America is threatening the Swiss government to quickly agree to unspecified conditions if it doesn’t want for Swiss banks to be destroyed.
Die USA beharren darauf, ihr «Programm» zur Bereinigung von amerikanischem Schwarzgeld erst nach der Zustimmung durch die eidgenössischen Räte zu veröffentlichen.
Translation: USA is insisting on revealing the details of their “program” to clean American black money only after Swiss councils approve it.
Das Angebot gilt laut «NZZ am Sonntag» nur für 120 Tage. In dieser Zeit müssen die beteiligten Banken die Daten an die USA übermittelt und eine Busse ausgehandelt haben… Eine solche Busse könnte vor allem kleinere Banken an den Rand des Abgrunds und darüber hinaus bringen.
Translation: The deal, according to “NZZ on sunday”, is only valid for 120 days. In this time frame, all involved banks must deliver data to US and negotiate a settlement… Such fines could push small banks to the edge and beyond.
«Um es ungeschminkt zu sagen: Ohne Programm ist keine Bank vor der Willkür eines US-Justizbeamten geschützt.»
Translation: To say it nicely, without the program, no bank will be protected from the high-handed action of US justice agents.
“Wir wollen mehr Fakten. Dabei lassen wir uns nicht drängen – weder vom Bundesrat noch von den Medien.”
Translation: We want more facts and we won’t let ourselves be pushed around – not by the federal council and not by the media.
«Kein vernünftiger Politiker im Parlament kann einem Gesetz zustimmen, dessen rechtliche und materielle Auswirkungen unbekannt sind»
Translation: No sane politician in the parliament can approve a law whose legal and material impact is unknown.
Die Schweizer Regierung möchte den seit Jahren schwelenden Steuerstreit mit den USA ein für alle Mal beenden… Die Amerikaner wollen erst nach einem Beschluss bekanntgeben, zu welchen Konditionen Vergleiche möglich sind, also wie teuer es für die Banken wird… Die USA seien zu keinen weiteren Zugeständnissen bereit… Laut Schweizerischer Nationalbank könnten hohe Geldbußen kleinere Institute sogar in den Ruin treiben
Translation: The Swiss government has for years been wanting to end the swelling tax conflict for once and for all with the USA… Americans only want to reveal the conditions and how much it will cost banks following approval… The US is unwilling to compromise… According to the Swiss national bank, high fines could ruin small banks.
“Sicherheit hat man bei den Amerikanern nie. Wie diese mit anderen Ländern umgehen, das hat mit einem Rechtsstaat wenig zu tun.”
Translation: One can never trust Americans. Their treatment other nations has little to do with a constitional state.
Die Regierung in Bern solle sich lieber verstärkt an der Erarbeitung internationaler Standards im Rahmen der OECD beteiligen. Ein solcher Standard müsse die Steuerhinterziehungsfrage lösen, aber auch den Schutz der Privatsphäre berücksichtigen.
Translation: The government in Bern should rather be more involved in creating international standards in the framework of the OECD participants. Such a standard should solve the tax evasion question while also taking privacy protection into consideration.
Eine Ablehnung würde zu US-Klagen führen, was Ammann zufolge das Ende mehrerer Schweizer Banken bedeuten würde.
Translation: A rejection would lead to US lawsuits which, according to Ammann, would mean the end of many Swiss banks.
As I said in my post Just Me, they’ve frozen/blocked it for the time being until they get more info. So the lawyers, etc, have a bit of breathing space – until the US makes it’s next move.
Translation: A “US person” is someone born in America, one with a US phone number, a US address, or a steady payment to a US account are all indications of being a US person and thereby a US taxable person. Anyone who wants to unbind themselves from their US tax obligation must prove in complicated manner and they are not a “US person” according to the US definition.
Yikes! Is a CLN still good enough proof?
You can have a bank account in the US an not be a US Person. I guess they are using US person with US Indicia.
@SwissPinoy, they might ask you if you still have a 401K or IRA in the US and close your account because of that?… Yikes as you said.
i decided to have a look at US comments on this issue, and the first link surprised me. The first comments are actually quite reasonable! Someone even used my translations.
