1. Globalization of FATCA
21st November 2014
Presenter: James Plummer

2. Automatic exchange of information – direction of travel
FATF – Financial Action Task Force on money laundering
EU Savings Directive (EUSD)
Final withholding tax agreements
QI system and US FATCA
Tax Transparency
Double Taxation Conventions (DTC)/ Tax Information exchange Agreements (TIEA)
Breadth of national measures
OECD Common Reporting Standard (CRS)
UK FATCA

3. Background
OECD issues standard for global information exchange which has been widely endorsed
On 21 July 2014 the OECD issued the Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Information in Tax Matters.
The OECD on the rationale for automatic information exchange: As the world becomes increasingly globalised it is becoming easier for all taxpayers to make, hold and manage investments through financial institutions outside of their country of residence. Vast amounts of money are kept offshore and go untaxed to the extent that taxpayers fail to comply with tax obligations in their home jurisdiction. Offshore tax evasion is a serious problem for jurisdictions all over the world, OECD and non‐OECD, small and large, developing and developed. Countries have a shared interest in maintaining the integrity of their tax systems. Cooperation between tax administrations is critical in the fight against tax evasion and in protecting the integrity of tax systems. A key aspect of that cooperation is exchange of information.
The Standard is a global “FATCA-like” automatic information exchange regime aimed at preventing off-shore tax evasion and maintaining the integrity of tax systems.
The Standard includes the Model Competent Authority Agreement (CAA), the Common Reporting Standard (CRS) and accompanying Commentaries.
Over 98 jurisdictions have committed to swiftly implement the CRS. Of those, more than half are “early adopter” jurisdictions which have committed to begin exchange of information by September 2017.
In early adopter jurisdictions, new account opening procedures will need to be in place from 1 January 2016. . 3

4. Background Next steps for participating jurisdictions
Participating jurisdictions will be seeking to enter into CAAs to exchange information
It is expected that the first of these will be signed in the early Autumn of 2014
Jurisdictions will need to implement local law to bring the CRS into effect The CRS will need to be translated into domestic law, whereas the CAA can be executed within existing legal frameworks such as Article 6 of the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters or the equivalent of Article 26 in a bilateral tax treaty. Before entering into a reciprocal agreement to exchange information automatically with another country, it is essential that the receiving country has the legal framework and administrative capacity and processes in place to ensure the confidentiality of the information received and that such information is only used for the purposes specifiedin the instrument.
The EU the Council Directive amending Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation between EU member states is designed to extend the scope for mandatory information exchange between tax administrations. The Directive effectively implements CRS and is intended to ensure a common adoption approach across the EU. The DAC sets out a common basis for the exchange of information and will remove the need for member states to agree to Competent Authority Agreements with one another. There are differences between the DAC and CRS.
Some jurisdictions (e.g. Australia, UK) have started a consultation process
Next steps for financial institutions
Financial institutions now have a new global compliance standard to implement and adhere to by 1 January 2016
Financial Institutions should consider the impact of the CRS and identify any synergies with their existing US FATCA programme

5. The Common Reporting Standard
Blueprint for the automatic exchange of information issued by the OECD
The common reporting standard (CRS) covers:
Definitions;
Types of information to exchange;
The time and manner of exchange; and
Confidentiality of data and safeguards that must be respected
However, it also states that “Given that implementation will be based on domestic law, it is important to ensure consistency in application across jurisdictions to avoid creating unnecessary costs and complexity for financial institutions in particular those with operations in more than one jurisdiction”

