|
Zerohedge reports that It's Official -
America Now Enforces Capital Controls.
(emphasis mine) [my comment]
It's Official - America Now Enforces Capital Controls
Submitted by Tyler Durden
on 03/28/2010 14:27 -0500
It couldn't have happened to a nicer country. On March 18, with very little
pomp and circumstance, president Obama passed the most recent stimulus act,
the $17.5 billion Hiring Incentives to Restore
Employment Act (H.R. 2487), brilliantly goalseeked
by the administration's millionaire cronies to abbreviate as HIRE. As it was merely the latest in
an endless stream of acts destined to expand the government payroll to
infinity, nobody cared about it, or actually read it. Because if anyone had
read it, the act would have been known as the Capital Controls Act,
as one of the lesser, but infinitely more important provisions on page 27,
known as Offset Provisions - Subtitle A—Foreign Account Tax
Compliance, institutes just that. In brief, the Provision requires
that foreign banks not only withhold 30% of all outgoing capital flows
(likely remitting the collection promptly back to the US Treasury) but
also disclose the full details of non-exempt account-holders to the US and
the IRS. And should this provision be deemed illegal by a given
foreign nation's domestic laws (think Switzerland), well the foreign
financial institution is required to close the account. It's the law. If you
thought you could move your capital to the non-sequestration safety of non-US
financial institutions, sorry you lose - the law now says so. Capital
Controls are now here and are now fully enforced by the law.
Let's parse through the just passed law, which has been mentioned by exactly
zero mainstream media outlets.
Here is the default new state of capital outflows:
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
inserting after chapter 3 the following new chapter:
''CHAPTER 4—TAXES TO ENFORCE REPORTING ON CERTAIN FOREIGN ACCOUNTS
''Sec. 1471. Withholdable payments to foreign financial
institutions.
''Sec. 1472. Withholdable payments to other foreign
entities.
''Sec. 1473. Definitions.
''Sec. 1474. Special rules.
''SEC. 1471. WITHHOLDABLE PAYMENTS TO FOREIGN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
''(a) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any withholdable
payment to a foreign financial institution which does not meet the
requirements of subsection (b), the withholding agent with respect to such
payment shall deduct and withhold from such payment a tax equal to 30
percent of the amount of such payment.
Clarifying who this law applies to:
''(C) in the case of any United States account maintained by such
institution, to report on an annual basis the information described in
subsection (c) with respect to such account,
''(D) to deduct and withhold a tax equal to 30 percent of—
''(i) any passthru
payment which is made by such institution to a recalcitrant account
holder or another foreign financial institution which does not meet the
requirements of this subsection, and
''(ii) in the case of any passthru payment which is
made by such institution to a foreign financial institution which has in
effect an election under paragraph (3) with respect to such payment, so much
of such payment as is allocable to accounts held by recalcitrant account
holders or foreign financial institutions which do not meet the requirements
of this subsection.
What happens if this brand new law impinges and/or is in blatant
contradiction with existing foreign laws?
''(F) in any case in which any foreign law would (but for a waiver
described in clause (i)) prevent the reporting of
any information referred to in this subsection or subsection (c) with respect
to any United States account maintained by such institution—
''(i) to attempt to obtain a valid and effective
waiver of such law from each holder of such account, and
''(ii) if a waiver described in clause (i) is
not obtained from each such holder within a reasonable period of time, to
close such account.
Not only are capital flows now to be overseen and controlled by the
government and the IRS, but holders of foreign accounts
can kiss any semblance of privacy goodbye:
''(c) INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED ON UNITED STATES
ACCOUNTS.—
''(1) IN GENERAL.—The agreement described in subsection (b) shall
require the foreign financial institution to report the following with
respect to each United States account maintained by such institution:
''(A) The name, address, and TIN of each account holder which is a
specified United States person and, in the case of any account holder which
is a United States owned foreign entity, the name, address, and TIN of each
substantial United States owner of such entity.
''(B) The account number.
''(C) The account balance or value (determined at such time and in such
manner as the Secretary may provide).
''(D) Except to the extent provided by the Secretary, the gross receipts and
gross withdrawals or payments from the account (determined for such period
and in such manner as the Secretary may provide).
