The Internal Revenue Service has delayed the timelines for withholding agents and foreign banks to complete the due diligence requirements of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.
FATCA, which was included as part of the HIRE Act of 2010, requires foreign financial institutions, including hedge funds, to report on the holdings of U.S. taxpayers to the IRS or face stiff penalties. The law has attracted considerable controversy and criticism from foreign banks, dual citizens living abroad and expatriates. The IRS and the Treasury Department have needed to postpone some of the requirements and modify its proposed regulations in the past (see FATCA Requirements a Work in Progress for IRS).
The IRS said Wednesday that institutions will have until Jan. 1, 2017 to start withholding taxes from U.S. taxpayers' investment gains and until Jan. 1, 2014, to put in place the reporting requirements mandated by FATCA.
Announcement 2012-42 outlines certain timelines for withholding agents and foreign financial institutions to complete due diligence and other requirements, along with additional guidance concerning gross proceeds withholding and the status of certain instruments as grandfathered obligations under Sections 1471 through 1474 of the Tax Code. The Treasury Department and the IRS intend to incorporate the rules described in this announcement in final regulations.
On March 18, 2010, the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act of 2010, or HIRE Act, added sections 1471 through 1474 (chapter 4) to Subtitle A of the Tax Code. These provisions are commonly referred to as the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA. Chapter 4 requires withholding agents to withhold 30 percent of certain payments to an FFI unless the FFI has entered into an agreement with the IRS to, among other things, report certain information with respect to U.S. accounts. Chapter 4 also imposes on withholding agents certain withholding, documentation, and reporting requirements with respect to certain payments made to certain other foreign entities.
In February, the Treasury Department and the IRS published proposed regulations under chapter 4 in the Federal Register. In May, the IRS held a public hearing on the proposed regulations. On July 26, 2012, the Treasury Department released a model for bilateral agreements with other jurisdictions (in both reciprocal and nonreciprocal versions) under which FFIs would satisfy their chapter 4 requirements by reporting information about U.S. accounts to their respective tax authorities, followed by the automatic exchange of that information on a government-to-government basis with the United States. The model agreement outlines time frames for FFIs in partner jurisdictions to complete the necessary due diligence to identify U.S. accounts. On June 21, 2012, the Treasury Department announced its intent to develop a second model agreement, under which financial institutions in the partner jurisdiction would report specified information directly to the IRS in a manner consistent with the FATCA regulations, supplemented by government-to-government exchange of information on request. The Treasury Department intends to conclude bilateral agreements based on the model agreements.
The Treasury Department and the IRS have received comments identifying certain practical issues in implementing the chapter 4 rules within the time frames prescribed in the proposed regulations. In particular, comments have noted that the chapter 4 status of entity account holders may change during 2013 as FFIs enter into FFI agreements with the IRS, with the result that withholding agents that put in place new account opening procedures by Jan. 1, 2013, could be required to undertake duplicative efforts to verify an FFI’s status as a participating, deemed-compliant, or nonparticipating FFI. Furthermore, comments have indicated that global financial institutions intend to implement uniform due diligence procedures for all affiliates. Accordingly, these comments have suggested aligning the timelines for due diligence for U.S. withholding agents, FFIs in countries with Intergovernmental Agreements, and FFIs in countries without Intergovernmental Agreements in order to significantly reduce administrative burden.
In addition, the Treasury Department and the IRS said they have received comments requesting that obligations that may give rise to foreign pass-through payments, but not to withholdable payments, be treated as grandfathered obligations if such obligations are executed prior to the issuance of final regulations that define foreign pass-through payments. Comments also have requested that an obligation to make payments with respect to collateral posted in connection with a grandfathered derivative transaction be treated as a grandfathered obligation.
Finally, comments have expressed concern over the treatment of existing financial transactions that may begin to give rise to withholdable payments for purposes of chapter 4 due to the promulgation of regulations under Section 871(m) treating certain payments on notional principal contracts and certain other financial instruments as U.S. source dividends.
In consideration of these comments, the Treasury Department and the IRS said they intend to issue regulations that modify the rules set forth in the proposed regulations. Withholding agents, including participating FFIs and registered-deemed compliant FFIs, generally will be required to implement new account opening procedures by Jan. 1, 2014.