That was me! I used all that I could glean and fit within the limits. 🙂
A link to a Q&A on SwissInfo re the situation. Written before the blocking vote today, it still has some interesting insights into the situation.
I particularly liked this one:
“swissinfo.ch. Why does a Swiss bank have to fear an indictment by US authorities so greatly? Is it because it could lose its license in the US?
M.A.: No, that’s the strange thing about all of this. Most of the banks likely to be affected don’t even have a license in the US. They never set foot on US soil.
They thought they could continue to operate their business according to domestic law because they didn’t have any business ties to the US and therefore didn’t fall under US law.
But that was a momentous mistake, as we now see. The US wanted to apply its rules outside its territorial boundaries and is having success with that notion in Switzerland.”
Strange doesn’t even begin to cut it.
@Just Me, thanks. That shows that my lunch-break translation was not for nothing! 🙂
It never is for nothing! Keep it up, as I get new inspiration from the many contributors here, especially those like you that are much closer to the issues than I am now that I am back in the States.
Thought I would take another whack at Sven…borrowing liberally from some comments here.. I posted this that will never see the day, but he or some staff will have to read it.
I know you are not letting my previous comment out of moderation. Nor will you let this one either. That is your prerogative. However, I must say, it doesn’t show much courage. While the mission of my first message was not to berate you publicly, I am very disappointed in your unwillingness to engage in discussion with those who disagree with your position. I had hoped that you would rise to the challenge of showing the same communication transparency you want every person in the world to have on their financial transactions and tax payments.
Transparency for us, and obstruction and opaqueness for you, I guess.
I must say, your failure to address forthrightly the questions that Victoria raises speaks volumes about the political positions and moral standing the Greens, whom you represent. I had expected better.
I thought you might be interested in an article published in an U.S. east coast Liberal magazine, The Atlantic. Some Progressives, that you would naturally align with, seem to be willing to look the consequences of FATCA issues more clearly than you.
Title: The Unintended Consequences of Cracking Down on Tax Dodgers Abroad
I think you need to do some real soul searching on your willingness to throw so many Europeans under the bus in pursuit of your idealistic goal “in our mind” of some grand global automatic exchange that is NOT going to stop offshore tax evasion by the very rich. They are laughing at you. By the time you get this all set up, and all of us innocent and collateral fodder enslaved, handed over to the US for processing, the rich will have already found other means to avoid your clutches. You might not like it, I might not like it, but that is the reality. Your cure is worse than the disease as it condemns all to the same medicine regardless of their symptoms.
Frankly, given the prospects of what this means for an Orwellian world of your construct, I would rather live with 10% tax evaders, and 90% freemen, than your vision of 100% tax compliance or full enslavement to your demands and visions of “tax justice” via some global GATCA. If that doesn’t work, and it won’t, what next? What will be enough for you? Frankly, your position and what it means for a Big DATA total financial surveillance future, scares the hell out of me.
Bravo, Just Me!
Check out his CV:
He’s co-founder of Intl Tax Justice Network — they have an ideology-driven focus against tax havens as the “root of all evil and poverty” (my interpretation … but read their webpage to come to your own conclusions). A lot of the numbers being published regarding the size of “offshore” originate from them — but I have yet to see them publish numbers of “offshore accounts that are in fact onshore” — i.e. you call my local retirement account “offshore”, but I live on that shore and it’s offshore to you, but onshore to me. Also they make a close correlation between poverty and taxation (or lack thereof) — but poverty is caused by much more than that.
I’d say — pass your gentle remarks on to Sophie in ‘t Veld as debate fodder for her — or better yet, publish your letters to him in a more public forum — e.g. Westdeutsche Zeitung based in Duesseldorf, which includes his constituents –
Thanks for this. Appreciate it. I might try to do that. I also tweet these comments to Sophie, and she has answered in the past, so hopefully she will see it…
I pasted this on the wrong thread. Too much wine tonight? I did this comment as a followup to a earlier comment that he did not let out of moderation which was pasted here…