Posts

FATCA Tax Lawyers Update: FATCA Financial Institution Definition

/0 Comments/in , /by

One of the key concepts in FATCA compliance is a “financial institution”. The definition of a financial institution (“FATCA Financial Institution”) is contained in the FATCA Model IGAs. In this article, I will explore some of the general concepts central to defining a FATCA Financial Institution.

Four Types of FATCA Financial Institutions

The concept of FATCA Financial Institution is defined in the Model IGA Agreements. Both Model 1 and Model 2 IGAs agree on the definition of FATCA Financial Institution: “The term ‘Financial Institution’ means a Custodial Institution, a Depository Institution, an Investment Entity, or a Specified Insurance Company.” Let’s go over each concept in more detail.

Definition of a FATCA Financial Institution: Custodial Institution

FATCA Model Agreements provide a fairly straightforward definition of a Custodial Institution: “The term ‘Custodial Institution’ means any entity that holds, as a substantial portion of its business, financial assets for the account of others.” In this context “substantial” means that, during the specified period of time, twenty percent or more of the entity’s gross income is derived from holding of financial assets and related financial services.

The specified period of time is defined in Model 1 IGA as “the shorter of: (i) the three-year period that ends on the December 31 (or the final day of a non-calendar year accounting period) prior to the year in which the determination is being made; or (ii) the period during which the entity has been in existence.”

Definition of a FATCA Financial Institution: Depository Institution

According to FATCA Model IGAs, “The term ‘Depository Institution’ means any Entity that accepts deposits in the ordinary course of a banking or similar business.”

This definition is fairly self-explanatory, but it should be noted that interest-paying client money accounts operated by insurance companies are included within the definition of a depository institution.

Definition of a FATCA Financial Institution: Specified Insurance Company

According to FATCA Model IGAs, “the term ‘Specified Insurance Company’ means any entity that is an insurance company (or the holding company of an insurance company) that issues, or is obligated to make payments with respect to, a Financial Account.” This definition basically applies to all insurance companies that issue or must make payments with respect to an Insurance Cash-Surrender Value Contract or Annuity contract (which is similar to an FBAR).

For the purposes of this essay, I am not going to engage in the discussion of a Financial Account definition (this is an issue that I addressed in another article); suffice it to say that the definition of a Financial Account under FATCA closely follows the FBAR definition of the same concept.

Definition of a FATCA Financial Institution: Investment Entity

Finally, FATCA Model IGAs provide a detailed definition of what constitutes an “Investment Entity”. This concept includes any entity that conducts as a business one or more of the following activities or operations for or on behalf of a customer:
“(1) trading in money market instruments (cheques, bills, certificates of deposit, derivatives, etc.); foreign exchange; exchange, interest rate and index instruments; transferable securities; or commodity futures trading;
(2) individual and collective portfolio management; or
(3) otherwise investing, administering, or managing funds or money on behalf of other persons. This subparagraph 1(j) shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with similar language set forth in the definition of “financial institution” in the Financial Action Task Force Recommendations.”

Notice that this definition encompasses any entity that is managed by an Investment Entity. Further note that the definition of an Investment Entity should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the definition of a “financial institution” in the Financial Action Task Force Recommendations.

Implications if FATCA Financial Institution Definition on Undisclosed Foreign Accounts

The broad definition of a FATCA Financial Institution has a profound impact on US taxpayers with undisclosed foreign accounts. The chief reason for this conclusion is the fact that as soon as an entity is classified as a FATCA Financial Institution, the entity must be FATCA compliant (unless it falls within a FATCA exemption) and should report all of its accounts owned (directly or indirectly) by US taxpayers.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With Undisclosed Foreign Accounts

The consequences of the IRS discovery of an undisclosed foreign account can be disastrous for the US owner of this account, including extremely high monetary willful civil penalties as well as criminal penalties.

This is why, if you have an undisclosed foreign account, please contact Mr. Eugene Sherayzen, an experienced international tax attorney of Sherayzen Law Office as soon as possible. Our team is well versed in FATCA compliance, FBARs and other foreign reporting issues. We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the globe and we can help you.

So, Contact Us Now to Schedule Your Initial Consultation!

2015 UBS Probe Poses Threat to US Owners of Undisclosed UBS Accounts

/0 Comments/in , /by

This week, UBS Group AG confirmed that it was under a new investigation over whether the Switzerland bank sold unregistered securities to US taxpayers in violation of US law. This article will discuss the new UBS probe and the threat it poses to US owners of undisclosed UBS accounts who never went through an offshore voluntary disclosure. This article is not intended to convey tax or legal advice.

