fatca & exchange of information

www.istructuring.com

FATCA & Exchange of Information

January 27 12:00 – 12:45 GMT

Ross Belhomme, Saffery ChampnessPeter Grant, KPMG


CLIENT PFFIFORM 8966

FORM 8938

FBAR

CROSS CHECK AND EXCEPTION REPORT

• Request for information?• Request for information?


TAX COLLECTION INSTITUTION

ENTERS GLOBAL TAX IDENTIFICATION NUMBER

“GY234320FZDF”


• ACCOUNT DETAILS

• DETAILS OF INCOME

• DETAILS OF GAINS

• ACCESSIBLE BY COUNTRY

GERMANY BASED AGENT

GERMAN STEUERAMT

FRANCE FISCALE

FRANCE BASED AGENT

SPANISH

BASED AGENT

SPANISH

FISCALE

HMRCUK BASED AGENT

US BASED AGENT IRS


GERMANY BASED AGENT

FRANCE BASED AGENT

UK BASED AGENT


ROSS BELHOMMEEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

SAFFERY CHAMPNESS (SUISSE) SA7 AVENUE PICTET-DE-ROCHEMONT, GENEVA SWITZERLAND

[email protected]

https://ch.linkedin.com/pub/ross-belhomme

Common Reporting Standard

(CRS)

27 January 2015

Peter Grant: Operational Taxes Director

[email protected]

8© 2015 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liability partnership, is a subsidiary of KPMG Europe LLP and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative, a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

Agenda

1.Background of CRS

2.Interaction between FATCA and CRS – Key Differences

3.Key Dates for CRS Implementation

Background of CRS


Background of CRS

QI EUSDUS

FATCA

IGA

FATCA

DAC, EUSD,

EU Project

OECD

CRS

Begin of an automatic

exchange of

information in favour

of the US limited to

non-US taxpayers

earning US sourced

income

Mutual exchange of

information for the

domestic taxation of

foreign interest

income and revenues

applied by EU

member states (with

the exception of

Austria and

Luxembourg) and

certain non-EU

member states

A comprehensive

automatic exchange

of tax information

relating to US

taxpayers earning

non-US sourced

income

Bilateral

intergovernmental

agreements

concerning the

implementation of

FATCA

Proposed

amendments to the

EU Savings Directive,

the Directive on

Administrative

Cooperation, and EU

project in order to

achieve a

comprehensive

reporting standard

within the EU

analogue to FATCA

G8 / G20 mandates

the OECD to develop

a global reporting

standard to achieve a

comprehensive and

multilateral automatic

exchange of

information

2001 2005 2010 2012 2013 2013-2014


Development of CRS

G-20 Calls on OECD to Develop Multilateral Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information

in September 2013

OECD Develops CRS Together with G-20 Countries

■ OECD works with the Business and Industry Advisory Committee via a special Business Advisory Group

■ February 2014: OECD releases and G-20 approves CRS

■ July 2014: OECD issues Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Information in Tax Matters:

– Model Competent Authority Agreement (CAA)

– Common Reporting Standard (CRS)

– CRS Commentary

■ September 2014: G-20 calls on all financial centers to commit by October 2014 to adopt the CRS and automatic

exchange of information

■ October 2014: 51 jurisdictions, 39 of which were represented at ministerial level, signed a multilateral competent

authority agreement to automatically exchange information based on Article 6 of the Multilateral Convention.

Background of CRS


OECD Report to the G8, June 2013

■ Scope of financial institutions

required to report: banks, brokers,

collective investment vehicles,

insurance companies.

■ Scope of financial information

reported investment income covered:

interest, dividends, similar types of

income. Requiring information about

account balances.

■ Scope of accountholders subject

to reporting subject to reporting:

individuals and entities.

■ Robust due diligence procedures: identify reportable accounts, obtain the

accountholder identifying information

that is required to be reported for such

accounts.

■ Legal ability to collect the

information required for due

diligence.

■ Legal basis for reporting

obligation will typically be included

in domestic tax legislation.

