Analysis of the Common Reporting Standard Loopholes

Analysis of Common Reporting Standard Loopholes

Update 6 May 2017 - 26 loophole report May 2017 report to OECD and EU Parliament on the 26 loopholes of the Common Reporting Standard / Directive Administrative Cooperation in the field of tax matters (DAC)
The OECD is aware of weaknesses of the CRS and will refine the Standard in making it more effective, in priority order of the following: FIs shifting clients to USA related entity, e.g. S. Dakota trusts Use of fake Dubai FTZ residence certificates Investment Entity with management and beneficiary in same jurisdiction Non-cash value investment-linked insurance Exclusion of Insurance prohibited from being sold CRS investment manager advising on assets maintained in USA	The Common Reporting Standard OECD Common Reporting Standard and Commentary The CRS implementation Handbook The OECD maintained list jurisdiction-specific overview of the steps taken and choices made by jurisdictions in the context of implementing the Standard. The OECD list of CRS-related Frequently Asked Questions
Important Updates OECD March 2017 Update to FAQ - instruction on looking through any entity that holds a Passive NFE does not make sense. April 2017 - OECD list of 100 jurisdictions CRS committing to CRS. April 2017 - List of countries which have signed the Multilateral Convention Competent Authority agreement for CRS. November 2016 - OECD summary meeting in Georgia on Automatic Exchange of info. April 2016 - OECD report to G20 Finance Ministers stating OECD will close CRS perceived and actual loopholes and ensure committment timelines for 2017 are kept. September 2016 - OECD extremly disappointed with Bahamas abuse of bilateral option, stern letter to Government to follow. In a conference in Spain Pascal said Bahamas must follow the multilateral Convention route. August 2016 - EU Council proposal as regards access to anti-money-laundering information for identifying beneficial owners. November 2015 information brief states the OECD would assess jurisdictions which satisfy the data confidentiality conditions necessary for AEoI. Participating jurisdictions cannot use the excuse of confidentility concerns to delay CAAs.