Automatic Exchange of Information [CbC Reporting]
Automatic Exchange of Information [CRS Regime]
Activated Exchange Relationship on CRS Information (Reciprocal and non-reciprocal)
AEOI at Country (Region) Level
Exchange of Information Upon Request [FATCA Regime]
Comparing CRS with FATCA [Read]
Automatic exchange of information [AEOI]
In 2014, the OECD published the common reporting standard on automatic exchange of financial account information (AEOI). Jurisdictions that have publicly committed to implementing the AEOI standard on a timeline will first exchange tax information in 2017 or 2018.
Listed below are the summaries of the intended timelines for the automatic exchanges of tax information in compliance with the Common Reporting Standard. See latest update on AEOI : Status of commitment {Read}.
JURISDICTIONS UNDERTAKING FIRST EXCHANGES IN 2017
Anguilla, Argentina, Barbados, Belgium, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Bulgaria, Cayman Islands, Colombia, Croatia, Curaçao, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Estonia, Faroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Gibraltar, Greece, Greenland, Guernsey, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Isle of Man, Italy, Jersey, Korea, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Montserrat, Netherlands, Niue, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Seychelles, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands, United Kingdom
JURISDICTIONS UNDERTAKING FIRST EXCHANGES IN 2018
Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Australia, Austria, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Belize, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, China (People’s Republic of), Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Ghana, Grenada, Hong Kong (China), Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Marshall Islands, Macao (China), Malaysia, Monaco, Nauru, New Zealand, Panama, Qatar, Russia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sint Maarten, Switzerland, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Vanuatu
Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters
The Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters (the "Convention") is a piece of public international law, which is open to signature by countries for participation in cooperation in tax matters across the globe.
The Convention is also an institutional instrument or arrangement, under which a co-ordinating body, composed of representatives of the competent authorities of the Parties, shall monitor the implementation of the Convention. The Convention also provides for 5 depositaries to which countries that have completed their respective internal procedures, can lodge the instrument of ratification, acceptance, or approval.
One of the depositaries is the Secretary General of the OECD situated in Paris, France. A depositary shall notify the Parties to the Convention of the following: -
The Convention, by virtue of its Article 6, requires the Competent Authorities of the Parties to the Convention to mutually agree on the scope of the automatic exchange of information (AEOI) and the procedure to be complied with.
Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement [MCAA]
CRS MCAA and CbC MCAA
The Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement on the Exchange of CbC Reports (the "CbC MCAA") for the automatic exchange of Country-by-Country Reports, and the Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement on Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information (the "CRS MCAA") for the automatic exchange of financial account information pursuant to the Common Reporting Standard (CRS), have been developed under Article 6 of the Convention.
Bilateral Exchange Agreement - Competent Authority Agreements (CRS CAA's)
A competent authority agreement (CAA) is a bilateral agreement. It enables the implementation of the exchange of information upon request (EOIR) or automatic exchange of information (AEOI) based on existing legal instruments. The following legal instruments provide the legal base for country governments specifically to implement the AEOI pursuant to the CRS.
(i) Article 6 of the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters (the "Convention"),
(ii) a bilateral tax information exchange agreement (TIEA),
(iii) a bilateral double tax agreement (DTA) under Article 26 of the OECD Model Tax Convention (applicable to AEOI and EOIR).
A competent authority agreement, bilateral or multilateral, plays a role in translating the commitment under the Convention into action, bridging the gap between commitment and implementation.
The Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information in Tax Matters
Activated Exchange Relationship on CRS information
The OECD portal also contains information on bilateral Competent Authority Agreements that jurisdictions have concluded, to the extent communicated to the OECD Secretariat. In respect of non-reciprocal exchange relationship, the non-reciprocal jurisdiction will be shown on the "from" column only, with the "to" column left blank. [read]
AEOI at Selected Country (Region) Level
** Hong Kong's position relating to the exchange of information
(1) Hong Kong has the power to enter CAA under the CDTA or TIEA concluded with other jurisdictions under S49 of the Inland Revenue Ordinance, pursuant to Article 151 of the Basic Law of the HKSAR.
(2) The Multilateral Convention is open to sovereign states only. At the time of China's joining the Convention, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (and Macau Special Administrative Region) opted out of the Convention after consultation between Hong Kong government and the Central Government of China, as provided under Article 153 of the Basic Law of Hong Kong. Therefore, Hong Kong is not a party to the Multilateral Convention. See the decision by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress {Read}.
(3) Hong Kong is falling behind meeting the standards for transparency and the timely implementation of the AEOI and BEPS initiative, as imposed by the OECE and the EU respectively. In order not to get included under the list of "non-cooperative" tax jurisdiction, Hong Kong has changed its stance and sought to join the Multilateral Convention. Thus it requested the Central People Government, and the CPG has agreed in principle, to extend the application of the Multilateral Convention to Hong Kong.
(4) In this regard, Hong Kong has amended section 49 of the Hong Kong Inland Revenue Ordinance to pave the way for further participation in international tax cooperation. [read]
(5) Eventually, in May 2018, China extended the territorial scope of the Convention to the Hong Kong and Macau Special Administrative Regions pursuant to Article 29 of the Convention. As such, the Convention will enter into force for both Hong Kong and Macau on 1st Sept 2018.
