タックス・ヘイブン：スイス連邦行政裁判所が米国への情報開示を禁止
物事にはいろんな側面があるが、たまたまその時米国政府の特定ポストに就いている人が考えついたアイデアに過ぎない（米国政府部内ですら手順を踏んだ議論を経ていない）のに、あたかもそれが絶対命令であるかのように伝えられて動いている日本政府より、スイスのほうがずっと健全なのではないかと思いつつ、日々のニュースを読んでいる。
行政府の決定に反する最終判断を司法府が下す。行政府が外国政府と結んだ協定を、国民投票で否決する。チェック機能が二重、三重に機能している。
米国政府の戦争決定に自民党が盲目追従し、「平和の党」を自称する公明党がそれに寄り添う日本とは大違いです。
下のほうに、個人口座の開示は法律違反だが、法人や財団を利用した匿名口座の情報は米国に渡すべきと、判決文には書かれているらしい。預金者の間では、こっちの方が遙かに物議を醸しているのではないかと思う（笑）。これが売りなのだから。
Swiss court upholds US taxpayer's appeal in UBS test case
(AFP) – 1 day ago
ZURICH ― A Swiss court said Friday that it had upheld an appeal by a US taxpayer in a ruling that could jeopardise a landmark deal between Switzerland and the United States settling tax fraud charges against Swiss bank UBS.
In a state-brokered settlement in the United States last year, Switzerland's banking flagship UBS warded off a bruising US government lawsuit by agreeing to hand over secret details about 4,450 clients and US taxpayers.
However, the Swiss Federal Administrative Tribunal effectively halted that handover by ruling in favour of one of the clients who had lodged an appeal in a test case.
"The Federal Administrative Tribunal has upheld the appeal by a US taxpayer against the decision by the federal tax authority to transmit their banking data to US tax authorities (IRS) under a procedure for mutual assistance relative to UBS," the tribunal said in a statement.
It described the decision as a "pilot ruling" and denied leave for appeal to Switzerland's supreme court.
The tribunal ruled that the 2009 agreement between the US and Swiss governments could not take precedence over the rules set out in the existing Swiss-US dual taxation agreement.
The out-of-court settlement last August ended months of diplomatically sensitive negotiations over a massive US probe of taxpayers with secret accounts at the world's largest wealth manager, allowing UBS to avoid a costly lawsuit.
Current Swiss legislation requires UBS to pass the client details to the Swiss government, which in turn would decide if they should be transmitted to the United States.
The Swiss government said in a statement that it would decide after a cabinet meeting next Wednesday how to ensure that the 2009 settlement could be applied following the court ruling.
It said the settlement had been aimed at solving the dispute within the bounds of the law, thereby "allowing the threat of a conflict" between Swiss and US legal regimes "to be lifted."
The US taxpayer was accused of omitting to file a W-9 declaration form with the Internal Revenue Service, taking advantage of Swiss banking secrecy.
However that omission could not be considered to be fraudulent and the offence therefore did not warrant the handover of their Swiss banking details to the United States, the Federal Administrative Tribunal said.
Swiss Ruling Jeopardizes Deal for UBS Clients' Names
New York Times, January 23, 2010
By LYNNLEY BROWNING
A Swiss court ruled Friday that Swiss authorities may not disclose the account details of a wealthy American who used UBS's private bank to evade American taxes.
The ruling, by the Swiss federal administrative court, threatens to open fresh legal challenges from American prosecutors of the Swiss banking giant UBS in what has become a protracted dispute between the two countries.
It threatens to topple an agreement reached last August between Switzerland and the Justice Department that requires Swiss tax authorities to disclose to the Internal Revenue Service the names of 4,450 American clients of UBS suspected of evading United States taxes.
While Friday's ruling concerned only one client, known as "A" under Swiss confidentiality rules, the Swiss court's decision effectively means the August deal to disclose the 4,450 names may be invalid.
That August deal averted a showdown between the two sides that had reached the State Department, the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve. Six months ago, the I.R.S. sued UBS in a Florida court to force it to disclose the identities of 52,000 American clients.
The Florida lawsuit, known as a John Doe summons, was dropped after the August agreement was reached. However, if more lawsuits are filed trying to block the disclosure of the 4,450 names, it might be revived, according to a United States government official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the issue.
The Swiss court's ruling "has the potential to unravel the settlement between the United States, the I.R.S., and the Swiss government over the John Doe summons," said Scott D. Michel, a tax lawyer at Caplin & Drysdale, in Washington. "It would not surprise me if the I.R.S. and the Justice Department now try to figure out some way to reopen that case and pursue more stringent enforcement."
