NEWS ANALYSIS
What are the unintended consequences of 871(m)?
Daniel Carpenter, head of regulation at Meritsoft, takes a look at some of the fallout the finance industry may face once the tax ruling is fully enforced
IBS Journal March 2018
19
Head of regulation, Meritsoft Daniel Carpenter
S
peaking at the Vantage Melbourne rise of AI and automation conference last quarter, Telstra’s head of innovation, Stephen Elop, said that the “path to disruption is paved by unintended
consequences”. This soundbite by no means only applies to the world of telecoms, it also relates to financial firms getting their houses in order for the impending 871(m) tax regulations.
Although it’s hard to imagine this looming change to the tax system having quite the same effect as the influence of AI, there will still be unintended consequences. The primary issue is whether 871(m) could reduce market participants interest in US equity derivatives products covered by the US Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) rules.
It’s certainly a possibility, as confirmed by a senior tax specialist and Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) practitioner at an ‘871(m) lessons learnt in 2017 and what is around the corner for 2018’ seminar towards the end of last year. With the second part of 871(m) legislation – which is currently being finalised – scheduled to come into force in January 2019, 871(m) legislation is unlikely to be revoked.
But it isn’t as easy as simply deciding not to trade certain derivatives products covered by the 871(m) rules. One head of securities tax at a leading accountancy firm explained that they have found that clients have been unable to switch off US securities, in the context of securities lending, even if they wanted to. While firms might try to say that they don’t offer any service in US securities, they ultimately will because they’ll receive it in the form of collateral, for example.
Essentially, it’s near impossible to just tail-off US products, like an index or a basket of securities where an American company name pops up. While some of our attendees at the event explained how a number of their clients had made a conscious decision to disavow any kind of US strategy, they still end up with them. Although you can limit their exposure, you simply can’t exclude them altogether.
One expert revealed that his firm had also had discussions about
Financial firms need to be prepared for the changes to tax regulations with the advent of 871(m)
whether, if you were on the ‘Long’ side, you could just use a US broker so that you would never have to withhold (i.e. through a W9 form). However, he rightly pointed out that MiFID II and best execution requirements mean that it couldn’t be done either, aptly stating that “all of the sensible things one might think you could do just don’t work”.
While we should not, by any stretch of the imagination, be expecting the same sort of significant changes AI will bring to the telco industry, when it comes to 871(m), and many other new transaction taxes, we should definitely be considering them in whatever form they materialise, and addressing the potential inadvertent outcomes now is of the upmost importance.
www.ibsintelligence.com
stevepb / pixabay
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
