proceeded to put the mark in my file so unfortunately they know my status. Last year the bank issued a press statement announcing they were getting rid of their US tax liable persons. Fortunately I haven’t received anything yet but realize I could get at any time either a notice of termination or a notice that I have to sign documents waiving all my rights. Those are the facts until now. I read a general article where a lot of the banks have delays with this cleansing process so I’m pretty sure I will be getting mail sometime this year.
Thanks @Edelweiss… that makes more sense.
@Southerner… just out of curiousity, what would have happened if you told them you were not a USP? I’ve been quite fixated on how FATCA could ever work given the variances in banking for residents of different countries (ie from what I know or have read China takes passport number but not nationality, Hong Kong takes resident ID card and no passport, Canada seems to be a mixed bag depending on your situation, and the EU seems to only care NOW). With all the variance, I wonder how long before new cottage industries start springing up to take up the torch in hiding the 1%’s money. If so, FATCA will have been a monumental waste of time, money, and effort.
@HKGS In Switzerland for any new accounts, credit cards etc you have to sign a statement indicating whether you are a US person or not. Signing that you are not would be perjury. Since I’ve had accounts for many years, I will be confronted with the problems with some delay as the banks have the time consuming task of writing the customers.
@HKGS, there are some duals who deny that they are Americans and the banks don’t know that they are. The IRS does, though, when FBARs are filed. So, we shall see how this will work out. I would guess that the IRS would not bug the bank about the individual unless the individual makes a mistake filing. If the individual did make a mistake and the IRS bugged the bank about it, then I’d assume that the individual would get kicked out of the bank and then wouldn’t be able to open up an account with any other local bank due to non-compliance. If the US wanted to become more crazy, though, it could threaten banks for not knowing that they have US customers.
….get kicked out of the bank and then wouldn’t be able to open up an account with any other local bank due to non-compliance………. from experience no ,they would give you a W9 to sign , if you refuse that than you will be closed out otherwise you are fine.
When someone was born in France for example and later became american through naturalization but lives most of his adult life in europe – it is not “non-compliant“ to check the account opening box with your “dominant nationality“ instead of dual national. If specifically asked today in writing by your bank ,yes it would be non-compliant if you hide your dual national status
…..in addition this has happened over the last 4 weeks now many times in my local expat community and the banks were fine with just ammending the account holder documents . So far nobody had to switch banks .
@Southerner re: ‘Signing that you are not would be perjury.’
Is it perjury if you are acting in self-defense?
Who is going to prove to the bank that you ‘perjured’ yourself?
Thanks for the responses. When I arrived in HK in 2001, you could open an account with a passport. I haven’t tried that in 12 years but I hear it’s harder now (you need some sort of proof or residence in HK). If you are an HK resident, you can still open a regular deposit account by just presenting your HK ID card and no other information. At some point (and before FATCA) they started asking whether you were a USP if you tried to open any sort of custodial/investment account (equities, FX, whatever)… but ONLY for those.
I suppose the banks and government might have some sort of means to share nationality info, but it would seem to require extra steps. For born and bred HK people who became USP’s somewhere along the way, I can’t see how either party would catch them unless they intentionally outed themselves… and that would have to be by filing FBAR’s. I’m thinking the same is true for most Asian nations… unless at some point there is sharing of identification number information, there are too few Asian surnames to simply do a name search. I’ll stop lest I give any IRS lurkers too many cute ideas, but I’m quite sure many will fall through the cracks.
@Mike Tarantes, my understanding with the FATCA agreement with Switzerland is that the account of a Swiss citizen can be closed, regardless if they signed W9 or not, if the IRS makes a fuss about the individual for whatever reason.
@WhiteKat I’m not a legal expert so can’t comment under what circumstances perjury would not be illegal. Maybe your argument would be strengthened when a country engages in legalized extortion? Of course this doesn’t apply to the US as we get to benefit from so many services in return for paying taxes and filing endless paperwork 🙂
@Mike Tarantes, here’s what my view is based on:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2013/03/09/after-fatca-swiss-government-tackles-money-laundering-too/
In other words, if the IRS is unhappy with a Swiss citizen, it will force Swiss banks to kick him/her out. This will be great for the US once it kills the FEIE, because then Swiss citizens will be forced donate their Swiss money to the US government, unless US renunciations are not prohibited by then.
……if the IRS is unhappy with a Swiss citizen, it will force Swiss banks to kick him/her out……
I think we are being a bit too negative here 🙂 yes it is Heidiland but unless you are a “Whale“ you will be just fine……………the W9 is part I , part II is a written statement from your CPA that you are current with your US filing obligations . If you provide part I and II you are fine.
I have seen it about a dozen times over the last 6 weeks
….further to be clear here – of course the “old days“ are over – to walk into a UBS office at the Bahnhofstrasse with a suitcase full of cash and receive a Nestle Osterhasi as welcome present ………… 🙂
Yes, the negativity is intentional because the “whale“ and “will be just fine” concept is undefined and could thus mean anything. What if some dude at the IRS had a bad day and wanted to pass it along to some unrepresented expat? I would certainly hope for the better, but…. Do Swiss banks accept TurboTax Free File as a CPA? I’ve always felt like I got jipped whenever I paid $50 to process US returns. If the IRS wants expats to use a CPA, then why doesn’t the IRS pay for it? I demand free filing for all American slaves living outside of US jurisdiction!
So many great comments here, and pointing out the fact that the bank’s inability to identify with no uncertainty whether its customer is a USP just reminds us if the fact that many customers will, intentionally or not, be able to fly with impunity under the radar, whereas those who’ve outed themselves somehow will be ‘cleansed’. This is terribly unfair and will cause huge resentment among the damned and is just one of many fatal flaws that makes FATCA ineffective, and thus unworkable.
For those new here, or others who would like a refresher, here is an exerpt from the Canadian Bankers Association’s current official stance on FATCA:
“If you do not complete IRS Form W-9 or provide your consent to disclose information to the IRS, your financial institution maybe required to withhold a tax of 30% on any U.S. source payments1 that you receive and send this money to the IRS. Also, your financial institution may refuse to open an account or may be required to close existing accounts.”
@bubblebustin… I thought it meant the bank, if found non-compliant, would have ALL it’s US source income withheld, not just that of the non-compliant customers. In that case, if one doesn’t have any US source income, what’s the point of saying anything. Or if they are truly duals, they could (theoretically) just trade/bank directly in the US, provided they meet all those “know thy customer” regulations. I’m not saying it’s what everyone wants to do, I’m just saying…
But yeah… it’s rather clear that insufficient thought was put into the law to cover all the potential loopholes (and perhaps creating others). Unless it dies on the vine or changes considerably, I’m quite confident that we’ll see many FATCA-mitigation businesses spring up in short order.
Pingback: The Isaac Brock Society