Annex I Of The Fatca Agreement

In accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act, the parties to the agreement are the American Institute in Taiwan and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States. FATCA requires foreign financial institutions (FFIs) to report information to the IRS on the financial accounts of U.S. taxpayers or foreign companies in which U.S. taxpayers hold a significant stake. FFI are invited to either register directly with the IRS to comply with FATCA rules (and, if applicable, FFI agreements), or to comply with FATCA agreements (IGA), which are considered effective in their legal systems. Information on fatca rules and administrative guidelines for FATCA and information on taxpayer obligations can be found on the INTERNAL Revenue Service`s FATCA page. Under the sponsorship system, the aim is to allow IS to submit a single FATCA report under the GIIN of FI sponsorship, while each sponsored IF will be identified as part of each report. This “single report” approach does not exist in the common Reporting Standard (“CRS”). As a result, Dutch ISFs may be required to submit separate reports under IRS, while submitting a kind of “consolidated report” to other sponsored ISFs under the FI sponsorship GIIN. On the basis of the European DAC6 directive, consultants must notify certain tax regimes to the tax authorities. The Netherlands has now published a guideline…

Reports in the Netherlands under the sponsorship scheme have been met with several snags. In the first year, it was only possible to use a Dutch unit with a Dutch number as sponsorship. Foreign (non-Dutch) promotional companies have had difficulty submitting the various reports. Today, if an FI sponsor is not a Dutch IF, it must be advised by the DBA to take into account the fact that it does not have a Dutch national tax identification number called RSIN (and therefore cannot submit the FATCA report). It is not yet possible to predict whether the Dutch government will update the FATCA reporting obligations as part of the IGA update. The U.S. government has phased out Schedule II of these IGAs to add and retroactive the sponsorship regime. The intention has always been that the sponsorship system works in the manner described above for other Model 1 IGA jurisdictions. Under other Model 1 IGAs, the inclusion of the sponsorship plan in Schedule II (a) created an allocation that was to be used only for sponsored ISFs identifying U.S. reporting accounts, their own GIIN, and (b) that the local tax authority assumes responsibility for FATCA audits or other compliance controls, thereby removing the requirement for periodic certification of the IRS.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.