6. OECD CRS: status of commitments
On 29 October 2014, a number of jurisdictions confirmed their intended implementation timelines of the new global standard:
India (EA)
Ireland* (EA)
Isle of Man* (EA)
Italy* (EA)
Jersey* (EA)
Korea* (EA)
Latvia* (EA)
Liechtenstein* (EA)
Lithuania* (EA)
Anguilla* (EA)
Argentina* (EA)
Barbados (EA)
Belgium* (EA)
Bermuda* (EA)
BVI* (EA)
Bulgaria (EA)
Cayman Islands* (EA)
Chile
Colombia* (EA)
Croatia* (EA)
Curacao* (EA)
Cyprus* (EA)
Czech Republic* (EA)
Denmark* (EA)
Dominica
Estonia* (EA)
Faroe Islands* (EA)
Finland* (EA)
France* (EA)
Germany* (EA)
Gibraltar* (EA)
Greece* (EA)
Greenland (EA)
Guernsey* (EA)
Hungary* (EA)
Iceland* (EA)
Luxembourg* (EA)
Malta* (EA)
Mauritius* (EA)
Mexico* (EA)
Montserrat* (EA)
Netherlands* (EA)
Niue
Norway* (EA)
Poland* (EA)
Portugal* (EA)
Romania* (EA)
San Marino*
Seychelles (EA)
Slovakia* (EA)
Slovenia* (EA)
South Africa* (EA)
Spain* (EA)
Sweden* (EA)
Jurisdictions undertaking first exchanges by 2017
Trinidad & Tobago
Turks & Caicos* (EA)
United Kingdom* (EA)
Uruguay
Jurisdictions undertaking first exchanges by 2018
Albania*
Andorra
Antigua & Barbuda
Aruba*
Australia
Austria*
The Bahamas
Belize
Brazil
Brunei
Canada
China
Costa Rica
Grenada
Hong Kong
Indonesia
Israel
Japan
Marshall Islands
Macau
Malaysia
Monaco
New Zealand
Qatar
Russia
Saint Kitts & Nevis
Samoa (US)
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent &
the Grenadines
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Sint Maarten
Switzerland (M1
intended)
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
Key
EA – “Early Adopter Group” – see below for specific implementation timeline
* - Signatory to the Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement
FATCA IGA classification
Green – Jurisdictions entered into an IGA model 1 (including in substance)
Blue – Jurisdictions entered into IGA model 2 (including in substance)
Grey – Jurisdictions under FATCA with no IGA
Key dates for “early adopters”
1 January 2016
New account opening procedures to record tax residence to be in place from 1 January 2016
31 December 2016
Due diligence for identifying high-value pre-existing individual accounts to be completed
March 2017
First CRS reporting by financial institutions
September 2017
Exchange of information between Competent Authorities commences
31 December 2017
Due Diligence for identifying low-value pre-existing individual account and entity accounts to be completed

7. The impact of differences in CRS to IGA Model 1
15 April 2017
The impact of differences in CRS to IGA Model 1
Total number of differences
185
Significant 41
22%
Medium 81
44%
Less significant 63
34%

8. CRS: Similarities and differences to FATCA CRS vs. FATCA
De minimis limits
$50,000/$250,000
No de minimis (with the exception of pre-existing
entities with a value lower than $250,000)
Indicia
Focused on US citizenship
Focused on tax residency
Due diligence
Separate due diligence for pre-existing
and new accounts, and for individuals
and entities.
Significantly different processes between
FFI Agreement and Model 1 IGA
Due diligence modelled on IGA, but with a
number of key differences
Who is an FI?
Most financial institutions unless
specifically exempted as being lower risk
FATCA exemption removed per CRS thus
include smaller local entities excluded under
FATCA => Flexibility for local guidance to define specific exemption for low risk entities
Account scope
Most banking products unless low risk,
some insurance, most asset
management
Banking and Asset Mgmt. broadly similar,
though regularly traded exemption removed.
Many jurisdictions will have no back book
exemption for Insurance
Reporting
Primarily to US (some US reporting
obligations to non-US).
Account balances from 2014, with
income and sale proceeds phased in
Many-to-many, via local authority.
Account balances, income and sale proceeds
from day one

9. CRS: What is required?
CRS shares a number of similarities with FATCA, allowing, to a large extent, leverage of existing FATCA capabilities to support delivery.
The scale of change required will depend on the implementation approach adopted for FATCA
Significant redesign required
Process changes and new information requirements
Minor or no redesign effort
Gap to:
Model 1 FATCA IGA
Overall client due diligence
Possible need for dual FATCA and CRS classifications of both
(i) Reportable clients; and
(ii) Reportable accounts
Pre-existing individual identification
Additional indicia checks required but only for high value accounts, or accounts where no current residence address held.
De minimis limits removed
New individual identification
Current self certification must be amended to cover all countries, rather than a ‘not US’ declaration
Pre-existing entity identification
Minor changes to entity types – documentation standards and workflow largely preserved.
New entity identification
A number of changes needed, including a self-certification on residency for all new entity accounts
Reporting
Reporting to local authorities as under FATCA in a ‘many to many’ manner
No phased implementation, as seen under FATCA
Multiple reporting formats issued by IRS, OECD and HMRC. Schemas broadly similar, but some differences
Withholding
No withholding requirement under CRS
Compliance
As with Model 1 FATCA, compliance is under local law

10. High-level gap analysis between FATCA IGA and OECD CRS
Area
Sub Area
Key differences
Impact
General
Timeline
Potentially staggered approach for CRS implementation as and when jurisdictions sign Competent Authority Agreements (CAA)
Complexity of implementation i.e. local v hub & spoke model
Reportable Jurisdictions
Increased scope of implementation with CRS currently supported by 67 jurisdictions
Legislative interpretation required in numerous locations
Specified/ Reportable Persons
Under the CRS, Reportable Person covers an increased scope of Individuals and Entities to be classified.
For the CRS, Financial Institutions in Non- Participating Jurisdictions will be deemed Passive Non-Financial Entities and the Controlling Person(s) will be required to be identified
Larger volumes of clients to classify and report on
May no longer rely on tactical approach
Non-compliant Financial Institutions (FIs)
Withholding tax deterrent not applied to FIs located in non-participating jurisdictions.
See Withholding section for further information
No withholding, but local enforcement powers
IGA/ Agreements
Potential for multi-lateral CRS Competent Authority Agreements
No direct reporting from FIs to other Competent Authorities under the CRS
Only one report required, but schema fields require analysis and may vary between locations

