First Friday FATCA Update

Since our previous monthly FATCA update, we have addressed the following recent FATCA developments:

  • The Sixth Circuit issued an opinion on August 18, 2017 upholding the dismissal of a challenge to FATCA brought by Senator Rand Paul and several current and former U.S. citizens living abroad who hold foreign accounts (see prior coverage).
  • The IRS posted draft instructions to the Form 8966 (FATCA Report) dated August 9, 2017, with some changes pertaining to participating foreign financial institutions (PFFIs) and other changes reflecting the final and temporary Chapter 4 regulations released in January of this year (see prior coverage).

Additionally, an official with the IRS Office of Chief Counsel recently stated that the IRS will delay the date on which U.S. financial institutions must start treating an otherwise valid Form W‑8 as invalid merely because it does not include a foreign taxpayer identification number (FTIN) or a reasonable explanation for its absence, to avoid Chapter 3 withholding.  Specifically, a valid Form W-8 obtained before January 1, 2018, will not be treated as invalid on that date if the form simply lacks the FTIN or a reasonable explanation for its absence (e.g., the account holder’s country of residence does not provide TINs).  It is unclear what form the relief will take, but it is possible the IRS will continue to allow a U.S. financial institution to treat a Form W-8 as valid if the financial institution does not have actual knowledge that the beneficial owner has an FTIN for some period of time.

This informal relief from the new FTIN requirement (issued in final and temporary regulations in late 2016) is welcomed by banks and withholding agents that report income for foreign account holders.  The relief is still reflected in FAQs on the IRS website (see prior coverage).  But since Form W-8s expire on three-year cycles, banks and agents still have to update their withholding policies and annual re-solicitation processes to comply with the new FTIN requirements.  Additionally, banks and agents are still waiting for further guidance on how they can update Form W‑8s issued before 2018 with the newly‑required FTIN or reasonable explanation.  An IRS FAQ posted in April 2017 specifies that the information can be provided in a written statement, including an email, but it is unclear what other requirements might apply to such a statement.

Since our previous monthly FATCA update, the IRS has also released the Competent Authority Agreements (CAAs) implementing intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) between the United States and the following treaty partners:

  • Anguilla (Model 1B IGA signed on January 15, 2017);
  • Italy (Model 1A IGA signed on January 10, 2014).

Under FATCA, IGAs come in two forms: Model 1 or Model 2.  Under a Model 1 IGA, the foreign treaty partner agrees to collect information of U.S. accountholders in foreign financial institutions operating within its jurisdiction and transmit the information to the IRS.  Model 1 IGAs are drafted as either reciprocal (Model 1A) agreements or nonreciprocal (Model 1B) agreements.  By contrast, Model 2 IGAs are issued in only a nonreciprocal format and require FFIs to report information directly to the IRS.

A CAA is a bilateral agreement between the United States and the treaty partner to clarify or interpret treaty provisions.  A CAA implementing an IGA typically establishes and prescribes the rules and procedures necessary to implement certain provisions in the IGA and the Tax Information Exchange Agreement, if applicable.  Specific topics include registration of the treaty partner’s financial institutions, time and manner of exchange of information, remediation and enforcement, confidentiality and data safeguards, and cost allocation.  Generally, a CAA becomes operative on the later of (1) the date the IGA enters into force, or (2) the date the CAA is signed by the competent authorities of the United States and the treaty partner.

The Treasury Department website publishes IGAs, and the IRS publishes their implementing CAAs.

Sixth Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Sen. Rand Paul’s Challenge to FATCA

On August 18, the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion upholding the dismissal of a challenge to the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) brought by Senator Rand Paul and several current and former U.S. citizens living abroad who hold foreign accounts.  In the case, Crawford v. United States Department of the Treasury, Senator Paul and his co-plaintiffs argued that FATCA’s withholding and reporting requirements imposed on individuals and foreign financial institutions (FFIs), certain intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) negotiated by the Treasury, and the requirement to file a foreign bank account report (FBAR) by U.S. persons with financial accounts that exceed $10,000 in a foreign country were unconstitutional.

