Insights Vol. 2 No. 6: F.A.T.C.A. 24/7

Read Publication

F.A.T.C.A.’S FIRST ANNIVERSARY: AN ASSESSMENT

On July 1, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“F.A.T.C.A.”) celebrated the first anniversary of its implementation. F.A.T.C.A. was created to improve international tax compliance and combat offshore tax evasion. Notwithstanding dire predictions about its impact on the financial community when F.A.T.C.A. was first enacted in 2010, the sky has not yet fallen as of its first anniversary.

More Swiss Banks Reach Resolution Under D.O.J.'s Swiss Bank Program

Read Publication

The U.S. Department of Justice’s (“D.O.J.”) “Swiss Bank Program” (officially called the “Program For Non-Prosecution Agreements”), was announced in August 2013 and provided a path for Swiss banks to resolve potential criminal liabilities in the U.S.

Swiss banks eligible to enter the program were required to advise the D.O.J. by December 31, 2013 that they had reason to believe that they had committed tax-related criminal offenses in connection with undeclared U.S.-related accounts. Banks that were already under criminal investigation related to their banking activities were expressly excluded from the program.

The Hewlett-Packard Debt v. Equity Case – Reply Brief Filed

Read Publication

INTRODUCTION

The focus of a debt-versus-equity inquiry generally narrows to whether there was intent to create a debt with a reasonable expectation of repayment and, if so, whether that intent comports with the economic reality of creating a debtor-creditor relationship. This determination has led various courts of appeals to identify and consider a multi-factor test for resolving such inquires.

In the typical debt-versus-equity case, the I.R.S. will argue for equity characterization whereas the taxpayer will endeavor to secure debt characterization to obtain an interest deduction. In some cases, the roles are reversed, but this does not require that courts apply different legal principles. Some courts consider 10 factors, while others consider as many as 16 factors. No matter how many factors are considered, the multi-factor test is the established, standard analysis used in such disputes.

Insights Vol. 2 No. 5: F.A.T.C.A. 24/7

Read Publication

I.R.S. OFFERS GUIDANCE TO TAXPAYERS SEEKING ELECTRONIC NOTIFICATION ON F.A.T.C.A. REPORTS

The Internal Revenue Service (“I.R.S.”) provided guidance to taxpayers who do not receive notification of the status of their reports once they have uploaded the data into the electronic system used to transmit information regarding overseas bank accounts to the I.R.S. under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“F.A.T.C.A.”). There has been growing concern among taxpayers as to what to do if they successfully upload a F.A.T.C.A. report into the International Data Exchange Service (“I.D.E.S.”) but do not get an International Compliance Management Model (“I.C.M.M.”) notification letting them know the status of the report.

The I.R.S. added a new Item D9 to its F.A.T.C.A. I.D.E.S. Frequently Asked Questions and Answers relating to data transmission. The I.R.S. has also stated that a similar question and answer was added to the F.A.Q.’s on the I.C.M.M., the I.R.S. system that ingests, validates, stores, and manages F.A.T.C.A. information once it is received.

Pre-Immigration Tax Planning, Part III: Remedying The Adverse Consequences of the Covered Expatriate Regime

Read Publication

INTRODUCTION

Following our previous articles regarding pre-immigration planning and the expatriation rules applicable to covered expatriates (see here and here), this article considers some techniques for implementation before and after expatriation, with the objective to reduce the adverse treatment of the covered expatriate regime to the extent possible depending on the specific facts and circumstances of each individual.

For a Green Card holder, expatriating prior to becoming a long-term resident would eliminate the application of the covered expatriate regime. For a U.S. citizen (other than children under certain situations), the circumstances that will allow for a tax-free expatriation are more restrictive. An individual is considered a covered expatriate if he or she meets one of three tests. Pre-expatriation planning can eliminate the application of the covered expatriate regime for some individuals, while for others additional planning may be needed to reduce the unfavorable effect of the covered expatriate rules.