## The State Administration of Taxation in China has been late in publicly release the list of reportable jurisdiction. Instead of waiting for such information from the Chinese authority, one can access the OECD Automatic Exchange Portal, which provides the activated exchange relation between China and other jurisdictions under MCAA.
Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes
The OECD Global Forum is an international tax body. It operates under a multilateral framework, within which work in the area transparency and exchange of information has been carried out by over 130 jurisdictions, which participate in the work of Global Forum on equal footing, irrespective of whether the individual member is a developed or developing country.
The membership of the Global Forum : G8, G20, OECD countries and other non-OECD countries. But there are overlappings of members among those bodies. Some countries like Canada, Japan and the UK are members of G8, G20 and OECD. [read]
Objectives
Global Forum has been charged with in-depth monitoring and peer review on member states, in respect of the implementation of the standards of transparency and exchange of information for tax purposes.
Peer review and ratings
Peer review and rating on each of the individual member states (countries) are the main activities for the exchange of information on request (EOIR). Peer reviews on exchange of information on request (EOIR) are generally conducted via a two-stage process, involving a Phase 1 review, which assesses the legal and regulatory framework for transparency and the exchange of information for tax purposes, and a Phase 2 review, which assess the implementation of the standard in practice.
The result of peer review for a country (jurisdiction) is a report adopted by the Global Forum, which includes recommendations for improvement (where relevant) and ratings on effectiveness, which may range from having a compliant, largely compliant, partially compliant or non-compliant status.
The first round of peer review on exchange of information on request (EOIR) has been completed in 2015. The Global Forum has published 215 peer review reports on a country-by-country basis since 2010.
The second round of peer review on EOIR will commence in 2016 and is expected to have completed in 2020.
All the reviews under the second round will be carried out against the new terms of reference as a combined process assessing both the legal framework and practical implementation. The terms of reference of the 2016 EOIR include a new requirement that beneficial ownership information be available and the EOIR exchanges be assessed for the quality as well as addressing the issue of group requests.
See the Schedule of Review: {Schedule}
Global Forum and Reports
Automatic Exchange of Information (FATCA Regime)
|
Preexisting Individual Accounts |
|
Preexisting Entity Accounts |
|
|
IIA |
|
|
|
|
IVB |
|
|
IIC |
|
|
|
|
IVD |
|
|
IIE |
|
IVD2 |
|
IIF |
|
|
|
New Individual Accounts |
|
New Entity Accounts |
|
|
|
VA |
|
|
IIIB |
|
VB |
Q: What are the regimes for Automatic Exchange of Information (AEOI)?
A: The AEOI has two regimes. One is the FATCA and the other is CRS. The U.S. is a non-participating jurisdiction under the CRS regime.
Q: What is the main difference between FATCA and CRS?
A1: FATCA agreements are bilateral agreements whether it is Model 1-IGA or Model 2-IGA. One example is the agreement between HKSAR government and the US government for Cooperation to Facilitate the Implementation of FATCA. In contrast, the agreement under the CRS framework is a multilateral agreement, in respect of which more than two governments are the parties to the multilateral competent authority agreement (the MCAA CRS), Or bilateral, in respect of which two governments enters into a bilateral competent authority agreement (the Bilateral CRS).
A2: Foreign financial institutions (FFI's) may have an obligation to withholding tax on certain U.S. source income under FATCA, but this obligation is waived under an FFI Agreement between the individual Model-2 FFI with the U.S. governmental autority. There is no withholding tax obligation under the CRS framework.
A3: Under Model 2-IGA, the reporting FFI's are required to obtain consent from the account-holder for EOI purposes under FATCA, while the reporting FI's need not obtain such consent for EOI purposes under the CRS framework.
A4: In respect of due diligence requirement, the reporting foreign FI under the FATCA Model i-IGA or Model II-IGA are not required to review, identify and report the individual account that is a depositary account with a balance or value not exceeding USD50,000, or an account that is a cash value insurance contract (or an annuity contract) not exceeding the USD250,000 threshold. For due diligence requirement under CRS, there is no such waiver.
Q: What is the difference between model 1-IGA and model 2-IGA?
A: See below.
The FFI under model 1-IGA is required to perform due diligence procedure to review financial accounts, to identify U.S. accounts (reportable accounts under CRS) and reporting the information to the tax authority in the jurisdiction in which it is resident. Then the tax authority will forward the reported information to the U.S, Internal Revenue Service (the IRS).
Model 1-IGA has two variants: reciprocal and non-reciprocal. Irrespective of whether it is a reciprocal IGA or not, the tax authority in the jurisdiction of which the FFI is a resident (or foreign FFI branch located in the jurisdiction) will be collecting US data and automatically disclose the same to the IRS. But the IRS has not obligation to reciprocate under the non-reciprocal IGA.
The FFI under model 2-IGA is required to report the same information to the IRS directly, without the tax authority in its jurisdiction acting in between. Therefore, one can say that Model 2-IGA must be a non-reciprical Intergovernmental agreement.
Q: Why some jurisdictions sign non-reciprocal IGA's?
A: Two reasons. Some jurisdictions do not care about to receive information from the USA about there residents and have therefore entered into "non-reciprocal" IGA's. These countries/jurisictions include the ones that either do not impose any income tax (i.e. The British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands), or only adopt a territorial income tax system (i.e. Hong Kong and Macau).
China Tax & Investment Consultants Ltd Copyright 2000-2024. All rights reserved. Notice of Copyright and Disclaimer