2 1.3
AVOIDING CRS & FATCA REPORTING [ PETER COTORCEANU ]
A trust with, say, a US trust company as trustee, would be out of scope for GATCA. The same would be true of a trust with a US-resident individual as a trustee. Making such a trust not a US person, and therefore not subject to US tax on anything other than US-source income, is relatively easy. To be a US person, a trust must meet both the so-called ‘court’ and ‘control’ tests. The simplest of these tests to fail is the ‘control’ test: just give one non-US person control over one ‘substantial decision’ of a trust and – Hey Presto! – the trust is a non-US trust. For example, the control test will be flunked if a non-US-resident person (e.g. a protector) is given the power to make any one or more of the following decisions (this list is not exhaustive):
l Whether a receipt is allocable to income or principal
l Whether to terminate the trust l Whether to compromise, arbitrate, or abandon claims of the trust
l Whether to sue on behalf of the trust or to defend suits against the trust
l Whether to remove, add, or replace a trustee. FROM THE LONDON CONFERENCE, JUNE 2016
032
The ITPA Green Book 2017
www.itpa.org
It is playing a part in the US Presidential campaign.
HOW SHOULD MULTI-NATIONALS BE TAXED? [ DAVID GOLDBERG ]
.1
Nearly everyone, it seems, is angry about something: an awful lot of people are angry about the amount of tax Google has, supposedly, not paid in the United Kingdom. Some people are angry because companies with losses are not paying tax and others are angry because foreigners own homes here or because of what the banks did or didn’t do eight years ago. The anger is not limited to the UK: it has, plague-like, spread throughout theWest, where it has become an instrument of government and intergovernmental policy-making. It is playing a part in the US Presidential campaign, and it has even affected parts of the East. But, at least so far as tax is concerned, it seems to have affected us here, in the UK, rather more than in other
parts of the world. There is, here, a widespread general belief that multinationals have been getting away with, and have been allowed by the authorities to get away with, the financial equivalent of rape; and there has been no examination of whether that is or is not true.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156