Can an advisor get into trouble for giving technically true—but incomplete—advice? Under FATCA, the answer is yes.

Take the example of Svalbard. Norway has a FATCA Model 1 IGA with the U.S., but Svalbard is excluded from the treaty definition of “Kingdom of Norway.” That means a financial institution in Svalbard could, in theory, be treated as a non-participating foreign financial institution.

The problem arises when an advisor uses that narrow fact to suggest a broader loophole, while leaving out critical context. That transforms a technical truth into a misleading strategy. U.S. prosecutors don’t need the original fact to be false—they only need to show that the advice was reckless, incomplete, or designed to deceive.

In short: advisors can be held criminally liable not just for lies, but also for dangerous omissions.

#FATCA #AdvisorLiability #TaxCompliance #FinancialCrime

Owning foreign accounts or assets isn’t illegal, and it’s not inherently unlawful to fall outside FATCA’s scope. The real issue is knowing what counts as a reportable asset and making sure you’re not failing to disclose something that is covered.

FATCA is primarily an information-reporting regime. For individuals, this means filing Form 8938 (Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets) if the value of certain foreign assets exceeds set thresholds. These “specified assets” include accounts at foreign banks or brokerages, as well as stock in foreign corporations.

Not everything is reportable. Directly held real estate, personal property like art or jewelry, and assets inside U.S.-based retirement accounts are not covered by FATCA. But if you hold property through a foreign company, the company itself becomes reportable.

A big source of confusion is the difference between FATCA and the FBAR (FinCEN Form 114). FATCA has higher thresholds ($50k+ for U.S. residents, higher for expats), while FBAR applies if your total foreign accounts exceed just $10,000 at any time. That means an account that doesn’t trigger FATCA might still require FBAR filing.

What is illegal? Using foreign structures to deliberately hide income or assets. That’s when mistakes cross into tax evasion, false return filings, and willful FBAR violations—all of which can bring severe civil and criminal penalties.

#FATCA #FBAR #USTax #TaxCompliance #OffshoreAccounts

An Expanded Affiliated Group (EAG) is defined under Code section 1504(a) and Treas. Reg. §1.1471-5(i). It generally means one or more chains of entities connected through ownership by a common parent. Normally, the parent must directly own more than 50% of another member’s stock or equity interests.

In FATCA, the EAG rules are designed to prevent avoidance of reporting obligations. The “one bad apple” rule applies—if any member of the group is a non-participating FFI, then no member can claim participating FFI status.

While the definition is based on corporate ownership, trusts or partnerships can be part of an EAG if they elect to be treated as such under Treas. Reg. §1.1471-5(i)(10). This makes it possible for a trust to act as the common parent of an EAG, provided the proper election is made.

#FATCA #TaxCompliance #EAG #InternationalTax #FinancialInstitutions

Between 2017 and 2019, the OECD published FAQs and addendums to CRS to close loopholes—such as residence by investment, broad-based retirement plans, nil-value reporting on settlors, and the treatment of cash. FATCA, however, never addressed these loopholes. Eventually, the OECD abandoned the “whack-a-mole” approach and instead introduced Mandatory Disclosure Rules (MDR). But MDR was largely ineffective: few countries implemented it, and promoters in non-participating jurisdictions or under lawyer privilege were exempt.

Example: a UK non-resident trust classified as a custodial institution with a trustee in Svalbard. It owns an investment entity company but reports nil, since the equity interest is in an FFI custodial institution. The trust, itself an FFI, has no reporting duties because Svalbard is excluded from the U.S. IGA. This makes the trust a non-participating FFI—yet it avoids FATCA’s 30% withholding, since it receives no U.S.-sourced income.

#CRS #FATCA #TaxLoopholes #GlobalTax #TrustStructures #InternationalFinance

CRS and FATCA treat non-participating institutions very differently. Under CRS, non-participating Investment Entities are classified as Passive NFEs, meaning the paying agent must look through to the controlling persons. FATCA, on the other hand, penalizes non-participating FFIs that fail to register for a GIIN by imposing a 30% withholding tax on U.S.-sourced payments like dividends, interest, or asset sale proceeds. FATCA also pressures FFIs to close accounts of non-participating FFIs. However, FATCA’s reach is limited where no U.S.-sourced payments are received, such as when a custodial institution only holds company shares.

#FATCA #CRS #GlobalTax #WithholdingTax #InternationalCompliance #CrossBorderFinance

Financial institutions do not report on account holders that are themselves financial institutions. This enables chains of entities, with each level classified as a financial institution. The weakness of AEoI arises when the top-level entity is a non-participating financial institution. FATCA and CRS only weakly address this vulnerability, leaving opportunities to establish structures that remain non-reportable.

The UAE has become a leading hub for Foundations, especially in DIFC, ADGM, and RAK ICC. These structures blend trust-like asset protection with company-style governance, making them ideal for families and businesses. A Foundation is a distinct legal entity with no shareholders, governed by a Council through its Charter and private By-laws. Assets are contributed by a Founder, with an optional Guardian ensuring oversight. Their flexibility, global appeal, and strong governance standards make them powerful tools for asset protection, succession planning, and wealth management.

UK trust structures offer unique privacy and asset protection benefits. Unlike the FATF model, the UK relies on the Person of Significant Control (PSC) framework, often recording trustees as controllers instead of settlors or beneficiaries. Non-UK and UK non-resident trusts usually avoid registration with HMRC or the Trust Registration Service, except in limited cases. When layered with tools like PPLI, UK companies can even file as dormant, bypassing audits. In certain setups—such as non-resident trusts in CRS non-participating jurisdictions—no CRS reporting is required, adding further confidentiality.