In 2016, the district court dismissed the case on standing grounds (earlier coverage here).  The court evaluated the requirements necessary for Article III standing and concluded that no named plaintiff alleged actual or imminent injury from the FATCA withholding tax, and none of the named plaintiffs were FFIs subject to the requirements imposed on such entities.  Instead of asserting concrete particularized injuries, such as penalties brought for failure to comply with FATCA or FBAR requirements, the plaintiffs argued general “discomfort” with the disclosure requirements, which the court deemed too abstract and thus insufficient to confer Article III standing.

The Sixth Circuit panel upheld the dismissal on standing grounds, explaining that the injuries suffered by the account holders resulted from the independent and voluntary actions of foreign financial institutions, not the Treasury.  The court explained that no plaintiff has alleged “any actual enforcement of FATCA” or FBAR, such as a demand for individual reporting or the imposition of a penalty for noncompliance, and no plaintiff holds sufficient foreign assets to bring a pre-enforcement challenge to FATCA or has alleged an intent to violate FBAR, a prerequisite for standing to bring a pre-enforcement FBAR challenge.  The court also rejected Senator Paul’s IGA-specific claim that  he was stripped of his constitutional right to vote against the IGAs, explaining that Senator Paul can still seek repeal of or amendment to FATCA itself.  The court denied the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, reasoning that amendment would be futile because the facts simply do not provide them standing to bring the alleged claims.

First Friday FATCA Update

August 4, 2017 by  
Filed under FATCA, Information Reporting, IRS

Since our last monthly FATCA update, the IRS has updated its FATCA frequently asked questions to include four new FAQs addressing the renewal of foreign financial institution (FFI) agreements and extending the deadline for renewing FFI agreements to October 24, 2017 (discussed here and here).

Recently, the Treasury released the Model 1B Intergovermental Agreement (IGA) between the United States and Turkmenistan.

Under FATCA, IGAs come in two forms: Model 1 or Model 2.  Under a Model 1 IGA, the foreign treaty partner agrees to collect information of U.S. accountholders in foreign financial institutions operating within its jurisdiction and transmit the information to the IRS.  Model 1 IGAs are drafted as either reciprocal (Model 1A) agreements or nonreciprocal (Model 1B) agreements.  By contrast, Model 2 IGAs are issued in only a nonreciprocal format and require FFIs to report information directly to the IRS.

A Competent Authority Agreement (CAA) is a bilateral agreement between the United States and the treaty partner to clarify or interpret treaty provisions.  A CAA implementing an IGA typically establishes and prescribes the rules and procedures necessary to implement certain provisions in the IGA and the Tax Information Exchange Agreement, if applicable.  Specific topics include registration of the treaty partner’s financial institutions, time and manner of exchange of information, remediation and enforcement, confidentiality and data safeguards, and cost allocation.  Generally, a CAA becomes operative on the later of (1) the date the IGA enters into force, or (2) the date the CAA is signed by the competent authorities of the United States and the treaty partner.

The Treasury Department website publishes IGAs, and the IRS publishes their implementing CAAs.

First Friday FATCA Update

Since our last monthly FATCA update, the IRS has updated its online FATCA portal to allow foreign financial institutions to renew their FFI agreements (see prior coverage).

Recently, the Treasury released the Model 1B Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the United States and Montenegro.  The IRS also released the Competent Authority Agreements (CAAs) implementing IGAs between the United States and the following treaty partners:

  • Bahrain (Model 1B IGA signed on January 18, 2017);
  • Croatia (Model 1A IGA signed on March 20, 2015);
  • Greenland (Model 1A IGA signed on January 17, 2017); and
  • Panama (Model 1A IGA signed on April 27, 2016).

