An entrepreneur starting a new business has a choice to make – how should she structure the business legally. In Australia, there are actually four alternatives to choose from: sole proprietorship, partnership, company or trust. The reasons for choosing a company or trust often include limiting legal liability, protecting personal assets, or ease of sharing or transferring ownership. And, in the wake of recent caps on superannuation contributions, more financial planners are recommending family trusts to hold savings that cannot be put into the superannuation system. What are these structures? How do they work in a purely Australian context? And what problems or challenges might arise when a US taxpayer tries to do exactly what her Australian neighbour would find optimal?
This is the fourth instalment in our series of posts discussing the ways US tax laws constrain the investment choices of US taxpayers living in Australia. These are the areas we will be covering:
- Real Estate
- Australian Managed Funds
- Australian Shares
- Business Ownership Structures
- Investing in the US
- Record keeping
This series (and everything on this website) is general information only. I am not a lawyer, tax professional, or financial planner, just someone who has learned about US tax and wants to pass on general knowledge. Many areas of tax law are interdependent, so changes in one area may have unintended consequences in another. You should consult a professional who can consider your own personal circumstances before taking any action. Continue reading “Investment Constraints 4: Structures”
From 1 July 2017, Australian financial institutions will be required to report account information of anyone with a tax residence outside of Australia to the ATO under the OECD’s Common Reporting Standard (CRS). Once the United States rolled out FATCA, countries in the OECD decided that cross-border reporting of financial accounts might be a good way to rein in use of tax havens for tax evasion. However, while the two are similar, there are some differences. The key features of CRS are a common standard for: the scope of reporting (type of information, which account holders and which institutions), the due diligence required, format of the data to be exchanged.
With the current push for FATCA repeal, and the recent Hearing on The Unintended Consequences of FATCA, CRS is mentioned by some as a possible substitute for FATCA. Unfortunately, there seem to be a few misconceptions about the differences between the two Automated Exchange of Information (AEOI) schemes. As implemented in Australia, CRS is perfectly compatible with Citizenship Based Taxation.
While it is exceedingly unlikely that the U.S. Congress will ever sign on to CRS, it is important for those who advocate CRS as a more “benign” alternative to be clear on exactly what CRS entails.
This article covers:
- How is CRS being implemented in Australia?
- Who must report?
- Who and what must be reported?
- Reciprocity – FATCA vs CRS
- Penalties – FATCA vs CRS
- Implications for US Persons
Continue reading “CRS – Coming soon to a bank near you…”
Have you opened a bank or investment account lately? Were you asked about other citizenships? Place of birth? Since mid-2014 Australian financial institutions have been ferreting out US Persons. At most institutions, every new account holder is asked these questions. And, if you are found to be a US Person, you must complete a form W-9 (or equivalent) disclosing your US connection and Social Security Number. This data will be sent to the ATO, who will forward it on to the IRS.
Think about that.
Private Australian financial information of Australian citizens and permanent residents is being sent to a foreign government.
How can they do that? Do they really have the authority to send private financial data to the IRS?
Continue reading “How can they do that?”
Just over a week ago, I received a message through this website from someone who had submitted an FOI request to the ATO. “Sam” expected that one of his accounts had been reported because the bank had identified him as a US Person and the balance was above the bank’s reporting threshold. The response from the ATO puzzled Sam, and it puzzled me as well. The ATO response stated that they needed to consult with a “foreign government” about whether Sam’s FATCA records were exempt from FOI under Section 33 of the FOI Act: Continue reading “FOI Take 2”