The only exemption to the rule? If you hold the meager sum of
$50,000 or less in foreign accounts.
''(B) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN ACCOUNTS HELD BY INDIVIDUALS.—Unless
the foreign financial institution elects to not have this subparagraph apply,
such term shall not include any depository account maintained by such
financial institution if—
''(i) each holder of such account is a natural person,and
''(ii) with respect to each holder of such account, the aggregate value of
all depository accounts held (in whole or in part) by such holder and
maintained by the same financial institution which maintains such account
does not exceed $50,000.
And, while we are on the topic of definitions, here is how
"financial account" is defined by the US:
''(2) FINANCIAL ACCOUNT.—Except as otherwise provided by the
Secretary, the term 'financial account' means, with respect to any financial
institution—
''(A) any depository account maintained by such financial institution,
''(B) any custodial account maintained by such financial institution, and
''(C) any equity or debt interest in such financial institution (other than
interests which are regularly traded on an established securities market).
Any equity or debt interest which constitutes a financial account under
subparagraph (C) with respect to any financial institution shall be treated
for purposes of this section as maintained by such financial institution.
In case you find you do not like to be subject to capital controls, you
are now deemed a "Recalcitrant Account Holder."
''(6) RECALCITRANT ACCOUNT HOLDER.—The term 'recalcitrant account
holder' means any account holder which—
''(A) fails to comply with reasonable requests for the information referred
to in subsection (b)(1)(A) or (c)(1)(A),
or ''(B) fails to provide a waiver described in subsection (b)(1)(F) upon
request.
But guess what - if you are a foreign Central Bank, or if the Secretary
determined that you are "a low risk for tax evasion" (unlike the
Secretary himself) you still can do whatever the hell you want:
''(f) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN PAYMENTS.—Subsection (a) shall not apply
to any payment to the extent that the beneficial owner of such payment
is—
''(1) any foreign government, any political subdivision of a foreign
government, or any wholly owned agency or instrumentality of any one or more
of the foregoing,
''(2) any international organization or any wholly owned agency or
instrumentality thereof,
''(3) any foreign central bank of issue, or
''(4) any other class of persons identified by the Secretary for purposes of
this subsection as posing a low risk of tax evasion.
One thing we are confused about is whether this law is a preamble,
or already incorporates, the flow of non-cash assets, such as
commodities, and, thus, gold. If an account transfers, via physical
or paper delivery, gold from a domestic account to a foreign one, we are not
sure if the language deems this a 30% taxable transaction, although
preliminary discussions with lawyers indicates this is likely the case.
And so the noose on capital mobility tightens, as very soon the only
option US citizens have when it comes to investing their money, will be in
government mandated retirement annuities, which will likely be the
next step in the capital control escalation, which will culminate with every
single free dollar required to be reinvested into the US, likely in the form
of purchasing US Treasury emissions such as Treasuries, TIPS and other
worthless pieces of paper.
Congratulations bankrupt America - you are now one step closer to a
thoroughly non-free market.
Lexology.com reports that new withholding
tax.
FATCA provisions enacted into law - new withholding
tax, ban on bearer bonds, and withholding on "dividend equivalents"
Morrison & Foerster
Thomas A.
Humphreys, Stephen L.
Feldman and Remmelt A. Reigersman
USA
March 22 2010
On March 18, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Hiring Incentives
to Restore Employment Act (the "Act"). The Act incorporates the
Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act including provisions which: (i) introduce a new 30% withholding tax on
certain payments made to foreign entities that fail to comply with specified
reporting or certification requirements, (ii) end the practice whereby U.S.
issuers sell bearer bonds to foreign investors by repealing the U.S. bearer
bond exception, and (iii) impose a withholding tax on "dividend equivalents"
paid under equity swaps. This alert addresses these provisions of the Act
and certain other provisions aimed at preventing offshore tax avoidance by
U.S. persons. The new withholding tax applies to relevant payments made
after December 31, 2012 [I expect this date to be moved up as the US treasury
gets more cash desperate]. Importantly, debt obligations outstanding on March
18, 2012 are "grandfathered" from the new withholding tax and from
the repeal of the U.S. bearer bond exception.