Under FATCA, IGAs come in two forms: Model 1 or Model 2.  Under a Model 1 IGA, the foreign treaty partner agrees to collect information of U.S. accountholders in foreign financial institutions operating within its jurisdiction and transmit the information to the IRS.  Model 1 IGAs are drafted as either reciprocal (Model 1A) agreements or nonreciprocal (Model 1B) agreements.  By contrast, Model 2 IGAs are issued in only a nonreciprocal format and require FFIs to report information directly to the IRS.

A CAA is a bilateral agreement between the United States and the treaty partner to clarify or interpret treaty provisions.  A CAA implementing an IGA typically establishes and prescribes the rules and procedures necessary to implement certain provisions in the IGA and the Tax Information Exchange Agreement, if applicable.  Specific topics include registration of the treaty partner’s financial institutions, time and manner of exchange of information, remediation and enforcement, confidentiality and data safeguards, and cost allocation.  Generally, a CAA becomes operative on the later of (1) the date the IGA enters into force, or (2) the date the CAA is signed by the competent authorities of the United States and the treaty partner.

The Treasury Department website publishes IGAs, and the IRS publishes their implementing CAAs.

First Friday FATCA Update

Since our last FATCA Update, the IRS has published a reminder that foreign financial institutions (FFIs) required by FATCA to renew their FFI agreements must do so by July 31, 2017.  The IRS released an updated FFI agreement on December 30, 2016, that is effective on or after January 1, 2017 (see prior coverage).  All financial institutions (FIs) whose prior FFI agreement expired on December 31, 2016, and that wish to retain their Global Intermediary Identification Number (GIIN) must do so by July 31, 2017 to be treated as having in effect an FFI agreement as of January 1, 2017.  According to the IRS, a new “Renew FFI Agreement” link will become available on the FFI’s account homepage in a future update to the FATCA registration portal.

Generally, FATCA requires the following types of FIs to renew their FFI agreements: participating FFIs not covered by an intergovernmental agreement (IGA); reporting Model 2 FFIs; reporting Model 1 FFIs operating branches outside of Model 1 jurisdictions.  By contrast, renewal is not required for reporting Model 1 FFIs that are not operating branches outside of Model 1 jurisdictions; registered deemed-compliant FFIs (regardless of location); sponsoring entities; direct reporting non-financial foreign entities (NFFEs); and trustees of trustee-documented trust.

Since our last update, Treasury has not published any new intergovernmental agreements (IGAs), and the IRS has not published any new competent authority agreements (CAAs).  Under FATCA, IGAs come in two forms: Model 1 or Model 2.  Under a Model 1 IGA, the foreign treaty partner agrees to collect information of U.S. accountholders in foreign financial institutions (FFIs) operating within its jurisdiction and transmit the information to the IRS.  Model 1 IGAs are drafted as either reciprocal (Model 1A) agreements or nonreciprocal (Model 1B) agreements.  By contrast, Model 2 IGAs are issued in only a nonreciprocal format and require FFIs to report information directly to the IRS.

A CAA is a bilateral agreement between the United States and the treaty partner to clarify or interpret treaty provisions.  A CAA implementing an IGA typically establishes and prescribes the rules and procedures necessary to implement certain provisions in the IGA and the Tax Information Exchange Agreement, if applicable.  Specific topics include registration of the treaty partner’s financial institutions, time and manner of exchange of information, remediation and enforcement, confidentiality and data safeguards, and cost allocation.  Generally, a CAA becomes operative on the later of (1) the date the IGA enters into force, or (2) the date the CAA is signed by the competent authorities of the United States and the treaty partner.

The Treasury Department website publishes IGAs, and the IRS publishes their implementing CAAs.

IRS Negotiating CbC Information Exchange Agreements

The IRS is engaging in negotiations with individual countries to implement country-by-country (CbC) reporting according to Douglas O’Donnell, Commissioner of IRS’s Large Business and International Division.  In a March 10 speech at the Pacific Rim Tax Institute that, he clarified that the IRS is only negotiating with jurisdictions that have both an information exchange instrument and adequate information safeguards.  Mr. O’Donnell did not provide a definitive timeline for those negotiations, but he said that they would be completed in a timely manner.  The IRS’s approach to negotiating information exchange agreements is consistent with the United States’ existing approach to negotiating IGAs and related agreements under FATCA.