Insights Vol. 2 No. 4: F.A.T.C.A. 24/7

Read Publication

POTENTIAL DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE U.S. AND I.G.A. JURISDICTIONS ON HOW TO TREAT NEW INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS

Based on the answer to Question 10 under the “General Compliance” heading of the I.R.S.’s F.A.T.C.A. Frequently Asked Questions And Answers webpage, the I.R.S. requires that financial institutions in I.G.A. countries refuse to open new individual accounts if they cannot obtain a Form W-8BEN or a self-certification from the account holder. Conversely, the governments of both the U.K. and Canada have taken the position that under their I.G.A.’s, resident F.F.I.’s can open new individual accounts without self-certifications as long as the accounts are treated as reportable accounts.

In a letter to the Treasury Department released on March 27, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“S.I.F.M.A.”) pointed to this potential disagreement as having inconsistent guidance coming out of the U.S. and other I.G.A. countries. Such inconsistency may hurt American banks with foreign operations. These banks will be placed at a disadvantage if they follow U.S. authority while their competition is allowed to follow less restrictive rules. S.I.F.M.A. does not take a position as to who is right in the disagreement, but expressed their concern about this dispute and the lack of any information on this and similar disputes over the meaning of important I.G.A. terms that will need to be resolved in the future.

I.R.S. TO PUBLISH TECHNICAL EXAMPLE DEMONSTRATING EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION

F.A.T.C.A. reports are to be submitted to the International Data Exchange Service (“I.D.E.S.”), which is a secure managed file transfer system that only accepts encrypted transmissions. The I.R.S. announced on March 2 that the I.D.E.S. gateway had been opened for countries and financial institutions to begin transmitting data.

The I.R.S. posted on a service called GitHub a new example showing F.F.I.’s how to create “data packets” of taxpayer account information to transmit using the I.D.E.S. The example also shows how to decrypt a notification.

GitHub is an open source repository hosting service that allows users to collaborate and share code and content. The I.R.S. has made it clear that they do not endorse any commercial product.

Pre-Immigration Income Tax Planning, Part II: Covered Expatriates→

Read Publication

INTRODUCTION

Continuing on from our previous article concerning pre-immigration planning, this article will explain the tax rules by which an individual seeking to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship or green card status may be affected.

To relinquish U.S. citizenship or a green card, a formal act of relinquishment is required. Therefore, a green card holder who moves outside the U.S. will continue to be treated as a U.S. resident for tax purposes until he or she formally relinquishes green card status or it is rescinded by the government. A U.S. citizen residing outside the U.S. will have to formally relinquish his or her citizenship in order to be removed from the U.S. tax system. As a general rule, termination of U.S. residency becomes effective on the last day of the calendar year in which the status was relinquished. However, under certain circumstances, termination may be effective midyear.

Upon expatriation, should an individual be considered a “covered expatriate,” he or she may be subject to an exit tax, and following expatriation, any gifts and bequests made by such an individual may be subject to a succession tax in the case of U.S.-resident recipients.

For planning purposes, U.S. citizens wishing to relinquish their citizenship should determine if they are covered expatriates prior to undertaking any such action. Green card holders wishing to relinquish green card status must first determine if they are treated as long-term residents. If so treated, green card holders should determine if they are covered expatriates under the same tests applicable to U.S. citizens.

Insights Vol. 2 No. 3: F.A.T.C.A. 24/7

Read Publication

FOREIGN ACCOUNTS – UPDATE TO 2014 INSTRUCTIONS TO FORM 8938

Form 8938, Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets, requires the disclosure of certain foreign financial assets owned by U.S. citizens, resident alien individuals, and nonresidents who elect to be treated as resident alien individuals for U.S. tax purproses. (E.g., a nonresident alien having a U.S. citizen spouse may elect be treated as a U.S. resident for purpose of filing a joint income tax return.) Form 8938 is attached to the individual’s income tax return for the applicable year (starting with tax year 2011) and must be filed by the due date for said return, including extensions.

Updates to the 2014 instuctions for the Form 8938 reporting requirements were announced on March 10, 2015 and incorporate final Treasury Regulations under Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) §6038D, adopted in December 2014. The final regulations are effective for taxable years beginning after December 19, 2011. The update contains additional information not included in the updated instructions for Form 8938. Taxpayers and their tax return preparers must review these recent changes to the form’s instructions to make sure it does not affect their filing obligations.