NEW WITHHOLDING TAX
The Act introduces a new 30% withholding tax on any "withholdable
payment" made to a foreign entity unless such entity complies with
certain reporting requirements or otherwise qualifies for an exemption. A
"withholdable payment" generally includes
any payment of interest, dividends, rents, salaries, wages, premiums,
annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments, and other fixed or
determinable annual or periodical gains, profits, and income from sources
within the U.S [Basically, EVERYTHING is a "withholdable
payment"]. It also includes gross proceeds from the sale of property
that is of a type that can produce U.S.-source dividends or interest, such as
stock or debt issued by domestic corporations. Different rules apply to
foreign "financial institutions" ("FFIs") and to other
foreign entities.
Foreign Financial Institutions
The new 30% withholding tax on any "withholdable
payment" made to an FFI (whether or not beneficially owned by such
institution) applies unless the FFI agrees, pursuant to an agreement entered
into with Treasury, to provide information with respect to each
"financial account" held by "specified U.S. persons" and
"U.S.-owned foreign entities." The new disclosure
requirements are in addition to requirements imposed by a "Qualified Intermediary"
agreement.
The term FFI includes banks, brokers, and investment funds, including
private equity funds and hedge funds [Basically everyone]. A
"financial account" includes bank accounts, brokerage accounts, and
other custodial accounts, or an equity or debt interest in the FFI (unless
such interest is regularly traded). The term "specified U.S.
person" is any U.S. person other than certain categories of entities
such as publicly-traded corporations and their affiliates, banks, mutual
funds, real estate investment trusts, and charitable trusts. A
"U.S.-owned foreign entity" for this purpose is any entity that has
one or more "substantial U.S. owners," which generally means (i) in the case of a corporation, if a specified U.S.
person, directly or indirectly, owns more than 10% of the stock, by vote or
value, (ii) in the case of a partnership, if a specified U.S. person,
directly or indirectly, owns more than 10% of the profits or capital
interests, or (iii) in the case of a trust, if a specified U.S. person is
treated as an owner of any portion of the trust under the grantor trust
rules.
By entering into the agreement with Treasury, the FFI agrees to (i) obtain information necessary to determine which
accounts are U.S. accounts, (ii) comply with verification and due diligence
procedures as required by Treasury, (iii) annually report certain information
regarding U.S. accounts (including U.S. accountholder identification
information and annual account activity information), (iv) withhold on
"passthru payments" made to (1) recalcitrant
account holders, (2) other FFIs that do not enter into an
agreement with Treasury, and (3) FFIs that have elected to be
withheld upon (as further described below), (v) comply with requests
by Treasury for additional information with respect to any U.S. accounts, and
(vi) attempt to obtain a waiver from the U.S. accountholder if any foreign
law would otherwise prevent the reporting of required information or
alternatively close the account. Instead of reporting the necessary U.S.
account information, an FFI may elect to comply with the reporting
requirements that apply to U.S. financial institutions, which generally means
reporting on Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") Forms 1099.
Rather than agreeing with Treasury to act as a withholding agent in
respect of reportable payments, an FFI may elect to provide the withholding
agents from which it receives payments with the information necessary for the
withholding agents to implement the new withholding tax (generally, information
that discloses the extent to which payments made to the electing FFI are
allocable to accounts subject to the 30% U.S. withholding tax). In addition,
the agreement entered into between the electing FFI and Treasury must include
a waiver of any right under any tax treaty of the U.S. with respect to any
amounts withheld under this election provision.
Further, the Act contains a provision pursuant to which an FFI may be
treated as meeting the specified reporting requirements if (i) it complies with procedures ensuring it maintains no
U.S. accounts and meets certain requirements with respect to other FFIs
maintaining an account with it, [See this? This is how banks will
avoid dealing with the IRS/SEC: by closing the accounts of all their American
clients] or (ii) such FFI is a member of a class of institutions that would
not be subject to these provisions. Implementing procedures, requirements,
and determinations in respect of this provision would be determined by
Treasury in future guidance.