Companies are anxiously awaiting the agreements, as they could face reporting obligations in certain jurisdictions with which the United States does not have agreements in place, causing them to potentially prepare multiple CbC reports. Companies are also urging the IRS to release information on the expected scope of the U.S. information exchange network, as lack of knowledge on the scope could negatively impact companies’ ability to do business in certain countries if the companies do not comply with local filing requirements.

These information exchange agreements arise from recent recommendations provided by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) (additional information on OECD guidance on CbC reporting available here) on jurisdictions with respect to information on multinational corporations, requiring jurisdictions to exchange such information in a standardized format beginning in 2018 (please see prior post for additional background).  The IRS released final regulations in June 2016 imposing CbC reporting on U.S. persons that are the ultimate parent entity of a multinational enterprise group with revenue exceeding $850 million in the preceding accounting year (prior coverage).

First Friday FATCA Update

March 3, 2017 by  
Filed under FATCA, Information Reporting, IRS

Recently, the Treasury released the Model 1B Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) entered into between the United States and Ukraine. The IRS released the Competent Authority Agreements (CAAs) implementing the IGAs between the United States and the following treaty partners:

  • Antigua and Barbuda (Model 1B IGA signed on August 31, 2016);
  • Vietnam (Model 1B IGA signed on April 1, 2016).

Under FATCA, IGAs come in two forms: Model 1 or Model 2.  Under a Model 1 IGA, the foreign treaty partner agrees to collect information of U.S. accountholders in foreign financial institutions (FFIs) operating within its jurisdiction and transmit the information to the IRS.  Model 1 IGAs are drafted as either reciprocal (Model 1A) agreements or nonreciprocal (Model 1B) agreements.  By contrast, Model 2 IGAs are issued in only a nonreciprocal format and require FFIs to report information directly to the IRS.

A CAA is a bilateral agreement between the United States and the treaty partner to clarify or interpret treaty provisions.  A CAA implementing an IGA typically establishes and prescribes the rules and procedures necessary to implement certain provisions in the IGA and the Tax Information Exchange Agreement, if applicable.  Specific topics include registration of the treaty partner’s financial institutions, time and manner of exchange of information, remediation and enforcement, confidentiality and data safeguards, and cost allocation.  Generally, a CAA becomes operative on the later of (1) the date the IGA enters into force, or (2) the date the CAA is signed by the competent authorities of the United States and the treaty partner.

The Treasury Department website publishes IGAs, and the IRS publishes their implementing CAAs.

First Friday FATCA Update

Since our last monthly FATCA update, we have addressed several other recent FATCA developments, including a flurry of FATCA-related regulations released by the IRS and Treasury Department:

  • Late Friday, December 30, 2016, the IRS and Treasury Department released four regulation packages related to its implementation of FATCA (see previous coverage).   These regulations largely finalized the 2014 temporary FATCA regulations and 2014 temporary FATCA coordination regulations with the changes that the IRS had previously announced in a series of notices.
  • The final regulations released by the IRS under FATCA on December 30, 2016, finalized the temporary presumption rules promulgated on March 6, 2014 with no substantive changes, but several changes were made to the final coordinating regulations under Chapter 3 and Chapter 61, also released on the same date (see previous coverage).
  • In the preamble to the final FATCA regulations released on December 30, 2016, the IRS rejected a request from a commenter that the regulations be modified to permit a non-financial foreign entity (NFFE) operating in an IGA jurisdiction to determine its Chapter 4 status using the criteria specified in the IGA (see previous coverage).
  • The IRS released final agreements for foreign financial institutions (FFIs) and qualified intermediaries (QIs) to enter into with the IRS, set forth in Revenue Procedure 2017-16 and Revenue Procedure 2017-15, respectively (see previous coverage).
  • Two FATCA transition rules expired on January 1, 2017:  One related to limited branches and limited FFIs, and one related to the deadline for sponsoring entities to register their sponsored entities with the IRS (see previous coverage).
  • The IRS issued Revenue Procedure 2016-56 to add to the list of countries subject to the reporting requirements of Code section 6049, which generally relate to reporting on bank interest paid to nonresident alien individuals (see previous coverage).
  • The IRS issued Notice 2016-76 providing phased-in application of certain section 871(m) withholding rules applicable to dividend equivalents, and easing several reporting and withholding requirements for withholding agents and qualified derivatives dealers (QDDs) (see previous coverage).