Dual Resident Taxpayers

A dual resident taxpayer, within the meaning of these regulations, is an individual who is considered a resident of the U.S. under the Code and applicable regulations because he or she meets the “Green Card Test” or the “Substantial Presence Test” and is also a resident of a treaty country (pursuant to the internal tax laws of that country). The updated instructions apply to dual resident taxpayers who determine their income tax liability for all or a portion of the taxable year as if they were nonresident aliens (pursuant to a provision of an income tax treaty that provides for resolution of conflicting claims of residence by the U.S. and its treaty partner).

Debt vs. Equity: Comparing HP Appeal Arguments to the PepsiCo Case

Read Publication

INTRODUCTION

Historically, the I.R.S. and taxpayers often disagreed over whether a loan between related entities should be treated as equity rather than true debt. As a result, substantial case law has built up over the years, especially involving closely-held entities. One such case is Mixon, which was discussed in our prior publication from April 2014 as the leading case law providing for the 13 factors to be considered in debt-equity cases. In recent years, the I.R.S. has begun to focus on the debt-equity issue in the cross border arena, and new decisions are being issued. Two 2012 cases, in the United States Tax Court (the “Tax Court” or “Court”), went in different directions. In PepsiCo, the taxpayer prevailed and equity treatment was upheld. In contrast, the I.R.S. prevailed in Hewlett-Packard, where the Tax Court was convinced that the transaction should be categorized as a loan rather than equity. In this case, the court looked beyond the instrument at issue and also examined agreements between the shareholders in the transaction.

Earlier this year, Hewlett-Packard (“HP”) appealed its loss in the Tax Court to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the lower court’s finding – that the investment displayed more “qualitative and quantitative indicia of debt than equity” – was “clearly erroneous.”

HP CASE – FACTS AND TAX COURT DECISION

HP purchased an interest in a Dutch corporation, Foppingadreef (“FOP”), from AIG in 1996. The investment was originally structured by AIG as an equity investment in preferred shares. The other shareholder was a Dutch bank, ABN AMRO (“ABN”). FOP’s Articles of Incorporation provide that it was organized for the purpose of investing its assets in contingent interest notes (“C.I.N.’s”) and other approved debt instruments. FOP invested in C.I.N.’s issued by ABN which provided for interest consisting of a fixed element and a contingent element. The terms of the preferred shares, as structured by AIG, gave HP voting rights and preferred entitlement to dividend distributions. HP’s vote was slightly more than 20%.

Insights Vol. 2 No. 2: F.A.T.C.A. 24/7

Read Publication

GLOBAL TAX TRANSPARENCY IS RISING

The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“F.A.T.C.A.”) enacted in 2010 has been the driving force and the primary impetus for global tax transparency across borders. It has led to a ginormous administrative challenge for banks and other financial institutions as well as withholding agents in 2015. The O.E.C.D.’s recent release of the common reporting standard has led Treasury Department officials to view it as “the multilateralization of F.A.T.C.A.”

The U.S. has negotiated more than 100 Intergovernmental Agreements (“I.G.A.’s”) with nations across the globe to implement F.A.T.C.A and allow tax information to be shared between governments, which has set the stage for discussion for the onset of global exchange of tax information. More than 50 I.G.A.’s had already been signed and the remainder are treated as in effect and should be signed soon.

I.G.A. Challenge

The I.G.A.’s represent a growing trend in global tax transparency, though implementation has posed a challenge to some nations. Implementing an I.G.A. may require changes to local legislation, such as approving actions that are required to be taken under the I.G.A. and thus essentially making F.A.T.C.A. a part of the law of that country. The Internal Revenue service (“I.R.S.”) said in December 2014 that jurisdictions with I.G.A.’s treated as agreed-in-substance will have more time to get the pacts signed if they can demonstrate “firm resolve” to finalize them, which is subject to a monthly review. Given the uncertainty of whether all agreed-in-substance I.G.A.’s will eventually be signed, and what the language of the signed I.G.A. will provide, 2015 will pose a growing concern for foreign financial institutions (“F.F.I.’s”), who are required to navigate multinational F.A.T.C.A. compliance, and for banks, who must put new procedures in place.