Foreign Non-Financial Institutions
The new withholding tax also applies to any withholdable
payment made to a non-financial foreign entity, unless the non-financial
foreign entity provides the withholding agent with either (i) a certification that it does not have a substantial
U.S. owner, or (ii) the name, address, and taxpayer identification
number of each substantial U.S. owner. This provision does not
apply to payments made to a publicly-traded non-financial foreign entity, or
any of its affiliates.
Treaty Relief, Credits, and Refunds
… the beneficial owner (other than an FFI) of a withholdable
payment on which the 30% tax is withheld may otherwise be entitled to a full
refund or credit of the tax (e.g., because payments are eligible for the
portfolio interest exemption or represent gross proceeds from the sale of a
capital asset). In such a case, a non-U.S. person would have to file a
U.S. tax return to obtain a full or partial refund or credit.
Similarly, a U.S. person with a foreign bank account on which it
receives payments that are withheld on, presumably would have
to claim a refund or credit on its U.S. tax return.
Effective Date
The new withholding tax applies to any withholdable
payment made after December 31, 2012, and, in the case of
"obligations," only with respect to payments on obligations issued
after March 18, 2012. Therefore, debt obligations (but not
stock) outstanding on March 18, 2012, are grandfathered. [Expect these
dates to be moved up as the US sinks into insolvancy.]
…
CERTAIN ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS
Reporting of Foreign Assets
The Act requires individual taxpayers who have an interest in a
"specified foreign financial asset" to attach a statement to their
income tax return if the aggregate value of all such assets during any
year is greater than $50,000. A "specified foreign financial
asset" would include depository and custodial accounts at foreign
financial institutions (i.e., bank and brokerage accounts), and, unless held
in a custodial account with a U.S. financial institution, (i) stock or securities issued by foreign persons, (ii)
any other financial instrument or contract held for investment that is issued
by or has a counterparty that is not a U.S. person, and (iii) any interest in
a foreign entity. Interests in foreign private equity and hedge funds
would be subject to reporting under this provision. These disclosure
requirements would be separate from and in addition to any requirement to
file Treasury Form TD F 90-22.1 (the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial
Accounts or "FBAR"). Failure to comply with this provision would
subject an individual to a maximum penalty of $50,000. This provision would
be effective for the 2011 taxable year.5
Reporting with Respect to PFICs
The Act includes a provision that requires U.S. shareholders of a
"passive foreign investment company" ("PFIC") to
file information returns as required by Treasury. This would be in
addition to the filing requirements already imposed on shareholders of a PFIC
and is effective as of March 18, 2010.
Foreign Trusts
Under current law, foreign trusts with U.S. owners or U.S. beneficiaries
are subject to various reporting obligations. The failure to comply with the
reporting obligations may result in the imposition of steep penalties on U.S.
owners or U.S. beneficiaries. The Act includes several provisions affecting
foreign trusts, including the following: (i)
codification of current Treasury Regulations providing that even if a U.S.
person's trust interest is contingent, an amount is treated as accumulated
for the benefit of such U.S. person, (ii) presumption that a foreign
trust has a U.S. beneficiary if any U.S. person transfers property to the
trust (unless certain information is provided to the Treasury
Secretary), (iii) treatment of a trust as having a U.S. beneficiary
unless the terms of the trust specifically prohibit any distributions to be
made to U.S. persons, (iv) use of trust property by the U.S. grantor,
U.S. beneficiary or a related party, would be treated as a distribution of
the fair market value of the use of the property to such person, (v) imposition
of additional filing requirements on a U.S. person that is treated as an
owner of any portion of a foreign trust, and (vi) imposition of a
minimum penalty of $10,000 in the case of a failure to file certain
information returns.
Foreignpolicy.com reports that IMF endorses
capital controls.
Control That Capital
BY KEVIN P. GALLAGHER MARCH 29, 2010
In a new study, staff members of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
endorse an idea to [prevent
investors from escaping their dollar investments] help mitigate the impact of economic crises in
developing countries: capital controls. Before the 1997 Asian economic crisis, IMF staff
thought controls -- really a macroeconomic policy to smooth the amount of
money coming into and leaving an economy -- should be banned. Now,
and particularly since the Great Recession, the IMF has changed its
tune. Capital controls are a good idea -- and now is the time for the
IMF and the United States to back them.
