es/pip wrote:bredin wrote:guys, ive looked over that legislation, and It seems to me that a valid exception exists for those accounts of less than 50k. Also it only applies to accounts held by US nationals..... It looks like My idea of circumvention is still a valid one.....
i haven't had time to look it over fully yet
just skimmed it
so it only applies to US Nationals?
The legislation states "United States Person" which would obviously include companies, trusts and other legal bodies.
however the reporting only applies to "Financial Institutions" that hold accounts for a "United States Person"
looks to me like trading accounts may not subject since they are "regularly traded", although it goes on to say "established securities market", which might just mean spot forex is excluded (another means of forcing forex traders back into futures, and away from spot).
??(5) FINANCIAL INSTITUTION.?Except as otherwise provided
by the Secretary, the term ?financial institution? means any
??(A) accepts deposits in the ordinary course of a
banking or similar business,
??(B) as a substantial portion of its business, holds
financial assets for the account of others, or
??(C) is engaged (or holding itself out as being engaged)
primarily in the business of investing, reinvesting, or
trading in securities (as defined in section 475(c)(2) without
regard to the last sentence thereof), partnership interests,
commodities (as defined in section 475(e)(2)), or any interest
(including a futures or forward contract or option) in such
securities, partnership interests, or commodities.
part A means bank, building society, et al
part B means holding company, et al
part C would seem to thwart my idea since it appears to include any entity who trades on behalf of a US entity, except for the 50k exception, which gives me a second (and subsequent) ideas.
easy done. A bit of legal framework on my part and your money and leverage is safe