U.S. Residency Certification: Pitfalls & Considerations

Read Publication

INTRODUCTION

Income from sources within one country paid to residents of other countries often is subject to withholding tax in the source country at a rate that is set by the source country’s internal law. The withholding tax rate can be reduced or eliminated if (1) an income tax treaty exists between the source country and the residence country and (2) the taxpayer is a resident of that second country for purposes of the treaty. This article explains how a U.S. resident taxpayer demonstrates that residence classification in order to claim benefits under an income tax treaty.

FORM 6166

For U.S. residents with non-U.S. source income, proving residency in order to obtain an income tax treaty is accomplished by obtaining a Residency Certificate from the I.R.S. This document certifies that the taxpayer is a resident of the U.S. for Federal income tax purposes. The certification is provided on Form 6166, which certifies to the withholding agent that for a specific year, the taxpayer was a resident of the U.S. for U.S. tax purposes. In the case of a fiscally transparent entity, Form 6166 will certify that the entity, when required, filed an information return and its partners, members, owners, or beneficiaries filed income tax returns as residents of the U.S. As partnerships (including L.L.C.’s treated as partnerships) and disregarded entities are not considered U.S. residents within the meaning of the residence article of most U.S. income tax treaties. As a result, the Form 6166 that is issued by the I.R.S. to will include a list of U.S. resident partners, members or owners. Each person’s ownership percentage does not accompany the names on the list, as with limited exception, the I.R.S. does not have that information.

Insights Vol. 2 No. 1: F.A.T.C.A. 24/7

Read Publication

IN-SUBSTANCE I.G.A. JURISDICTION STATUS EXTENDED & AFFECTED F.F.I.’S MUST OBTAIN G.I.I.N.’S

Foreign financial institutions (“F.F.I.’s”) that are based in jurisdictions that have (or are treated as having) entered into a Model 1 Intergovernmental Agreement (“I.G.A.”) with the U.S. must register and obtain a Global Intermediary Identification Number (“G.I.I.N.”) as part of the process to properly certify its status as an F.F.I. that complies with F.A.T.C.A. Withholding for residents of Model 1 jurisdictions who do not comply with F.A.T.C.A. started on January 1, 2015.

Jurisdictions which are treated as having entered into a Model 1 I.G.A. include countries which have not yet signed, but have reached an agreement in principle to sign, a Model 1 I.G.A. Those countries are referred to as having an “in-substance I.G.A.” with the U.S. In early 2014, the I.R.S. announced that such in-substance I.G.A.’s can be treated as in effect and relied upon through the end of 2014. The I.R.S. F.A.T.C.A. webpage has a list of these in-substance I.G.A.’s. Announcement 2014- 38 provides that a jurisdiction that is treated as if it has an I.G.A. in effect (i.e., an in-substance I.G.A. country) but that has not yet signed an I.G.A. retains such status beyond December 31, 2014, provided that the jurisdiction continues to demonstrate firm resolve to sign the I.G.A. that was agreed in substance.

Announcement 2014-38 does not change the F.A.T.C.A. requirements relating to payments made on or after January 1, 2015. Therefore, F.F.I.’s subject to an in-substance I.G.A. will still need to meet the registration requirements and all due diligence and reporting requirements under F.A.T.C.A. to avoid withholding on payments received starting January 1, 2015.

F.A.T.C.A. INTERNATIONAL DATA EXCHANGE SERVICE WEB PAGES

The I.R.S. has added an additional web page to the F.A.T.C.A. International Data Exchange Service (“I.D.E.S.”). The I.D.E.S. system allows for the U.S. to securely exchange data with foreign tax authorities and F.F.I.’s. The I.D.E.S. enrollment process may be different based on the relevant I.G.A., but will generally entail the following steps:

1. Create a sender payload;
2. Encrypt an A.E.S. key;
3. Create a metadata file; and
4. Create a transmission archive.

A Bad Month for Luxembourg

Read Publication

Luxembourg made front-page news last month with the leak of hundreds of documents that had been signed when current European Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker, was prime minister and finance minister of Luxembourg. The leak, exposed by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (“I.C.I.J.”), revealed confidential agreements approved by Luxembourg authorities that provided tax relief to more than 340 global companies.