Capital flows -- basically, investment from one country into another --
can help developing countries grow. Many developing economies lack the
savings and financial institutions to help finance and kick-start business
activity. Money and investment from abroad can help fill that gap.
The more capital coming in, the more the developing country benefits, one
would think. But it is a bit more complicated than that. Cross-border
capital flows tend to be "pro-cyclical": too much money comes in
when times are good, and too much money evaporates during a downturn. In the
run-up to the 2007-2008 crisis, for instance, wealthy countries poured too
much money, too fast, into developing economies. This led to asset bubbles in
real estate and stock prices, as well as currency appreciation. When the
crisis hit, investors yanked their funds and retreated to the
"safe" haven of the United States.
Capital controls help smooth the inflows and outflows of capital and
protect developing economies. Most controls target highly short-term
capital flows, usually conducted for speculation rather than longer-term
investment. For instance, before the crisis hit, Colombia required that a
certain percentage of short-term capital be parked in the central bank for a
year. And last November, Brazil put a 2 percent tax on speculative inflows.
The new IMF study finds that such capital controls helped buffer against some
of the worst effects of the financial crisis in some developing countries,
such as Colombia, Brazil, India, Thailand, and China. It thus endorses
capital controls as part of the macroeconomic policy tool kit.
This is a sea change. For decades, the IMF (and the U.S.
Treasury) had advocated for the free flow of money and capital to and from
countries, regardless of their level of development, without restriction [because money was flowing INTO the US]. But now, many economists view the premature lifting
of regulations on capital flows in Asia as one of the problems that triggered
the Asian financial crisis in 1997, as well as why much of Central and
Eastern Europe have been so hurt by the current crisis. These events have led
to a slow but diligent rethinking of the role of capital controls within the
economics profession in general and the IMF in particular. The IMF study
is a result of that rethinking. [IMF study is in response to treasury's desire to impose capital
controls]
This new consensus has come just in time [wrong. The US has already begun imposing capital
controls and IMF is making arguments for capital controls after the fact to
justify the treasury's new policies]. As higher-income countries have maintained low interest rates, capital
is rapidly leaving for developing countries offering better rates of return [Translation: investors are fleeing the dollar.]. Countries like Brazil and China are now concerned
about bubbles. Capital controls can play a role in helping them maintain
financial stability [for the dollar
by keeping US investors trapped in US investments].
Americans Becoming International Pariahs
The New American reports that IRS Makes
Americans International Pariahs.
IRS Makes
Americans International Pariahs
Written by Alex Newman
Monday, 06 July 2009 10:00
As the Internal Revenue Service continues its hunt for tax dodgers, Swiss
banks are refusing to open accounts for Americans and closing the ones that
already exist. The tax collectors aim to recover an estimated $50 billion in
unpaid taxes by pressuring Americans to voluntarily declare offshore accounts
by September 23 — or face possible criminal prosecution and fines.
A June 29 Bloomberg article entitled "Swiss Banks Shun Americans as U.S.
Compels Disclosure" quotes Zurich-based international tax lawyer Matthew
Ledvina who said there is "massive"
failure by U.S. citizens and green-card holders living abroad to file with
the IRS. He also noted that Americans have become "pariahs because
they're risky."
The article tells the story of Sandra Dysli, an
American who has lived in Geneva for almost 50 years. "I
was told that I cannot legally be a client because I'm an American," she
explained, recounting her trip to Zweiplus AG, a
Zurich-based bank. "I couldn't get an investment account and had
everything in cash." Some of the bigger banks have created U.S.
registered sub units to serve American clients, like UBS, which admitted to
helping Americans avoid taxes earlier this year. Since then, Switzerland has
pledged to cooperate with IRS investigations, further eroding the nation's
historical legacy of bank secrecy.
A letter UBS sent to American clients was obtained by The New American.
It explains that the bank will no longer be able to continue the current
relationship. It asks clients to please move the money to accounts
regulated by the SEC, since they will be liquidated 45 days after
receipt of the letter. It also advises them to seek advice from a U.S. tax
lawyer.