3 Comments
The FATCA monster lacks the proper controls for differentiating which accounts belong to Americans living abroad (who are very unlikely to be cheating on taxes) and those who are resident in the US (and are much more likely to be using foreign institutions in order to evade taxes). What an enormous waste of time and money this will produce. Not to mention the totally unneccesary levels of anxiety for expats as the administrative nightmare of this Act descends upon us.
As far as the costs of DATCA to the homeland, that is as it should be. Along with the recent announcement of the US ambassador to Switzerland that "hundreds upon hundreds" are renouncing their US citizenship, I have faith that the American people will begin to wonder what on earth is going on and will be outraged at what the government has done. Why on earth should other countries shoulder the costs of FATCA in the first place? I'll bet Congress never anticipated this possibility as well as the effect of this law on expats. I wonder how many actually bothered to read the legislation and simply depended on Sen Levin's ongoing rant on tax evasion ("There is no such thing as an ordinary Swiss bank account)." Sen Levin is a dual US-Israeli citizen, surely he can reason that "foreign" bank accounts are not foreign to those living in the country where they are located. It is disappointing to realize that Congress lacks the ability to analyze what they read and have the cognizance to realize the effects of the laws they pass. I do not condone tax evasion on any level but I do not accept the mounds of misperception we are currently experiencing because people lack the discernment and judgement to make correct observations, and instead, unquestionabl apply age-old cliches, blindly misapplying even those (resident USC + foreign bank account does not equal non-resident USC with foreign bank account and foreign bank account does not equal tax evasion).
Good point Roger, I'm sure it won't be the first observation experienced as the US begins to realize the mistakes of their actions.
Delay is very, very good. Let's hope somewhere in the gap between this delay and the implementation of the FATCA monster, common sense prevails and this charade is stopped.
Posted by: nobledreamer | October 25, 2012 3:01 PM
Report this Comment
Congress created the FATCA mess, and the IRS has compounded it, maybe unwittingly with the IGAs. At first, I thought this was a clever strategy, using the FATCA as the Tip of the Spear, to help put into place, the OECD dream of world wide end of financial transparency. They are trying to end tax competition between nations. Sounds good, until you really think about the cost to the economy and the systemic Risk issues it raises.
This delay is good, and let's hope for more. FATCAs IGAs are repatriating the cost back to the Mainland via the domestic version which I call DATCA. This means that the US banks and customers will now have to bear a sizable portion of the cost that was only supposed be on the FFIs and Governments.
Congress didn't do a cost vs benefit analysis of FATCA, when then passed it. It was just a phantom way to pay for the cost of the Hire Act. Now that the cost is blowing back on America, maybe many, like Congressman Reichert will begin to question what they created. Paste this into your google news homepage.
"US Rep Dave Reichert of WA State posts FATCA Press Release on his website"
Let's hope this global GATCA, which they are struggling to put into place, collapses on its own bureaucratic weight, and the IGA and FCC (Foreign Compliance Complex)co-enabling mechanism doesn't get firmly attached to the fee and revenue regulatory teat, or it will be impossible to pry them loose.
This doesn't mean I favor offshore tax evasion, I just think there are many ways to accomplish the goal of reducing offshore evasion that aren't as evasive and destructive as the FATCA monster. Consider major tax code reform and targeted nudges, instead of grand expensive FATCA schemes. They actually work better and are way cheaper.
Here, this Ted Talk will explain why? Google "Rory Sutherland: Sweat the small stuff"
Posted by: Just Me | October 25, 2012 11:47 AM
Report this Comment
FATCA is beginning to collapse from its own weight.
Can you imagine, the billions of dollars inuncompensated costs to US banks and to the US economy to provide very different but nevertheless fully deailed reports on the deposits in US banks of non-resident foreign citizens in the languages of each of 119 foreign countries and with US dollar values converted to those of the currencies of other countries?
What is sauce for the goose is clearly sauce for the gander.
Posted by: RogerC | October 25, 2012 9:20 AM
Report this Comment
Add Your Comments...
Already Registered?
If you have already registered to Accounting Today, please use the form below to login. When completed you will immeditely be directed to post a comment.
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment.