Bern and Zurich, Switzerland (GenevaLunch) – Highlights of the agreement between the US and Switzerland in the UBS out of court settlement, provided by the Swiss government, include (Ed. note: US Department of Justice page on the settlement):

Cases of tax fraud and the like

The new request will draw on certain criteria in a framework for action that allows cases of “tax fraud and the like” to be identified in the case of UBS within the confines of applicable Swiss law and judicial practice. Some 4,450 accounts fall within this framework. The precise criteria are laid down in an annex to the agreement. At the request of the United States, the annex will not be published until 90 days after the agreement has entered into force to ensure the IRS voluntary disclosure program runs smoothly.

Name of account holder will not always have to be provided by IRS

Information may also be obtained with regard to serious tax offenses, specifically the continued evasion of large sums of tax. Under applicable law and the latest practice of the Swiss Federal Administrative Court, in dealings with the USA account information may also be released – through treaty request channels – even if the IRS does not yet know the name of the bank client concerned when it submits its request.

Special task force of 70 to ensure Switzerland can deliver within a year

The project will involve around 30 specialists from an audit firm and some 40 lawyers and tax specialists recruited from within the federal government.

UBS, clients and Swiss federal court: the right to privacy

UBS must make the account information covered by the treaty request available and prepare it for processing by the SFTA. This is the subject of a separate agreement between UBS and the IRS. The privacy of all of the persons concerned remains protected under the law, and they may contest the SFTA’s final decisions before the Federal Administrative Court.

Rebuilding the US-Swiss relationship

In an effort to build trust, the agreement provides for joint quarterly meetings to assess progress and identify and resolve any emerging problems at an early stage. Either party may also request further consultations on the implementation, interpretation or application of the agreement at any time. If the program fall significantly short of its targets after 370 days, both parties may take proportionate rebalancing measures – this could include the US delaying the final withdrawal date of its John Doe summons, the basis of the Miami case. It is currently set to be withdrawn in stages, but no later than 370 days from the start of the agreement.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.