May 09, 2018

Failure to Prevent – The Future of Adviser Obligations

May 09, 2018/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

The concept of failure to prevent has grown from its roots in the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and is making inroads into the responsibilities of tax advisers. The recent trend begs the question, do advisors have a duty to prevent the evasion or improper reduction of tax or to report the activity in advance? A team of international advisors looks at the evolution of obligations: Peter Utterström of Peter Utterström Advokat AB, Stockholm, looks at the origin of the concept. Gary Ashford of Harbottle & Lewis, London, looks at recently adopted legislation in the U.K. imposing strict liability on advisers to naughty clients. Lawrence Feld, Attorney at Law, New York, looks at its presence in the U.S. Swiss Bank Program of the Justice Department. Dick Barmentlo of Jaegers & Soons, Amsterdam, addresses a recent case in the Netherlands that imposes civil liability on a Netherlands trust company and its employees for lost taxes suffered by the Dutch tax administration.

September 15, 2014

The U.S.-Sweden I.G.A.: A Practitioner's Perspective

September 15, 2014/ Web Developer

Read Publication

Sweden recently entered into an intergovernmental agreement (“I.G.A.”) with the U.S. to address the application of F.A.T.C.A. to Swedish financial institutions. The subsequent modifications to Swedish law to accommodate the I.G.A. were made public on August 11, 2014 in a proposal by the Ministry of Finance. The proposal added numerous modifications to the requirements for compliance and published the reporting forms that will be due starting next year. The complexity of F.A.T.C.A. compliance will trigger a number of changes in many areas of Swedish legislation, which are likely to be approved by the Swedish Parliament in the fall of 2014. It is clear that F.A.T.C.A. will make life more complex for the regulated groups.

F.A.T.C.A. will have a broad, sweeping effect on Swedish financial institutions (“F.I.’s”), including large Swedish banks, insurance companies, and private equity companies. These F.I.’s have been planning for F.A.T.C.A. and have implemented technology, procedures, and training that have caused them to incur in significant costs. However, based on personal experience, it appears that there is a large group of “institutions” that do not understand that they are in fact F.I.’s and must act accordingly. Recently, when discussing due diligence procedures mandated by F.A.T.C.A. with management of a Swedish permanent establishment, the response was simply “thanks for the heads up,” which indicated that the compliance requirements were not yet on the company’s radar.

Some of these institutions may revert to the simplest solution – barring Americans from being accepted as investors or account holders. This solution, however, is suboptimal for an F.I. as it eliminates a large group of Swedish/U.S. dual citizens from the client base. Of greater importance is the fact that barring Americans does not mean an institution can ignore F.A.T.C.A. F.A.T.C.A. requires disclosure of U.S.-controlled foreign entities that may be account holders at these institutions, a task that will require creating new on-boarding procedures and a review of all preexisting accounts.

January 15, 2014

Outbound Acquisitions: European Holding Company Structures [2014]→

January 15, 2014/ Web Developer

Published by the Practising Law Institute in the Corporate Tax Practice Series: Strategies for Corporate Acquisitions, Dispositions, Spin-Offs, Joint Ventures, Reorganizations & Restructurings, 2014.