■ Legal basis upon which exchange

of information could take place:

– Bilateral treaties

– Nordic Convention

– EU directives

■ Adequate level of data protection

– OECD Guide “Keeping it Safe”

■ Technical reporting formats must

be standardised for quick and

efficient processing in a cost

efficient manner.

■ Methods of transmission and

encryption of data must be in

place. This can be based on

existing methods, e.g. “point-to-

point” portal, CCN Network.

A common schema is being

developed for the standardised model

as well as recommendations on

transmission and encryption.

Common agreement on the

scope

Legal and operational

basis

Common or comparable

technical solutions

Basis for a standardised multilateral automatic exchange model on financial information

Main success factors for effective automatic exchange of financial information

Background of CRS


Background of CRS

• A unified ‘big-bang’ of 50+ countries is expected to be followed by the addition of 40+

countries

• CRS impacts the information gathered from every investor and account holder

• Customer information for non-resident investors will be reported locally and then shared

with relevant tax authorities around the world

• Account holder information will be exposed to increased data security risks

• Financial institutions are likely to face increased pressure to demonstrate compliance

• Implementation requires a strategic and flexible approach

• CRS will be implemented across the European Union by way of Directive under the

Directive on Administrative Cooperation (commonly known as “DACII”)


Background of CRS

Albania

Andorra

Anguilla

Antigua and Barbuda

Argentina

Aruba

Austria

The Bahamas

Barbados

Belgium

Belize

Bermuda

Brazil

British Virgin Islands

Brunei Darussalam

Canada

Cayman Islands

Chile

China

Colombia

Costa Rica

Croatia

Curacao

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Denmark

Dominica

Estonia

Faroe Islands

Finland

France

Germany

Gibraltar

Greece

Granada

Guernsey

Hong Kong

Hungary

Iceland

India

Indonesia

Ireland

Isle of Man

Israel

Italy

Japan

Jersey

Korea

Latvia

Liechtenstein

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Macao

Marshall Islands

Mauritius

Mexico

Montserrat

Netherlands

New Zealand

Niue

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Qatar

Romania

Russia

Saint Kitts and Nevis

Saint Lucia

Saint Vincent and the

Grenadines

Samoa

San Marino

Saudi Arabia

Seychelles

Singapore

Sint Maarten

Slovak Republic

Slovakia

Slovenia

South Africa

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Trinidad & Tobago

Turkey

Turks & Caicos

United Kingdom

United Arab Emirates

Uruguay

Jurisdictions Committed to CRS


CRS Popular Myths

CRS

Myths

This is a tax projectNot true. Despite the fact that taxlegislation is driving the need for change,the real impact will be seen in eachbusiness lines from Fund Administration toCustody and in areas such as accountopening, customer documentation,operations and technology. Tax specialistsshould be advisors to the project, but not thedriving force.

This doesn’t apply to usCRS will apply to any entity in aParticipating Jurisdiction that is classified asa Reporting Financial Institution. There areno deemed-compliant statuses under theCRS.

Readiness and implementation will be easyWe have heard the comment that CRS isFATCA on steroids and that it will bereasonably easy to get compliant. The truthis that CRS is far more wide-reaching thanFATCA and will require a cohesive, multi-disciplinary effort to ensure readiness.

Since the rules aren’t final, we can wait to address CRS

While it is true that the rules aren’t final,KPMG understands the time devoted todeveloping business requirements, ITbuilds, and testing can take 18 months to 2years. It is critical to work now with thelimited tax guidance available to make apreliminary assessment of its ability tocomply with the CRS framework thatcurrently exists.

Background of CRS

Interaction

between FATCA

and CRS and the

Most Important

Key Differences


Country A

Bank

Country A

US

US Account

Holder

Country B

Bank

US Account

Holder

Country B

Model 1 IGA reporting

Model 1 IGA exchanges

Leveraging on Model 1 IGA implementation to

develop standardised automatic exchange in

a multilateral context

Account

HolderUS Bank

1

7

Country B

Account

Holder

Country A

Account

Holder

Interaction between FATCA and CRS and the Key Differences


Country A

Bank

Country A

Country B

Account

Holder

Bank

Country A

Account

Holder

Country B

Reporting of information based on

Common Reporting and Due Diligence

Standard (CRS) implemented via

domestic law

18

Automatic exchange of information

based on bilateral treaty, TIEA, or MAC,

& CAA

Reporting of information based on

Common Reporting and Due Diligence

Standard (CRS) implemented via

domestic law

Automatic exchange standard Basic approach - CRS + CAA = exchange standard


© 2015 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG

International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

Overview of Key Differences Between CRS and FATCA

19

Individuals

• Residence (not including citizenship)

