Do I understand that US financial institutions DO NOT report non-us person deposits in them?

[Martin Everson]

Artemis Eleutheria said:
Whether the Swiss have seen sense ... or succumbed to extortion is a highly debatable question.
Click to expand...

It is indeed. However it's no longer acceptable to accept dirty untaxed money period. As a consequence many Swiss banks have gone out of business or been taken over. At least two I banked with disappeared overnight at the time i.e Frey and Hottinger.

Much more will follow also as Swiss banks can't charge clients fees like they used to be able to charge the criminals that banked with them. They now have to be competitive and their asset base has shrunk with no dirty money....lol.

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/perfect-storm_many-swiss-private-banks-facing--extinction-/45178358

Toggle signature
Please note my posts should not be taken as financial or tax advice. Please seek professional advice in that respect.

 

[Artemis Eleutheria]

Martin Everson said:
It is indeed. However it's no longer acceptable to accept dirty untaxed money period. As a consequence many Swiss banks have gone out of business or been taken over. At least two I banked with disappeared overnight at the time i.e Frey and Hottinger.

Much more will follow also as Swiss banks can't charge clients fees like they used to be able to charge the criminals that banked with them. They now have to be competitive and their asset base has shrunk with no dirty money....lol.

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/perfect-storm_many-swiss-private-banks-facing--extinction-/45178358
Click to expand...

I disagree with most of the qualifiers used ... untaxed money is not dirty per se. As a matter of fact I would argue the opposite ... it is the taxed money that is dirty since it is obtained by extortion not by free interchange. Furthermore, it is not those that resist extortion (by the organized crime syndicates calling themselves "States" or "Government") that are criminals, quite the opposite, they are the victims of those that resort to violence (or threats thereof).

Though, the English language is in a sorry state today ... just as George Orwell predicted. Newspeak and doublespeak is the order of the day.

As long as you do OBEY and do not think you will be OK.

 

[Martin Everson]

Artemis Eleutheria said:
I disagree with most of the qualifiers used ... untaxed money is not dirty per se.
Click to expand...

The Swiss decided years ago on a white money policy. They no longer found it acceptable to take black money and funds hidden from tax man.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=30ede261-abe7-4b37-abe4-f34cb9589bc6

Artemis Eleutheria said:
Furthermore, it is not those that resist extortion (by the organized crime syndicates calling themselves "States" or "Government") that are criminals, quite the opposite, they are the victims of those that resort to violence (or threats thereof).
Click to expand...

Hiding dirty untaxed money behind banking secrecy and lack of information exchange at the time was never a clever strategy for Swiss banks. They got their day of reckoning and now the Swiss banks are failing when faced with a level playing field. The only victims are governments that were starved of tax dollars. Developing countries whose leaders stole and hid their countries wealth meant for the people in Swiss banks. The chickens have come home to roost.

Toggle signature
Please note my posts should not be taken as financial or tax advice. Please seek professional advice in that respect.

 

[Artemis Eleutheria]

Your comments do not seem to bear much relevance to my observations ... beyond continued use of the very language that I criticize.

 

[Martin Everson]

Just the facts matter to me and your demonstrating a clear lack of them sadly. However your personal observations are always welcome in the mix even if they are not based on any sound evidence or facts.

Toggle signature
Please note my posts should not be taken as financial or tax advice. Please seek professional advice in that respect.

 

[Artemis Eleutheria]

Martin Everson said:
Just the facts matter to me and your demonstrating a clear lack of them sadly.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Martin Everson said:
However your personal observations are always welcome in the mix even if they are not based on any sound evidence or facts.
Click to expand...

Good, otherwise I suspect only dry tax lawyers would hang out here.

 

[Osleak]

Sorry if

Martin Everson said:
People never learn 🙄. The IRS is already automatically sending the reciprocal FATCA information to 34 countries it deems credible like I said and more countries are being added ns2. FATCA is bilateral like I said and just because people don't hear the horror stories it does not mean people have not already been caught who have accounts in U.S 🙁. In your case depending on the country you live in they may just send details on the existence of a brokerage account. It will then be down to your sh*thole as to whether it will pursue you personally for more information on that account, secretly monitor you or just ignore the data if they got sent it. Tax authorities can investigate and watch you for years before taking action.

