Fiscaal Nieuws from the Netherlands reports on the case of a Dutch-American dual-citizen who appealed to the Dutch Board for the Protection of Human Rights after his investment account with BinckBank was closed following the signing of the FATCA IGA by the Dutch government on December 18, 2013.
Here is a translation of the article kindly supplied by Innocente:
FATCA unlawful discrimination by banning US customers
April 10, 2014
The American X has lived in the Netherlands since 1970 and also has US citizenship in addition to Dutch. He had an investment account with BinckBank (“Alex”). On December 1, 2013 BinckBank ended the relationship because X had not shown that he is not liable for taxes in the United States. X approached the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights to claim that BinckBank engaged in unlawful discrimination due to citizenship. BinckBank argued that it had terminated all 150 US customers who met the definition of “US Person”, used by the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS), because it refused to comply with requirements resulting from the planned Dutch legislation in response to the US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) to provide all transactions and historical transaction data by US Persons to the Dutch Tax Authorities. According to BinckBank the discrimination was based on a generally binding regulation, because the agreement on December 18, 2013 between the Netherlands and the US Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for the implementation of FATCA forced it to do so . The Institute left open the question whether the IGA was a generally binding regulation because the IGA did not require BinckBank to close its customer accounts because of their US citizenship The Board also rejected the appeal by BinckBank for reasonableness and fairness, as the broad obligations required by FATCA brought disproportionately heavy costs. The law, in the General Equal Treatment Act (Equal Treatment Act), explicitly states that direct discrimination on grounds of citizenship was not only prohibited, except for exceptions included in the Equal Treatment Act itself. Honoring the appeal made by BinckBank on reasonableness and fairness would be contrary to the closed system of the Act. The Board concluded that BinckBank had engaged in unlawful discrimination in the provision of services on grounds of citizenship.