11. High-level gap analysis between FATCA IGA and OECD CRS
Area
Sub Area
Key differences
Impact
Financial Institutions (FI)
Reporting Financial Institutions
Relevant Holding Companies and Treasury Companies are not deemed Reporting FIs under the CRS
Need to revisit entity classification
Non-reporting Financial Institutions
The definition of a Non-reporting FI is more limited under CRS
FIs with a local client base, low value accounts and non-profit organisations are not automatically exempt under the CRS
Deemed Compliant FIs are not replicated in the CRS although CRS allows low risk entities to be defined as exempt under local jurisdiction
FIs will require analysis for differences in classification between FATCA and the CRS
Area
Sub Area
Key differences
Impact
Accounts
Financial Accounts
Product scope is broadly consistent (depository, custodial etc. )
Product analysis to be revisited, but will be largely similar
Excluded Accounts
The definition of an exempt product under CRS is narrower than under FATCA . eg. Certain low risk products are not exempt under CRS
Some products excluded under FATCA will be reportable under CRS
Industry variation
Insurance: Back book exemption
Asset Management: Regularly traded exemption
Wider scope than FATCA

12. High-level gap analysis between FATCA IGA and OECD CRS
Area
Sub Area
Key differences
Impact
Due Diligence- Individuals
Individuals – Pre-existing Accounts
All pre-existing individual accounts are within scope under the CRS
Under CRS you can rely on residence address to determine tax residency, no need to undertake indicia search
Individuals – New Accounts
All New Individual Accounts are within scope under the CRS
Need to make amendments to all accounts onboarding
Self-certification - Individuals
Citizenship not required in CRS self-certification
Require tax residency for all new accounts
Indicia search – Individuals
CRS could dramatically reduce the number of pre-existing individuals that need to be subject to full indicia review.
But note: continued need for enhanced review
Due Diligence- Entities
Entities – Pre-Existing Accounts
Under the CRS accounts exceeding $250,000 must be subjected to due diligence.
There is no upper threshold in CRS
Classifications differ to FATCA.
Some redesign likely to be required
Entities – New Accounts
No difference
Cannot rely on W-series forms. Significant redesign effort may be required
Self-certification - Entities
Self-certification always required to identify tax residency for new entities for the CRS
Required to collect self certification on residency
Indicia search - Entities
No set indicia search published in CRS however information maintained for regulatory or customer relationship purposes may be relied upon
End result is expected to be similar to FATCA

13. High-level gap analysis between FATCA IGA and OECD CRS
Area
Sub Area
Key differences
Impact
Reporting & Withholding
Reporting
Broadly similar, however, a comparative analysis of the IRS FATCA and OECD schema illustrates deviations in data elements between the two schemas, e.g. one third only appear in one of the schemas.
Volumes of reportable data and accounts will vastly increase
Unlikely to be able to rely on tactical reporting solution
Detailed analysis of the schemas required
Multiple data sources required to inform reporting engine
Withholding
No withholding under CRS.
Implementing jurisdictions are expected to place local effective enforcement provisions to address non-compliance
No requirement to build withholding capability

14. Gap analysis: FATCA and CRS
No group concept and no deemed-compliant FI under CRS
No withholding/penal withholding under CRS
No registration duties under CRS
No phased implementation for CRS; multiple reporting possible
No de minimis rules under CRS, search for indicia of residency
CRS based on AML/KYC information, FATCA in addition on US documents
FATCA allows group compliance, CRS not

15. Immediate next steps regarding the OECD CRS1
Establish CRS program governance
Determine whether or not OECD/CRS is managed separately from FATCA program
Identify program sponsor and steering committee
Establish change management protocols and rapidly build stakeholder awareness
Build an internal communications strategy including Board involvement 2
Assess overall impact of CRS
Map early adopter countries to group footprint
Understand CRS requirements, local privacy laws and agreements between jurisdictions
Determine impact of CRS to lines of business
Perform comparison of CRS requirements to existing FATCA program, identifying synergies where appropriate 3
Define strategy and impact to current FATCA program
Determine and document key assumptions and enterprise policy decisions
Local vs. central communication and decision making
Resource availability 4
Plan CRS compliance efforts
Establish workstreams
Prioritize activities and secure resources
Define milestones and build work plans 5
Determine strategic FATCA and CRS reporting platform
Identify reporting solution strategy and approach
Central vs.de-centralized reporting implementation models
Identify solution alternatives