Switzerland has until mid-August to turn over the 4,450 names, so any revival of the lawsuit would not come before then, the United States official said.
Should the suit be revived, it could also jeopardize a separate deal last February in which UBS averted indictment by agreeing to pay $780 million the United States government and admitting criminal wrongdoing in the offshore private banking services it sold to wealthy Americans. The deal was a watershed in Swiss private banking because it was the first time a Swiss bank had been forced to reveal details about its clientele.
UBS, a bulwark of the Swiss economy and in global financial circles, had fiercely resisted any disclosure, arguing that doing so would cause it to violate Swiss confidentiality laws.
Justice Department officials had said on the eve of the agreement in August that they would consider indicting the bank under the terms of a deferred-prosecution agreement included in the February settlement if a judge ultimately ordered UBS to turn over the 52,000 client names and the bank refused to do so.
Swiss law distinguishes between tax evasion ― the nonreporting of income, including failure to file W-9 disclosures of offshore accounts with the I.R.S. ― and tax fraud, which is defined as the use of corporate structures to hide money and ill-gotten gains. While Swiss law does not consider tax evasion to be a crime, the August 2009 deal between the United States and Switzerland included a murky reference to "tax fraud and the like" in which Switzerland appeared to agree that tax evasion was a crime.
But in its ruling regarding the August agreement, the Swiss judges wrote that "provided the taxpayer did nothing more than not declare income, an account or return the form W-9, consequently committing tax evasion under Swiss law, he hasn't acted fraudulently." The ruling also said that only the identities of clients whose UBS accounts were held through secret corporate structures and trusts, instead of their own names, could be disclosed.
It is unclear how many of the 4,450 names involve such structures.
In a statement, the I.R.S. said Friday that "We have every expectation that the Swiss government will continue to honor the terms of the agreement."
In a statement Friday, UBS said it had "taken notice of the Swiss Federal Administrative Court's decision." The Swiss government announced that it would assess the situation to determine "how the implementation of the agreement between Switzerland and the United States can be ensured."
Friday's ruling is the second by a Swiss court to challenge the disclosure of client names. On Thursday, Swiss regulators said they would appeal a separate ruling by a Swiss court that said the Swiss regulators broke secrecy laws when they authorized UBS to hand over the names of 255 clients as part of the $780 million deal last February.
The Swiss regulatory agency, Finma, said Thursday that it handed over the names because the possibility of an indictment of UBS "would have threatened its existence."
行政府の決定に反する最終判断を司法府が下す。行政府が外国政府と結んだ協定を、国民投票で否決する。チェック機能が二重、三重に機能している。
米国政府の戦争決定に自民党が盲目追従し、「平和の党」を自称する公明党がそれに寄り添う日本とは大違いです。
下のほうに、個人口座の開示は法律違反だが、法人や財団を利用した匿名口座の情報は米国に渡すべきと、判決文には書かれているらしい。預金者の間では、こっちの方が遙かに物議を醸しているのではないかと思う（笑）。これが売りなのだから。
Swiss court upholds US taxpayer's appeal in UBS test case
(AFP) – 1 day ago
ZURICH ― A Swiss court said Friday that it had upheld an appeal by a US taxpayer in a ruling that could jeopardise a landmark deal between Switzerland and the United States settling tax fraud charges against Swiss bank UBS.
In a state-brokered settlement in the United States last year, Switzerland's banking flagship UBS warded off a bruising US government lawsuit by agreeing to hand over secret details about 4,450 clients and US taxpayers.
However, the Swiss Federal Administrative Tribunal effectively halted that handover by ruling in favour of one of the clients who had lodged an appeal in a test case.
"The Federal Administrative Tribunal has upheld the appeal by a US taxpayer against the decision by the federal tax authority to transmit their banking data to US tax authorities (IRS) under a procedure for mutual assistance relative to UBS," the tribunal said in a statement.
It described the decision as a "pilot ruling" and denied leave for appeal to Switzerland's supreme court.
The tribunal ruled that the 2009 agreement between the US and Swiss governments could not take precedence over the rules set out in the existing Swiss-US dual taxation agreement.
The out-of-court settlement last August ended months of diplomatically sensitive negotiations over a massive US probe of taxpayers with secret accounts at the world's largest wealth manager, allowing UBS to avoid a costly lawsuit.
Current Swiss legislation requires UBS to pass the client details to the Swiss government, which in turn would decide if they should be transmitted to the United States.