• No thresholds

• Residence address test for pre-existing accounts building on EU Savings Directive

• Simplified indicia search

Entities

• Look-through for Reportable Entities that are Passive NFEs

• Look-through for investment entities in non-participating jurisdictions

Low risk FIs and products

• General exclusion for country specific low-risk reporting financial institutions and accounts

19

No Withholding


Model Competent Authority Agreement (“CAA”) and Model 1 IGA (“IGA”) – Structure

1. Model CAA and Common Reporting Standard – 7 Sections.

2. Annex – Common Standard on Reporting and Due Diligence for Financial Account Information

(“Common Reporting Standard”, “CRS”) – 9 Sections.

1. Agreement between the government of the US and the government of FATCA Partner – 10 Articles.

2. Annex I – Due diligence obligations for identifying and reporting on US Reportable Accounts and on

payments to certain Nonparticipating Financial Institutions.

3. Annex II – Entities treated as Exempt Beneficial Owners or Deemed-Compliant Foreign Financial

Institutions and accounts excluded from Financial Accounts.

Model CAA consists of

Model 1 IGA(a) consists of

Note: (a) Model 1 IGA updated on 4 November 2013.



CAA versus Model 1 IGADefinitions

Definitions

The Section includes limited definitions that are relevant for the exchange of information

between the jurisdictions. The remaining definitions are included in the CRS.

The definition of a Jurisdiction FI

under the CAA, similar to IGA, is

based on place of residence or

branch location. In IGA FATCA

Partner FI may also be identified

based on the place of organization.

The definition of a Jurisdiction Person

refers to the resident of the Jurisdiction,

pursuant to of the due diligence

procedures or an estate of a decedent

that was a resident in the Jurisdiction. A

Reportable Jurisdiction Person

definition focuses on the tax residency

under the law of a jurisdiction rather than

citizenship of the account holder.

Where the term is not otherwise

defined in the CAA, the meaning

under the law of the jurisdiction

applying the CAA should be used.

The CAA envisages consistency of

the meaning of the jurisdiction's law

with the meaning set forth in the CRS.

Section



CAA versus Model 1 IGAObligations to Exchange of Information and Time and Manner

■ The exchange of information is based on similar legal basis, the Income Tax Convention or the Convention on Mutual

Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters. IGA additionally refers to the Tax Information Exchange Agreement, whilst CAA

allows for the possibility of using other applicable legal Instrument.

■ The information required to be exchanged are similar to those provided in the Model 1 IGA. Furthermore, the CAA requires

additional information to be exchanged:

– Date of birth;

– Place of birth.

■ The Reporting FI does not have to report the balance or value of the account that has been closed during the year or the

reporting period. However, the FI has to report the closure of the account.

Section 3 differ from that in Article 3 of the IGA as laid out below:

■ CAA limits the exchange of information to the tax years where both jurisdictions have reporting, consistent with the CRS

legislation in effect;

■ Information is exchanged in a common reporting standard schema in Extensible Mark-up Language, while IGA requires

entering into additional agreement or arrangement to establish rules and procedures for the automatic exchange;

Exchange of Information with Respect to Reportable Accounts

Time and Manner of Exchange of Information

Section

Section



CAA versus Model 1 IGACompliance, Enforcement, Confidentiality, and Data Safeguards

The CAA is different from the Model 1 IGA, in that;

■ No distinction is made between minor and administrative errors and significant non-compliance;

■ A Financial Institution could not be treated as Nonparticipating Financial Institution under CAA;

■ Reliance of third-party service providers is included in Section II.D of the CRS.