Prior Investigations and 2009 Deferred-Prosecution Agreement

The 2015 bearer bond investigation of UBS is the latest in the series of DOJ investigations of UBS. Previously, in 2009, as a result a landmark DOJ victory that started the today’s rout of bank secrecy laws throughout the world, UBS paid a $780 million dollar fine and disclosed 250 previously undisclosed UBS accounts of US taxpayers to the DOJ (some of the owners of these undisclosed UBS accounts were later criminally prosecuted by the IRS). The bank promised that it would be compliant with US law under its deferred-prosecution agreement with the DOJ. The agreement expired in October, 2010. This was a critical agreement for the US owners of undisclosed UBS accounts, and we will come back to this subject below.

In addition to the deferred-prosecution agreement in 2009, UBS also settled an antitrust case in 2011 concerning the municipal-bond investments market, and resolved a 2012 DOJ investigation involving alleged rigging of the London interbank offered rate (Libor). UBS was granted an agreement to extend the term of its non-prosecution deal in the latter investigation until later this year. Additionally, in a probe not involving the DOJ, UBS paid US, UK and Swiss authorities nearly $800 million in November to settle allegations that they did not have satisfactory controls to prevent traders from attempting to rig Forex dealing.

The DOJ also has reportedly also opened a new investigation concerning certain currency-linked structured products sold by UBS. International tax attorneys who worked with undisclosed UBS accounts for their US clients in the past know how common it was for UBS to sell these products to their US clients.

The 2015 UBS Investigation

As noted above, the new investigation is being conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York and from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. UBS stated in its fourth-quarter report, “In January 2015, we received inquiries from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York and from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which are investigating potential sales to U.S. persons of bearer bonds and other unregistered securities.” UBS added that it was cooperating with the authorities in the probes. According to various new sources, the bank is also being probed as to whether the alleged sales occurred while the bank was under DOJ supervision from its earlier 2009 tax evasion case.

Bearer bonds can be redeemed by anybody physically holding them. Because of the ease with which these instruments can be transferred, they are a potentially useful tool for enabling individuals to hide assets and evade taxes. While bearer bonds were not deposited on undisclosed UBS accounts, some US owners of undisclosed UBS accounts were owners of these unregulated instruments.

Undisclosed UBS Accounts and the 2015 UBS Investigation

According to various sources, if UBS is found to have breached the agreement by selling the unregistered bearer bonds to US persons in violation of US law during the time period in which the agreement was still in effect, it is possible that the DOJ will prosecute the bank under the original conspiracy charge, in addition to filing new charges and penalties.

The significance of this scenario lies in the fact that there may still be US taxpayers with undisclosed UBS accounts (whether owned directly, indirectly or constructively). Many of these taxpayers were trying to hide in the relative safety of the UBS 2009 Deferred-Prosecution Agreement, hoping that the worst was over for UBS.

Moreover, because UBS was classified as a Category 1 bank, it could not participate in the DOJ Program for Swiss Banks. This gave a wrong type of encouragement to some US owners of undisclosed UBS accounts not to come forward and go through a voluntary disclosure program.

In reality, however, due to the fact that UBS was the first bank that succumbed to the pressure from the US DOJ and disclosed previously undisclosed UBS accounts owned by US persons, the DOJ’s deal with UBS was relatively mild compared to the later penalties on other large Swiss Banks (such as Credit Suisse). Hence, there is a great incentive for the DOJ to re-open the investigation into UBS to force the bank to pay an amount equivalent to its other Swiss peers.

This means that, if the 2015 investigation is successful and the DOJ can get around the 2009 Deferred-Prosecution Agreement, the UBS may, in a new deal with DOJ, conduct a wholesale disclosure of the US owners of undisclosed UBS accounts – not only the current owners, but also the US owners who had undisclosed UBS accounts in the years 2008-2010.

What Should the US Owners of Undisclosed UBS Accounts Do?

Thus, the 2015 DOJ investigation of UBS could have disastrous consequences for US persons who owned undisclosed UBS accounts between the years 2008 and the present time. The premature disclosure of undisclosed UBS accounts may foreclose very important voluntary disclosure options for the US owners of these undisclosed UBS accounts. The subsequent investigations by the IRS may result in draconian civil penalties and even criminal prosecutions.

This is why US persons who owned undisclosed UBS accounts should contact an experienced international tax attorney to discuss their voluntary disclosure options as soon as possible.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help with Your Undisclosed Foreign Accounts

If you are have not disclosed your foreign accounts (including undisclosed UBS accounts) to the IRS, you are advised to immediately contact the experienced international tax law firm of Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. For many years now, we have been helping US taxpayers like you to bring their US tax affairs into full compliance, and we can help you.

Contact Us to Schedule Your Initial Consultation! Remember, contacting Sherayzen Law Office is Confidential!