"American citizens are starting to feel like they're Typhoid
Mary," said Charles Adam, managing partner at a Geneva-based law
firm called Hogan & Hartson LLP. "The Swiss
simply don't want American customers because it requires so
much infrastructure and hassle that they don't make any money." He also
explained that new proposed U.S. regulations to increase oversight and
reporting requirements on foreign banks that withhold money for the IRS would
make the problem worse — increasing the cost of compliance and
the risk of violating U.S. rules.
In order to provide banking services to an American living abroad, a foreign
bank must register with the Securities and Exchange Commission — and
many banks aren't willing to do so. "My bank doesn't want to do
that, so we wouldn't accept an investment account for a U.S. person,"
said the chairman of the Swiss Bankers Association and Mirabaud
& Cie., Pierre Mirabaud, at a meeting of the
American International Club of Geneva. Registering with the SEC removes the
protections associated with Swiss banking laws, which, for example, make it a
crime to reveal the identity of clients without their consent.
"It's up to individual banks to work out which citizens it wants to
do business with," said a spokesman for the Swiss Bankers Association.
"The reporting obligations certainly aren't going to go down as the IRS
is considering extending the QI, exporting its tax laws and trying to
turn Swiss banks into agents of the IRS."
According to American Citizens Abroad, based in Geneva, about 5 million
Americans live outside of the United States, with about 30,000 in
Switzerland. The founder of the organization is not happy with the current
state of affairs. "The presumption is that you're a bad person
avoiding taxes if you live overseas," said Andy Sundberg. "The IRS rhetoric is alienating and
vindictive."
And at least two members of Congress have already expressed concern about the
matter. "If neither foreign nor American banks will take American
customers, how will the millions of citizens living abroad bank?" asked
Carolyn Maloney and Joe Wilson, co-chairmen of the Americans Abroad Caucus,
in a letter to the tax-dodging Secretary of the Treasury Timothy
Geithner.
The sovereign society reports that IRS Apartheid
Blocks Americans from Swiss Banks.
IRS Apartheid
Blocks Americans from Swiss Banks
Bob Bauman (July 6, 2009)
You may not have experienced it yet, but there are tens of thousands
of Americans already suffering under what can best be described as a
diabolical "financial apartheid" – disruptive
rules being imposed on Swiss and other offshore banks by the U.S. Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC).
These IRS-SEC policies are wreaking havoc among Americans who live
or bank offshore.
And as a result, many justifiably upset Swiss and other offshore banks are
closing existing accounts of U.S. persons and refusing new American clients.
Unless there is some change, other offshore banks may soon follow suit…
Yankees Go Home: The Return of Swiss Private Banks
In my opinion, Swiss bankers have concluded that they don't need or
want Americans any more, with all that costly and legally dangerous
U.S. government red tape.
…
SEC Extends U.S. Law Offshore
But there's another cause of this Swiss-American banking mess and it comes
from the U.S. SEC, that wonderful bureaucratic agency that wouldn't
investigate Bernie Madoff even when his fraud was
explained to them in detail.
The SEC accused UBS with helping its U.S. clients to evade taxes. But it also
charged that the bank's actions that had occurred within Switzerland
amounted to the bank acting as unregistered investment advisers and
broker-dealers in violation of the U.S. Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and
SEC rules.
Using this novel extraterritorial approach, the SEC thus has extended
its jurisdiction to include any person anywhere in the world who dares to advise
Americans about investing before registering with the SEC.
In settlement, UBS paid $200 million to the U.S. and permanently was barred
from acting as investment advisors or broker-dealers for American clients in
Switzerland.
Up until now offshore banks and investment advisors could avoid SEC
registration by having absolutely no contact with and never soliciting
potential U.S. clients. Because of this previous SEC interpretation of
registration rules, careful offshore banks and financial advisors would not
even respond to inquiries from a U.S. postal or email address.
The UBS case seems to mean that Swiss or other offshore banks now must
register with the SEC, an onerous and costly process, in order
to legally provide advice to American customers with offshore investment or
bank accounts.
"My bank doesn't want to do that, so we wouldn't accept an investment
account for a U.S. person," said Pierre Mirabaud,
chairman of Mirabaud & Cie.