■ The confidentiality and data safeguards rules are similar to the Model 1 IGA, whereby all information

exchanged will be subject to confidentiality rules and other safeguards, including the provisions limiting the

use of the information exchanged. Additionally, safeguards required under the domestic law may be specified

by the supplying Competent Authority;

■ IGA requires providing written notifications by Competent Authorities that appropriate safeguards and the

infrastructure for an effective exchange relationship are in place. There is a possibility of IGA termination on

30 September 2015 if written notifications are not provided. Such written notifications are not required under

CAA.

Collaboration on Compliance and Enforcement

Confidentiality and Data Safeguards

Section

Section



CAA versus Model 1 IGA

Consultations, Amendments, and Terms of Agreement

Terms of Agreement

■ This Section is similar to the Model 1 IGA (Article 10). Notifications are required that necessary laws are in

place (CAA) or necessary internal procedures are completed (IGA);

■ CAA allows for the suspension of the exchange of information in the event of significant non-compliance by

the other Competent Authority.

Article 4 – Application of FATCA to [FATCA Partner] FI,

Article 6 – Mutual Commitment to Continue to Enhance the

Effectiveness of Information Exchange and Transparency;

Article 7 – Consistency in the Application of FATCA to Partner

Jurisdiction; and

Article 9 – Annexes.

Consultations and Amendments

Similar to the Article 8 of the Model 1 IGA.

Section

Section

IGA Articles not included in CAA:



CRS versus Model 1 IGA

Due Diligence for Pre-Existing Individual Accounts

■ An exemption for Cash Value Insurance

Contracts or Annuity Contracts, provided

the FI is effectively prevented by law from

selling such Contracts to residents of a

Reportable Jurisdiction (IGA: to US

Residents).

■ Lower Value Accounts

(Balance or value ≤ $1,000,000):

– Electronic Record Search.

■ High Value Accounts

(Balance or value > $1,000,000):

– Electronic Record Search;

– Paper Record Search;

– Relationship Manager Inquiry for

Actual Knowledge.

■ The CRS does not provide for a de minimis carve outs included in IGA;

■ For Lower Value Accounts the CRS provides for a documented residence

address test as an alternative to the Electronic Record Search;

■ Variances in Indicia:

– Place of birth and Nationality are not included in the CRS, since reporting

is based on residence and not citizenship;

– Telephone Number, Standing Instructions, and an “in-care-of” or “hold-

mail” indicia slightly modified;

– Specific procedures for “hold mail” instructions or “in-care-of” address

indicia discovered in the electronic search;

■ The Documentary Evidence to cure the discovered indicia is not specified;

■ The CRS allows one calendar year for completion of the enhanced review of

accounts that are not initially High Value but become High Value accounts in

a subsequent year (Six months under IGA);

■ Enhanced Review procedures may be applied annually to undocumented

High Value accounts;

■ The CRS does not allow to rely on the previously obtained documentation as

a result of fulfilling obligations under other agreements, e.g., a qualified

intermediary agreement with the IRS. It is possible to rely on such

documentation under IGA.

Similarities Differences




New Individual Accounts

■ The CRS identification requirements are generally similar

to the IGA, including the requirements to:

– Obtain the Self-Certification; and

– Confirm the reasonableness of the Self-Certification

based on information obtained;

■ CRS include “reason to know” rules to test whether the

original Self-Certification is incorrect or unreliable.

■ The Self-Certification under the CRS requires providing

tax residence(s) of the account holder, while under IGA it

may be interpreted as confirmation whether the account

holder is a resident in the US for tax purposes;

■ The CRS does not provide for a de minimis carve outs

included in IGA;

■ The CRS requires that Self-Certification must include the

Account Holder’s Date of birth, in addition to including the

Account Holder’s TIN. IGA requires only the TIN.





Pre-Existing Entity Accounts

■ Carve out for an account with a balance or value ≤

250,000;

■ Similar information/documentation requirements for

determining the FATCA status of the account holder e.g.,

– A place of incorporation or organization, an address in

Reportable Jurisdiction;

– Self-Certification or information in FI’s possession or

that is publicly available;

– Reliance on information collected and maintained

pursuant to AML/KYC procedures.