IRS Begins Sending Individual Account Information to Foreign Countries

----quote
Updated Oct. 2, 2015 10:27 p.m. ET

"The Internal Revenue Service has kicked off a new program under which it shares large amounts of individuals' financial-account information with certain foreign countries, the agency said Friday.

The IRS said it received digital information about U.S. taxpayers' foreign accounts from governments and firms around the world, and it sent information on foreigners' U.S. accounts to government authorities in as many as 34 countries. While governments have exchanged such information in the past, the sharing wasn't automatic and the scope was often far narrower. The deadline for the exchange to begin was Sept. 30.

According to the IRS, it will only share information with foreign countries which meet its “stringent safeguard, privacy, and technical standards,” and it has the ability to halt transmissions if it believes the standards aren't being met.

The IRS declined to say which countries received information from the U.S. This week, the agency added 16 new countries, including Brazil, South Africa and India, to the list of those already eligible to receive financial-account details.

The information exchanged typically includes the name, address, tax identification number, account number, account balance, and dividend and interest payments, among other things. This disclosure applies to accounts above a certain threshold."

Countries eligible to receive information from the IRS about their taxpayers' U.S. accounts:

• Australia
• Brazil
• Canada
• Czech Republic
• Denmark
• Estonia
• Finland
• France
• Germany
• Gibraltar
• Guernsey
• Hungary
• Iceland
• India
• Ireland
• Isle of Man
• Italy
• Jersey
• Latvia
• Liechtenstein
• Lithuania
• Luxembourg
• Malta
• Mauritius
• Mexico
• Netherlands
• New Zealand
• Norway
• Poland
• Slovenia
• South Africa
• Spain
• Sweden
• United Kingdom

--- end quote
Click to expand...

Hi Martin,
Sorry if i'm answering to this old thread, about IRS automatic exchange information, is that available only for personal bank account or also for corporate bank account?

 

[Osleak]

So for example for an offshore company with bank account in usa active in trading of products business that not get interest in us bank account will not be reported is that correct?

 

[neweraoffshore]

@Osleak, yes corporate accounts are still not reported. But take care of the "John Doe Summons" . In case you are a big fish, major US banks will disclose UBO. So better look for someone who can form the company account without telling the real UBO to the bank. Can be done with a "dual-nominee" setup, it's some kind of grey zone if done right with purchase agreements. Look at the advertisers.

That a John Doe Summons was granted to a non US country is quite new, but I guess more will come.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/cour...ing-information-about-finnish-residents-using

 

[Osleak]

neweraoffshore said:
@Osleak, yes corporate accounts are still not reported. But take care of the "John Doe Summons" . In case you are a big fish, major US banks will disclose UBO. So better look for someone who can form the company account without telling the real UBO to the bank. Can be done with a "dual-nominee" setup, it's some kind of grey zone if done right with purchase agreements. Look at the advertisers.

That a John Doe Summons was granted to a non US country is quite new, but I guess more will come.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/cour...ing-information-about-finnish-residents-using
Click to expand...

Thanks for your support @neweraoffshore, in my case my customer are buying a shelf Dubai offshore with nominees director and shareholders, the consultant has offered me also a solution for nominee service for bank account but he told me that the ubo will be showed to the bank.... you can offer solution to avoid to show real ubo?

 

[Martin Everson]

Osleak said:
Sorry if i'm answering to this old thread, about IRS automatic exchange information, is that available only for personal bank account or also for corporate bank account?
Click to expand...

Depends if the US Financial Institution knows where the foreign entity has certified it is tax resident.

For example where the entity i.e Seychelles IBC specifies it is tax resident in i.e UK due to central management and control being in UK the bank will report it to UK under definition of "Reportable Account" in FATCA agreement. However the bank will need to have this information available.

Toggle signature
Please note my posts should not be taken as financial or tax advice. Please seek professional advice in that respect.

 

[Osleak]

Martin Everson said:
Depends if the US Financial Institution knows where the foreign entity has certified it is tax resident.