The Swiss government said in a statement that it would decide after a cabinet meeting next Wednesday how to ensure that the 2009 settlement could be applied following the court ruling.
It said the settlement had been aimed at solving the dispute within the bounds of the law, thereby "allowing the threat of a conflict" between Swiss and US legal regimes "to be lifted."
The US taxpayer was accused of omitting to file a W-9 declaration form with the Internal Revenue Service, taking advantage of Swiss banking secrecy.
However that omission could not be considered to be fraudulent and the offence therefore did not warrant the handover of their Swiss banking details to the United States, the Federal Administrative Tribunal said.
Swiss Ruling Jeopardizes Deal for UBS Clients' Names
New York Times, January 23, 2010
By LYNNLEY BROWNING
A Swiss court ruled Friday that Swiss authorities may not disclose the account details of a wealthy American who used UBS's private bank to evade American taxes.
The ruling, by the Swiss federal administrative court, threatens to open fresh legal challenges from American prosecutors of the Swiss banking giant UBS in what has become a protracted dispute between the two countries.
It threatens to topple an agreement reached last August between Switzerland and the Justice Department that requires Swiss tax authorities to disclose to the Internal Revenue Service the names of 4,450 American clients of UBS suspected of evading United States taxes.
While Friday's ruling concerned only one client, known as "A" under Swiss confidentiality rules, the Swiss court's decision effectively means the August deal to disclose the 4,450 names may be invalid.
That August deal averted a showdown between the two sides that had reached the State Department, the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve. Six months ago, the I.R.S. sued UBS in a Florida court to force it to disclose the identities of 52,000 American clients.
The Florida lawsuit, known as a John Doe summons, was dropped after the August agreement was reached. However, if more lawsuits are filed trying to block the disclosure of the 4,450 names, it might be revived, according to a United States government official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the issue.
The Swiss court's ruling "has the potential to unravel the settlement between the United States, the I.R.S., and the Swiss government over the John Doe summons," said Scott D. Michel, a tax lawyer at Caplin & Drysdale, in Washington. "It would not surprise me if the I.R.S. and the Justice Department now try to figure out some way to reopen that case and pursue more stringent enforcement."
Switzerland has until mid-August to turn over the 4,450 names, so any revival of the lawsuit would not come before then, the United States official said.
Should the suit be revived, it could also jeopardize a separate deal last February in which UBS averted indictment by agreeing to pay $780 million the United States government and admitting criminal wrongdoing in the offshore private banking services it sold to wealthy Americans. The deal was a watershed in Swiss private banking because it was the first time a Swiss bank had been forced to reveal details about its clientele.
UBS, a bulwark of the Swiss economy and in global financial circles, had fiercely resisted any disclosure, arguing that doing so would cause it to violate Swiss confidentiality laws.
Justice Department officials had said on the eve of the agreement in August that they would consider indicting the bank under the terms of a deferred-prosecution agreement included in the February settlement if a judge ultimately ordered UBS to turn over the 52,000 client names and the bank refused to do so.
Swiss law distinguishes between tax evasion ― the nonreporting of income, including failure to file W-9 disclosures of offshore accounts with the I.R.S. ― and tax fraud, which is defined as the use of corporate structures to hide money and ill-gotten gains. While Swiss law does not consider tax evasion to be a crime, the August 2009 deal between the United States and Switzerland included a murky reference to "tax fraud and the like" in which Switzerland appeared to agree that tax evasion was a crime.
But in its ruling regarding the August agreement, the Swiss judges wrote that "provided the taxpayer did nothing more than not declare income, an account or return the form W-9, consequently committing tax evasion under Swiss law, he hasn't acted fraudulently." The ruling also said that only the identities of clients whose UBS accounts were held through secret corporate structures and trusts, instead of their own names, could be disclosed.
It is unclear how many of the 4,450 names involve such structures.
In a statement, the I.R.S. said Friday that "We have every expectation that the Swiss government will continue to honor the terms of the agreement."
In a statement Friday, UBS said it had "taken notice of the Swiss Federal Administrative Court's decision." The Swiss government announced that it would assess the situation to determine "how the implementation of the agreement between Switzerland and the United States can be ensured."
Friday's ruling is the second by a Swiss court to challenge the disclosure of client names. On Thursday, Swiss regulators said they would appeal a separate ruling by a Swiss court that said the Swiss regulators broke secrecy laws when they authorized UBS to hand over the names of 255 clients as part of the $780 million deal last February.
The Swiss regulatory agency, Finma, said Thursday that it handed over the names because the possibility of an indictment of UBS "would have threatened its existence."
この記事へのコメント