■ Under CRS accounts that initially do not exceed $250,000

are subject to review when they exceed $250,00 at the

end of the calendar year. IGA requires exceeding the

balance of $1,000,000;

■ The CRS does not require determination whether an entity

account holder is a Nonparticipating Financial Institution.

As a result, payments to Nonparticipating Financial

Institutions are not required to be reported under the CRS.





New Entity Accounts

■ Similar identification requirements for determining the

FATCA status of the account holder, including the

requirement to:

– Obtain the Self-Certification; and

– Confirm the reasonableness of the Self-Certification

based on information obtained.

■ The CRS does not provide for the carve out for the credit

card accounts or revolving credit facilitates;

■ Under the CRS, the Reporting FI needs to determine

whether the account is held by one or more Reportable

Persons or Passive NFE with one or more Controlling

Persons that are Reportable Persons. There is no need to

determine any other status, e.g.: FATCA Partner FI,

Jurisdiction FI, a Participating FFI, a Deemed-Compliant

FFI, or an Exempt Beneficial Owner;

■ The CRS does not require determination whether the

entity is a Nonparticipating Financial Institution. As a

result, payments to Nonparticipating Financial Institutions

are not required to be reported under the CRS.

■ For entities that do not have a residence for tax purposes),

the address of the principal office of the Entity is used as a

proxy for purposes of determining its residence;

■ Limited use of the information in possession of the

Reporting FI or information that is publicly available – only

to determine whether the entity is an Active NFFE or

certain type of an Investment Entity. IGA allows to use

Global Intermediary Identification Number to determine

the status of a Financial Institution.





Defined Terms

■ The Participating FI test is based on the place of

residence or location of the branch in the Participating

Jurisdiction.

■ The Reporting FI is any Participating FI that is not Non-

Reporting FI.

■ The definition of an Investment Entity is similar to the

definition provided for in Article 1(j) of the IGA. The

“managed by“ definition in the CRS also includes an entity

the gross income of which is primarily attributable to

investing, reinvesting or trading in Financial Assets test.

■ The CRS includes definition of a Financial Asset, which is

not included in the IGA.

■ The terms are similar to the Annex II of the IGA, however

no distinction is made between Exempt Beneficial Owners

and other Non-Reporting FIs.

■ An open definition of the Non-Reporting FI allows

domestic law to treat similar, low-risk entities as Non-

Reporting FIs provided that it does not frustrate the

purposes of the CRS.

■ Certain Non-Reporting FIs from IGA Annex II are not

included (either because they are not appropriate or

irrelevant in a multilateral context) e.g.:

– Treaty-Qualified Retirement Fund;

– Investment Entities Wholly Owned by Exempt

Beneficial Owners;

– FIs with a Local Client Base;

– Local Banks;

– FIs with Only Low-Value Accounts;

– Sponsored Investment Entities and Controlled Foreign

Corporation;

– Sponsored, Closely Held Investment Vehicles;

– Investment Advisors and Investment Mangers.

A. Reporting FI B. Non-Reporting FI




Defined Terms (cont.)

■ Under the CRS the definition of a Financial Account includes

equity and debt interests in certain types of Financial

Institutions that are regularly traded on a stock exchange.

IGA excludes these type of interests from the definition of a

Financial Account.

■ The CRS provides a broader set of exclusions from the term

Cash Value and the term Cash Value Insurance Contract

does not include the $50,000 de minimis;

■ The definition of the Excluded Account is similar to the

content of Annex II of the Model 1 IGA. Additionally, the CRS

excludes:

– A Depository Account that resulted from the credit card or

other revolving credit facility overpayment; and

– An open definition that allows domestic law to treat similar,

low-risk accounts as Excluded Accounts provided that it

does not frustrate the purposes of the CRS.

■ The definition of a Reportable Person does not include

the US specific exclusions provided in the definition of

Specified US Person. Instead, it excludes the following:

■ Corporations regularly traded on established securities

markets and Related Entities of the corporations;

– Governmental Entities;

– International Organizations;

– Central banks; and

– Financial Institutions

■ The definition of Passive NFE is expanded to cover

Investment Entities managed by other FIs (e.g., funds)

that are located in non-participating jurisdictions. As a

result these Investment Entities will have to provide

information on the residency of their Controlling

Persons.