In addition, the Treasury Department recently released the Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA) entered into between the United States and the following treaty partners, in these respective forms:

  • Grenada, Model 1B;
  • Macau, Model 2;
  • Taiwan, Model 2.

Further, the IRS released the Competent Authority Agreement (CAA) implementing the Model 1A IGA between the United States and Guyana entered into on October 17, 2016.

Under FATCA, IGAs come in two forms: Model 1 or Model 2.  Under a Model 1 IGA, the foreign treaty partner agrees to collect information of U.S. accountholders in foreign financial institutions (FFIs) operating within its jurisdiction and transmit the information to the IRS.  Model 1 IGAs are drafted as either reciprocal (Model 1A) agreements or nonreciprocal (Model 1B) agreements.  By contrast, Model 2 IGAs are issued in only a nonreciprocal format and require FFIs to report information directly to the IRS.

A CAA is a bilateral agreement between the United States and the treaty partner to clarify or interpret treaty provisions.  A CAA implementing an IGA typically establishes and prescribes the rules and procedures necessary to implement certain provisions in the IGA and the Tax Information Exchange Agreement, if applicable.  Specific topics include registration of the treaty partner’s financial institutions, time and manner of exchange of information, remediation and enforcement, confidentiality and data safeguards, and cost allocation.  Generally, a CAA becomes operative on the later of (1) the date the IGA enters into force, or (2) the date the CAA is signed by the competent authorities of the United States and the treaty partner.

The Treasury Department website publishes IGAs, and the IRS publishes their implementing CAAs.

 

Final Regulations Make Minor Changes to FATCA and Chapter 3 Presumption Rules

The final regulations released by the IRS under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) on December 30, 2016 finalized the temporary presumption rules promulgated on March 6, 2014 with no substantive changes, but several changes were made to the final coordinating regulations under Chapter 3 and Chapter 61, also released on the same date.

Under FATCA, withholding agents must conduct certain due diligence to identify the Chapter 4 status of their payees.  In the absence of information sufficient to reliably identify a payee’s Chapter 4 status, withholding agents must apply specific presumption rules to determine that status.

According to the preamble to the final FATCA regulations, a commenter requested that a reporting Model 1 foreign financial institution (FFI) receiving a withholdable payment as an intermediary or making a withholdable payment to an account held by an undocumented entity be permitted to treat such an account as a U.S. reportable account.  The IRS rejected the commenter’s suggestion, explaining that a reporting Model 1 FFI that follows the due diligence procedures required under Annex I of the IGA should not maintain any undocumented accounts.  In the absence of information to determine the status of an entity account, a reporting Model 1 FFI must obtain a self-certification, and in the absence of both the required information and a self-certification, the reporting Model 1 FFI must apply the presumption rules contained in the Treasury Regulations by treating the payee as a nonparticipating FFI and withholding.

The discussion in the preamble is consistent with the rules set forth in the IGAs, which require reporting Model 1 or Model 2 FFIs to withhold on withholdable payments made to nonparticipating FFIs in certain circumstances.  The reasoning provided is also the same as provided with respect to reporting Model 2 FFIs in Revenue Procedure 2017-16, setting forth the updated FFI agreement.

Although the IRS declined to make the requested change to the final Chapter 4 regulations, it did make a number of changes to the presumption rules in the final FATCA coordination regulations.  It also rejected some changes that were requested by commenters.