Guilty Until Proven Innocent (As Long as it Gets the Bill Paid)
How can these astonishing developments be allowed to occur in a modern
banking and financial world system linked by globalism?
Ravenous for tax dollars to finance President Obama's costly remaking
of America, it appears the IRS has orders to adopt as its official
policy the kind of radicalism expressed by Jack Blum, (right) a paid IRS
"consultanton tax evasion," who told The
New York Times, "There is no legitimate reason for an American
citizen to have an offshore account [huh, even if they live abroad. Is this
idiot actually suggesting that Americans keep their bank accounts in the US
rather than the country they live?]…When you go offshore, you are doing
so to evade rules, regulations, laws or taxes."
Indeed, I personally heard a top U.S. Justice Department official make a
similar statement that traditional internal DOJ policy assumes that any
American engaged in offshore financial activity is probably doing
something illegal.
So much for presumed innocence until proven guilty!
Over the years the IRS repeatedly has tried to scare all Americans with
deceptive publicity campaigns that insinuate that banking and investing
offshore is somehow un-American and even illegal—when in fact it is
fully legal (a least for now), so long as offshore activities are reported
and taxes are paid on all worldwide income.
My reaction: The US
has begun to impose capital controls.
1) On March 18, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Hiring Incentives
to Restore Employment Act (the "Act") which introduces a new 30%
withholding tax on any "withholdable
payment" made to a foreign entity.
2) A "withholdable payment" generally
includes any payment of interest, dividends, rents, salaries, wages,
premiums, annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments, and other
fixed or determinable annual or periodical gains, profits, and income from
sources within the U.S. Basically, EVERYTHING is a "withholdable payment".
3) Non-US citizens who have the 30% tax is withheld on their "withholdable payments" will have to file a US tax
return to get their money back. (Hah, Non- US citizens around the world will
soon experience the joy of filling returns with the IRS)
4) The IMF newfound support for capitals suggest is further evidence of the
US's move towards capital controls.
Foreign Financial Institutions Face
Three Choices
Foreign banks, brokers, and investment funds, including private equity funds
and hedge funds have three choices:
1) Enter into the agreement with US Treasury and thereby agreeing to:
A) Obtain information necessary to determine which accounts are U.S.
accounts,
B) Comply with verification and due diligence procedures as required by
Treasury,
C) Annually report certain information regarding U.S. accounts (including
U.S. accountholder identification information and annual account activity
information),
D) Withhold on "passthru payments" made
to recalcitrant account holders, other FFIs that do not enter into an
agreement with Treasury, and FFIs that have elected to be withheld upon (as
further described below),
E) Comply with requests by Treasury for additional information with respect
to any U.S. accounts, and
F) Attempt to obtain a waiver from the U.S. accountholder if any foreign law
would otherwise prevent the reporting of required information or alternatively
close the account.
(this options involves giving up all privacy and incurring enormous
expenses.)
2) Not entering into an agreement with Treasury and suffering a 30%
withholding tax on all payments from US sources and foreign institutions which
do enter into an agreement with the treasury.
3) Close all US accounts and stop doing business with Americans. This is the
cheapest, easiest solution which most institutions will choose.
Americans Becoming International
Pariahs
1) IRS-SEC policies are wreaking havoc among Americans who live or bank
offshore.
2) Swiss or other offshore banks also now must register with the SEC, an
onerous and costly process, in order to legally provide advice to American
customers with offshore investment or bank accounts.
3) Justifiably upset Swiss and other offshore banks are closing existing
accounts of U.S. persons and refusing new American clients.
Conclusion: As I have said before, the danger to any investor in US
assets (debt, equities, derivatives, etc…) isn't a suddent
loss of value, but a loss of control.
In other words, the true threat facing investors in US assets is the prospect
(due to redemption restrictions, capital controls, etc…) of getting
trapped in those assets. Most investors will not realize they are already
trapped (because of redemption restrictions at money market and checking
accounts for example) until they try to move their capital out of the US. At
that point they will helplessly watch as the dollar's rapid devaluation wipes
out their wealth.
Eric de Carbonnel
Market Skeptics
Support Market Skeptics with
a donation : please click
here
|
|