C. Financial Account D. Reportable Account

■ The CRS provides that the term ‘control’ in the definition of a Related Entity includes direct or indirect ownership of more

than 50% of vote and value whilst the IGA defines the term as more than 50% of vote or value.

■ Documentary Evidence do not include documents referenced in the attachment to a Qualified Intermediary agreement.

E. Miscellaneous

Interaction between FATCA and CRS



Defined Terms (cont.)

This Section contains a similar rule to IGA Article 5(4) Prevention of Avoidance. The CRS, however, includes additional rules

and administrative procedures that an implementing jurisdiction must have in place to ensure effective implementation of, and

compliance with, the reporting and due diligence procedures.

Effective Implementation


Key Dates for

Implementation of

CRS


2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

March 31, 2016

Withholding on recalcitrant

account holders not being

reported

May 31, 2016

Annual Form 8966 reporting

and includes aggregated

foreign reportable amounts

paid to NPFFIs

July 1, 2014

• New account due diligence/

identification begins

• Grandfathered Obligations:

Payments on certain

obligations outstanding on

7/1/14 are exempt from

FATCA withholding**

• FFI Agreement becomes

effective

• Reporting FIs with withholding

responsibility must withhold

on US source withholdable

payments made to NPFFIs

FATCA Time Line for Foreign Financial

Institutions (“FFIs”): Model 1 IGA

A

Spring 2014

April 25, 2014

Last date to register with IRS

to ensure inclusion on FFI

List (safe harbor)

June 1, 2014

Reporting FIs with

withholding responsibility

must withhold on US source

withholdable payments to

Related Entities not FATCA

compliant.

June 2, 2014

FFI List published by IRS

June 30, 2015

Deadline for FFIs to

complete remediation

on preexisting

high-value accounts*

January 1, 2017

• FATCA withholding begins

on certain gross proceeds

payments to noncompliant

accounts

• FATCA withholding begins

on foreign passthru

payment (or 6 months after

publication of regulations

defining term, whichever is

later)

• For qualified collective

investment vehicles, date

by which policies aim to

redeem or immobilize

Bearer Interests

December 31, 2014

Deadline for FFIs to

complete

remediation on

preexisting entity

accounts held by

Prima Facie FFIs

(begin withholding)*

J

G March 31, 2015

Withholding on

recalcitrant account

holders not being

reported

May 31, 2015

Form 8966 reporting

for 2014 on US

Reportable Accounts

N

July 12, 2013

Revised Model

IGAs and

accompanying

annexes

released

December 31, 2015

Final date for FFIs to

qualify for Limited

Branch & Limited FFI

Status

March 31, 2017

Withholding on

recalcitrant account

holders not being

reported

May 31, 2017

Annual Form 8966

reporting and includes

aggregated foreign

reportable amounts

paid to NPFFIs.

E

* These dates assume that the PFFI’s FFI agreement is approved by the IRS and effective on July 1, 2014

January 17, 2013

Final FATCA

regulations released

Summer/Fall

2013

IRS portal

anticipated to

open

C

December 31, 2016

Final Day of Transitional Rule

treating U.S. source FDAP payment

paid by non-intermediaries on

offshore obligations as excluded

from definition of “withholdable

payment”

M

L

** Payments treated as dividend equivalents, under section 871(m), may be treated as Grandfathered up to 6 months after the publication of regulation implementing 871(m)

Payments treated as foreign passthru payments may be treated as Grandfathered up to 6 months after the publication of implementing regulations

June 30, 2018

Deadline for

Responsible

Officer to file

certification for

First

Certification

Period

June 30, 2016

Deadline for FFIs to complete

remediation on preexisting

accounts, other than Prima Facie

FFIs and high-value accounts

(begin withholding)*

B

D

F

H

I

August 31, 2016

Due date for

Responsible Officer

due diligence

certifications (unless

previously submitted)*

K

P

O


Common Reporting Standard (CRS) Time Line for Early Adopters

Key Dates for Implementation of CRS

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

AF

January 1, 2016

CRS go-live date

Accounts opened on

or after this date will

be referred to as ‘new

accounts’