The leaked documents implicated not only private companies but also revealed that the Canadian government received a tax ruling for its Public Sector Pension Investment Board, which manages pensions for all Canadian federal employees. The Canadian Pensions Board issued a statement addressing this ruling and claimed that since it is tax-exempt in Canada its ruling is not tax avoidance as it has “no tax advantage.”

The European Union Antitrust Authority is now expected to expand its ongoing illegal state aid probe using the leaked documents in its investigation. A high-level European Commission official said, “We expect to expand our current request for documents…These documents are now available. They are clearly relevant to the ongoing probe, which is a high political priority.”

POLITICAL PRESSURE

The leaked documents put Luxembourg in hot water, especially former prime minister and finance minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, who now faces great political pressure to explain his role in the scandal. He is accused of acting to enrich his country at the expense of its European partners. His actions are purported to have been in defiance of the E.U. spirit, which he hopes to represent as the new Commission President.

Insights Vol. 1 No. 11: F.A.T.C.A. 24/7

Read Publication

BITCOIN ACCOUNTS MAY BE SUBJECT TO F.A.T.C.A. AND F.B.A.R. REPORTING

Bitcoin and other virtual currency accounts held in foreign exchanges may be treated as a foreign financial account and thus be subject to F.B.A.R. reporting. Eventually, it is even possible that the foreign exchanges themselves may be considered foreign financial institutions (“F.F.I.’s”) that have to report the accounts to the I.R.S. under F.A.T.C.A.

This view follows caselaw where a court found that online accounts held for the purpose of foreign online gambling had to be reported on an F.B.A.R.

Currently, the I.R.S. treats virtual currency as property. However, some claim that it is only a short hop to apply the court's ruling in the online gambling case to digital currency accounts.

Speaking at the fall meeting of the American Bar Association Section of Taxation, a senior I.R.S. official said the I.R.S. doesn't have a stance yet on whether the currency is subject to F.B.A.R. or F.A.T.C.A. reporting, even though the agency is well aware of the issue.

RELAXED DEADLINE FOR REPORTING ACCOUNTS AS PRE-EXISTING

On November 17, the I.R.S. published a corrected amendment under which F.F.I.’s can treat all accounts that were opened before the date on which the F.F.I. signed an agreement with the I.R.S. to participate in F.A.T.C.A. (an “F.F.I. Agreement”) as pre-existing accounts for 2014 reporting purposes. Before this announcement was made, only accounts opened on or before June 30, 2014 were treated as preexisting accounts.

Insights Vol. 1 No. 10: Updates & Other Tidbits

Read Publication

ISRAEL ANNOUNCES ADOPTION OF O.E.C.D.’S COMMON REPORTING STANDARD

Israel has announced that it will adopt the Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information: Common Reporting Standard (“C.R.S.”) issued by the O.E.C.D. in February 2013.

The C.R.S. establishes a standardized form that banks and other financial institutions would be required to use in gathering account and transaction information for submission to domestic tax authorities. The information would be provided to domestic authorities on an annual basis for automatic exchange with other participating jurisdictions. The C.R.S. will focus on accounts and transactions of residents of a specific country, regardless of nationality. The C.R.S. also contains the due diligence and reporting procedures to be followed by financial institutions based on a Model 1 F.A.T.C.A. intergovernmental agreement (“I.G.A.”).

At the conclusion of the October 28-29 O.E.C.D. Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, about 50 jurisdictions had signed the document. The U.S. was notably absent as a signatory to the agreement. In addition to the C.R.S., the signed agreement contains a model competent authority agreement for jurisdictions that would like to participate at a later stage.

Insights Vol. 1 No. 10: F.A.T.C.A. 24/7

Read Publication

CENTRAL AMERICAN COUNTRIES MOVE TO COMPLY WITH F.A.T.C.A.

While Mexico, the largest Central American nation, signed an I.G.A. in April of 2014, other Central American nations are also deciding to join the F.A.T.C.A. bandwagon. Panama, which has the greatest number of U.S. residents in Central America along with Costa Rica, are leading an effort to have Central America move towards compliance by the September 2015 deadline. In May 2014, Panama reached an agreement in substance to adopt an I.G.A., and has been treated as if an I.G.A. has been in effect since then. Costa Rica had already signed a Model 1 I.G.A. in December 2013.

