http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d35c2f66-5a6d-4612-8a44-a5b507a755d3
Implementation of the FATCA Treaty
The Dutch Ministry of Finance has launched a consultation on a decree implementing the FATCA Treaty. The decree requires Dutch financial institutions to provide information about bank accounts of US tax subjects, and to report financial institutions that do not comply with their FATCA obligations.
The Netherlands and the United States entered into a treaty on the implementation of the FATCA Treaty in December 2013. A bill providing for the ratification of the treaty will be submitted to parliament shortly.
Perhaps someone from the Dutch government should have a little chat with Allison Christians.
It is interesting that the Dutch are implementing a treaty with the USA that the US Senate has not approved according to the US Constitution.
I do not understand what is wrong with what the Dutch are doing.
It is common practice to have a discussion document before drafting legislation.
@Haydon Perryman
The point is that NONE of the FATCA IGA’s can be considered valid treaties since neither the US Treasury nor the US State Department has any kind of treaty-making authority – that is the sole responsibility of Congress, as Allison Christians has previously explained:
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/07/04/irs-claims-statutory-authority-for-fatca-agreements-where-no-such-authority-exists/
“These are sole executive agreements, they lack statutory approval, they undertake very little on the part of the United States, but they are an effective way of pretending to be cooperative so that other countries can save face as they submit to the threat of economic sanctions that is FATCA.”
In other words, the Dutch, and every other IGA signatory, are kidding themselves. These are NOT treaties.
@Deckard1138 Thank you for that clarification.
I’m in full agreement. These IGAs have no standing in US law.
If I may, I’m not sure that the IGA jurisdictions (including my own – I’m from the UK) are deluded enough to believe either that these agreements have any standing in US law.
Also, we understand, that even if they were, there would still not be true reciprocity from the US, if for no other reason than all the US has that is could share is the information it receives from US withholding agents on the 1042-S.
That would still fall woefully short of the ‘obligations’ of both IGA and Non IGA countries and, hence, could not be considered reciprocity.
We (Non-US Countries) fully understand that these IGAs have no standing in US and that if and when they do “we” will still not have true reciprocity.
Some believe that the US will reciprocate under the AEoI. Yet, it is noticeable that America has not signed the amending the protocol to the agreement that is a prerequisite to clearing the way for an Automatic Exchange of Information.
Who knows, maybe the US has not signed it because it has not yet gained the authority to sign it?
We (Non-US Countries) wax lyrical about the ‘hard fought concession’ of reciprocity – most of us though realise that it is a myth.
The representative of the Canadian Department of Finance(Brian Ernewein) who spoke before Standing Committee on Finance in Ottawa did say several times that the US has “promised” reciprocity in the “future.” Did anyone in the room including the assembled MP’s believe him. I highly doubt it.
You’ll be amenable to any kind of promise when you have a baseball bat levelled at your head.
Bubblebustin makes a good point
Maybe the IGA is a Treaty under Dutch law (irrespective of what it may be under US law), in which case the Dutch government is correct to characterize it as such in the implementation decree.
Here the address for the Dutch consultation.
http://www.internetconsultatie.nl/fatca/reacties
Only two letters so far, one that seems to approve of FATCA, and the other basically saying the Dutch Government’s manual on FATCA is poor.
Perhaps someone from ADCS should submit a pdf on the site.