For example where the entity i.e Seychelles IBC specifies it is tax resident in i.e UK due to central management and control being in UK the bank will report it to UK under definition of "Reportable Account" in FATCA agreement. However the bank will need to have this information available.
Click to expand...

Okk but only in case of account with interest paid is that correct? For current bank account of an offshore entity that doesn't get interest, and the business is trading of goods and payments come from eu companies there is not exchange informations is that correct?

 

[Martin Everson]

Osleak said:
Okk but only in case of account with interest paid is that correct?
Click to expand...

Wrong

Read the definition of i.e "United Kingdom Reportable Account" and notice the "or" in the statement.


---quote

The term “United Kingdom Reportable Account” means a Financial Account maintained by a Reporting U.S. Financial Institution if: (i) in the case of a Depository Account, the account is held by an individual resident in the United Kingdom and more than $10 of interest is paid to such account in any given calendar year; or (ii) in the case of a Financial Account other than a Depository Account, the Account Holder is a resident of the United Kingdom, including entities that certify that they are resident in the United Kingdom for tax purposes, with respect to which U.S. source income that is subject to reporting under chapter 3 or chapter 61 of subtitle A of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code is paid or credited.

----- end quote

Toggle signature
Please note my posts should not be taken as financial or tax advice. Please seek professional advice in that respect.

 

[Osleak]

Noted so it s needed the fiduciary service to hide ubo? Is that correct?

Or it's just ok the nominees director and shareholders to avoid facta to eu members states?

 

[Martin Everson]

Osleak said:
Noted so it s needed the fiduciary service to hide ubo? Is that correct?
Click to expand...

Please read the full text of the FATCA agreement that affects you. It will save you time and a lot of heart ache in the long run thu&¤#.

Osleak said:
Or it's just ok the nominees director and shareholders to avoid facta to eu members states?
Click to expand...

As I wrote above. A good idea however is to totally avoid the US and FATCA. Why dangle your nuts in a lions mouth if you don't have to.

Toggle signature
Please note my posts should not be taken as financial or tax advice. Please seek professional advice in that respect.

 

[Osleak]

Martin Everson said:
Please read the full text of the FATCA agreement that affects you. It will save you time and a lot of heart ache in the long run thu&¤#.



As I wrote above. A good idea however is to totally avoid the US and FATCA. Why dangle your nuts in a lions mouth if you don't have to.
Click to expand...

Ahaha clear you are right!

 

[Artemis Eleutheria]

Martin Everson said:
As I wrote above. A good idea however is to totally avoid the US and FATCA. Why dangle your nuts in a lions mouth if you don't have to.
Click to expand...

Maybe because your nuts do not fit in a cougars mouth?

 

[Artemis Eleutheria]

Osleak said:
..., the consultant has offered me also a solution for nominee service for bank account but he told me that the ubo will be showed to the bank.... you can offer solution to avoid to show real ubo?
Click to expand...

If you could persuade the nominee service to take full ownership and add on a X year call option for 100% of the capital you would achieve the objective you seek. However>

1. You may find it difficult to persuade a nominee to take that deal (risk of piercing corporate veil)
2. You cannot pay out dividends ... except to the nominee (normally to cover his fees)
3. You may still show up as a person of significant control depending on circumstances and bank policies

 

[Martin Everson]

Artemis Eleutheria said:
If you could persuade the nominee service to take full ownership and add on a X year call option for 100% of the capital you would achieve the objective you seek. However>
Click to expand...

Nominee would just walk of with your money and laugh at you after a while. After all who are you going to complain too? Not the US where you just committed bank fraud and not in Dubai either...lol. You would basically open yourself up to blackmail with no comeback.

Toggle signature
Please note my posts should not be taken as financial or tax advice. Please seek professional advice in that respect.

 

[Artemis Eleutheria]

Martin Everson said:
Nominee would just walk of with your money and laugh at you after a while. After all who are you going to complain too? Not the US where you just committed bank fraud and not in Dubai either...lol. You would basically open yourself up to blackmail with no comeback.
Click to expand...

That would be breach of the conditions of the options contract. So no half-decent nominee would do that ... unless they are running for the hills anyhow.

There is no bank fraud as long as the "nominee" is the beneficial owner and not a nominee.