Under the temporary coordination regulations, a withholding agent must presume that an undocumented entity payee that is an exempt recipient is a foreign person if the name of the payee indicates that it is a type of entity that is on the per se list of foreign corporations.   However, an entity name that contains the word “corporation” or “company” is not required to be presumed foreign because such information in itself it is not indicative of foreign status.  According to the preamble, a commenter requested that the IRS amend the presumption rules to allow a presumption of foreign status for an entity whose name contains “corporation” or “company,” if the withholding agent has a document that reasonably demonstrates that the entity is incorporated in the relevant foreign jurisdiction on the per se list.  The IRS adopted this change to the coordination regulations.

In contrast, the IRS rejected a commenter’s other suggested changes to the presumption rules.  One commenter requested that a withholding agent making a payment other than a withholdable payment to an exempt recipient be permitted to rely on documentary evidence to presume the payee is foreign.  The IRS reasoned that the documentary evidence rule was not worthwhile because it would be limited in scope because an existing rule, which requires a withholding agent to presume a payee that is a certain type of exempt recipient is foreign with respect to withholdable payments, may be applied by the withholding agent to all payments with respect to an obligation whether or not they are withholdable payments.  The IRS also expressed concern about how the proposed change would work in the context of payments made to foreign partnerships with partners who are non-exempt recipients and for which different presumption rules apply.

The IRS also declined to make a suggested change that would permit an undocumented entity to be presumed foreign if the withholding agent has a global intermediary identification number (GIIN) on file for the payee and the payee’s name appears on the IRS FFI list.  The IRS rejected the proposed change because U.S. entities can register and obtain a GIIN (for example, as a sponsoring entity), so the existence of a GIIN does not necessarily indicate the payee is foreign.

IRS Says NFFEs Must Determine their Chapter 4 Status Under Treasury Regulations

In the preamble to the final FATCA regulations released on December 30, 2016, the IRS rejected a request from a commenter that the regulations be modified to permit a non-financial foreign entity (NFFE) operating in an IGA jurisdiction to determine its Chapter 4 status using the criteria specified in the IGA.

In the preamble, the IRS responded to the request by indicating that although an NFFE may use the IGA to determine whether it is a foreign financial institution (FFI) or a NFFE,  it must look to U.S. Treasury Regulations to determine its Chapter 4 status once it determines it is an NFFE.  As a result, different sets of rules apply to determine an entity’s specific Chapter 4 status depending upon whether the entity is determining its status for purposes of documenting its status to a withholding agent or documenting its status to an FFI in its own jurisdiction.  Similarly, the IRS said a passive NFFE will be required to report U.S. controlling persons to FFIs in IGA jurisdictions and report substantial U.S. owners to participating FFIs and U.S. withholding agents.  As a justification for its response, the IRS said that the rules in the IGAs are intended only for FFIs and not for NFFEs.

Many practitioners believe that it is illogical for a single entity to have different Chapter 4 statuses depending upon who is documenting its status or where its status is being documented.  As a result, many practitioners believed it was appropriate for an entity resident in an IGA jurisdiction to determine its Chapter 4 status under the terms of the applicable IGA.  Because different rules apply to determine the entity’s status in different jurisdictions, an NFFE could otherwise have one Chapter 4 status when receiving payments from a U.S. withholding agent and a different Chapter 4 status in an IGA jurisdiction.

From a policy perspective, the IRS’s decision appears somewhat irrational—it requires NFFEs to follow U.S. Treasury Regulations to identify their Chapter 4 status, rather than using the rules for determining their status that are in the IGA that was agreed to by Treasury and the tax authorities in their own jurisdictions.  The impact of this goes beyond mere nomenclature, as the specific type of NFFE determines an entity’s responsibilities under FATCA.  Fortunately, since the two sets of rules contain significant overlap, applying the different rules will lead to the same Chapter 4 status in many situations.  To the extent that the two sets of rules would arrive at different results, the entities affected will have additional compliance burdens, as they will have to be familiar with both the rules under the U.S. Treasury Regulations and under the applicable IGA.

Next Page »