Pulaski

No, it's the UK law to force compliance with US FATCA.

livinginUSA

Oh my bad. Thought the UK was gonna do something similar. So nothing changes then

Still got my HSBC current account with a sold £10 in it. And my HSBC credit card. No need for FATCA stuff for me

theOAP

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pulaski

No, it's the UK law to force compliance with US FATCA.

In reference to Steve's post #27, you are correct. I believe Steve was citing the US/UK (US) FATCA agreement (or US/UK IGA).

The US IGA requires specified UK FFI's to report the accounts of any US Person held by a UK FFI, no matter where the US Person lives in the world. It also specifies that US FI's will report any account it holds for a UK person who claims a residence in the UK on the account. The problem, of course, is this agreed reciprocity does not work since the US does not have a Congressional law requiring US FI's to identify an account holders foreign address to the IRS.

Technically, the UK does have a FATCA type law, known colloquially as "Son of FATCA". This law was passed by Parliament in 2013 and covers The Crown Dependencies (Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey) and the British Overseas Territories (the Caymans, BVI, Bermuda, Anguilla, Turks and Caicos, Montserrat, and Gibraltar). Any account held by an FI in the above, and identified as having an account holder resident in the UK, is to be reported to HMRC.

For instance, The Isle of Man agreement:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140109143644/http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/fatca/UK-IoM-agree-tax-comp.pdf

In addition, in 2015, we now have the OECD CRS (Common Reporting Standard). At this point in time, it has at least 50+ signatories and includes most of the G20 nations. It requires an FI in one country to report any account held by a resident of any second country, to that second country, if both countries are signatories to the agreement. The UK is a signatory. The problem: the US refuses to sign the CRS agreement, citing its FATCA agreements override the need to sign. Therefore, all specified FI's worldwide must report to the IRS, but the US won’t report to any other tax jurisdiction, even with the CRS in place.

http://www.oecd.org/tax/exchange-of-...nformation.pdf

There’s also the EU Directive on exchange of financial information.

The US Congress may rant against all the tax cheating foreign accounts and loss of revenue, but in reality, the US is becoming the world’s largest tax haven for non-US Persons.

Steve_

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...-9-12-2012.pdf

Page 39 says ISAs are exempt because they don't meet the definition of a "financial account". What they are isn't laid out but what else can it be but a trust? It isn't a corporation. It isn't a partnership. It isn't a natural person.

A "wrapper" is a silly British way of saying a trust. An ISA is an account held in trust by a financial institution.

Steve_

Sssshhhh.

ooh I know, let's talk about flow-through rules for US controlled foreign corporations.

Because say you've still got a corporation in the UK (or anywhere else outside the US), once you become tax resident in the US or a "US person", guess what... your corporation becomes a US controlled foreign corporation.

nun

Cash ISAs are treated as savings accounts by the IRS.

Owen778

My interpretation would be that ISAs are a financial account, but they are not a "Financial Account" for the purposes of that agreement. Having read some of the discussion documents from when the agreement was being finalised, several of the exclusions listed on p39 are there because they are considered very low risk for US tax evasion, not because they really aren't a "financial account" (in general terms, not in the agreement's terms).

No, it isn't, and no it isn't.

Cash ISAs behave precisely the same way as a bank savings account, except for the UK tax advantages. Your definition would have every bank savings account be a trust. That isn't the case.