New account opening

procedures must be

in place to record tax

residence

JFebruary 13, 2014

OECD release the CRS

February 22, 2014

G20 endorsed global

standard for AEoI

(including the CRS)

December 31, 2016

Due diligence

procedures completed

for high-value pre-

existing individual

accounts

* Declaration can be accessed at http://www.oecd.org/mcm/MCM-2014-Declaration-Tax.pdf

April 2014

Early adoption

initiative first

launched

May 6, 2014

The new standard

declaration was

signed by more

than 40 countries*

C

December 31, 2017

Due diligence procedures

completed for low-value pre-existing

individual accounts

I

H

September 30, 2018

All information on

reportable accounts will

be available for exchange,

including the low-value

individual pre-existing

accounts and entity

accounts

B

D

E G

September 30, 2017

First exchange of

information for new

accounts and pre-

existing individual high-

value accounts

December 31, 2015

Accounts opened on

or before this date

will be referred to as

‘pre-existing

accounts’

Spring/Summer 2014

Various jurisdictions signed

the Joint Statement by Early

Adopter Group committing to

the implementation strategy

allowing for the first

automatic exchange of

information in 2017; these

jurisdictions will be referred

to as ‘early adopters’

http://www.oecd.org/mcm/MCM-2014-Declaration-Tax.pdf


FATCA Timeline - Model 1 IGA FIs and CRS (early adopters)

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

October, 2014

Last date to register with

the IRS to ensure

inclusion on initial FFI

List

September 30, 2017

Competent Authority must

provide required information to

the IRS for 2016

January 1, 2015

Deadline for Reporting Model I

IGA FI to provide upstream

withholding agent with GIIN

G

June 30, 2015

Complete due

diligence for

pre-existing

high value

individual

accounts

M

November 4, 2013

The latest revised

Model IGAs and

accompanying

Annexes released

September 30, 2015

Competent Authority

must provide required

information to the IRS

for 2014

August 19, 2013

IRS registration

portal openedA

K

September 30, 2018

Competent Authority


information to the IRS

for 2017

June 30, 2016

Complete due diligence for

pre-existing lower-value

accounts and pre-existing

entity accounts

B

D

F

H

September 30, 2016

Competent Authority


information for the IRS

for 2015

Reporting of foreign

reportable amounts to

NPFFIs begins

J

PJuly 1, 2014

Treat accounts opened

on or after this date as

new accounts

C

July – October

CRS HMRC Consultation

Request for comments from

Industry

E

January 1, 2016

CRS go-live date for

early adopter countries

I

December 31, 2016

Complete due diligence

for pre-existing high value

accounts N

September, 2017

CRS exchange of

information begins

L

O

December 31, 2017

Remediation of pre-

existing accounts must be

completed

CRS

Model 1 IGA

Key Dates for Implementation of CRS

The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to

address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we

endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no

guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that

it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such

information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough

examination of the particular situation.

© 2015 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liability partnership, is a subsidiary of KPMG

Europe LLP and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member

firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative, a Swiss entity. All rights

reserved.

The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered

trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.

In preparing this advice, we considered tax authorities that are subject to change,

retroactively, prospectively, or both, and any such changes could affect the conclusions

stated herein. This advice is based on the completeness and accuracy of any one or

more of the facts, assumptions, and client representations on which we relied, relating

to the matters to which this advice is addressed. Unless separately agreed in writing, we

will not update our advice for subsequent changes or modifications to the law,

regulations, or to the judicial and administrative interpretations thereof, nor to take into

account your correcting, updating, or providing new or additional facts or information

you supplied or any assumptions on which we relied in preparing our advice.

The advice or other information in this document was prepared for the sole benefit of

KPMG’s client and may not be relied upon by any other person or organization. KPMG

accepts no responsibility or liability in respect of this document to any person or

organization other than KPMG’s client.

fatca & exchange of information

Law

kpmg llp

subsidiary of kpmg europe

kpmg international cooperative

kpmg roy saunders

agent uk based agent

fatca exchange of information

swiss entity

eu analogue