Though Guatemala has not yet signed an I.G.A., many local financial institutions have registered for direct exchange with the I.R.S. under the Treasury Regulations. It was reported that nearly 100 foreign financial institutions (“F.F.I.’s”), including 18 banks, ten stock brokerages, and 28 insurance firms have registered with the I.R.S. to start sharing information by March 31, 2015, as required under the Regulations with respect to F.F.I.’s in non-I.G.A. jurisdictions. Edgar Morales, operation subdirector at banking trade group Asociación Bancaria de Guatemala, said that unlike Panama or Costa Rica, where aggregating these lists of U.S. resident account holders “will be much harder,” the process in Guatemala hasn’t been so complex because “there aren’t that many people who qualify under F.A.T.C.A. here.” Guatemala has a robust banking secrecy law that forbids banks from sharing customer data with other government institutions, and therefore banks that register with the I.R.S. have to obtain privacy waivers from customers to be able to reveal their information under F.A.T.C.A.

Insights Vol. 1 No. 9: F.A.T.C.A. 24/7

Read Publication

TREASURY ACCEPTS CANADIAN NARROWING OF INVESTMENT ENTITY DEFINITION

Canada’s recently published guidance with respect to F.A.T.C.A. provides that only “listed financial institutions” should be considered investment entities subject to F.A.T.C.A. under the intergovernmental agreement (“I.G.A.”) with Canada (“U.S.-Canada I.G.A.”). The U.S. Treasury has accepted this position.

The U.S.-Canada I.G.A. provides that the definition of “investment entity” is to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the definition of “financial institution” in the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (“F.A.T.F.”). The F.A.T.F. provides that any natural person or legal entity that conducts, as a business, one or more listed activities or operations for, or on behalf of, a customer, would be treated as a “financial institution.” The F.A.T.F. also provides a list of designated nonfinancial businesses and professions, including certain trust and company service providers that are not otherwise financial institutions and act as trustees for trust entities. Canada’s anti-money laundering rules interpret this standard to treat the unlisted financial institutions as designated nonfinancial businesses. The Canadian F.A.T.C.A. guidance treats only the expressly listed financial institutions as investment entities, and as mentioned above, the I.R.S. has approved this position.

Tax 101: Updates to Procedures Relating to Withholding Foreign Partnership or Trust Agreements as a Result of F.A.T.C.A.

Read Publication

Chapter 3 of the Internal Revenue Code requires withholding on payments of certain types. These include “fixed or determinable annual or periodic income” (“F.D.A.P.”) to foreign persons, disposition of U.S. real property interests by foreign persons, and U.S. effectively connected income attributable to foreign partners of a partnership engaged in a U.S. trade or business. Historically, withholding agreements allowed a foreign partnership or trust to become a Withholding Foreign Partnership (“W.P.”) or a Withholding Foreign Trust (“W.T.”) and to assume the withholding and reporting responsibilities of a withholding agent under Chapter 3.

Chapter 4 of the Internal Revenue Code (regarding F.A.T.C.A.) generally requires foreign financial institutions (“F.F.I.’s”) to provide information to the Internal Revenue Service (“I.R.S.”) with regard to account holders who are U.S. persons. Chapter 4 also requires certain non-financial foreign entities (“N.F.F.E.’s”) to provide information on their substantial U.S. owners to withholding agents. Chapter 4 imposes a withholding tax on certain payments to F.F.I.’s and N.F.F.E.’s that fail to comply with their F.A.T.C.A. obligations. (For a more detailed discussion of F.A.T.C.A., please see our Insights monthly F.A.T.C.A. 24/7 column.)

On August 8, 2014, the I.R.S. released Rev. Proc. 2014-47, which provides guidance on entering into W.P. and W.T. agreements and for renewing such agreements under F.A.T.C.A., thereby essentially integrating the two reporting systems. Rev. Proc. 2014-17 permits a W.P. and W.T. to assume the withholding and reporting responsibilities of a withholding agent under both Chapter 3 and Chapter 4. Rev. Proc. 2014-47 publishes revised W.P. and W.T. agreement procedures, which apply to W.P. and W.T. agreements effective on or after June 30, 2014. Additionally, existing W.P. and W.T. agreements are updated to coordinate with the withholding and reporting requirements of F.A.T.C.A.