Our valued sponsor

Does Revolut report end of year account balance or turnover according to CRS?

Well, at this point 3 options:

1) If you move important or big sums: Be 100% legal but avoid the main part of taxes with a proper structure (legal but with grey zones)
2) If you move little-medium sums or a little online business: Go straight with darks and get rid of the abusive taxes on your home country (not legal)
3) If you run a physical shop/business or you have a turnover of less than 30K a year, be 100% legit and have a company established in your home country (100% legal)
 
This is a CRS template. I cant see any field to turnover or so. Where is "add payments" are payments like interest or any other dividends.
Screenshot_20201128-182238_Acrobat for Samsung.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Btraveler
found this from june 2020, https://www.e-ma.org/emaweb/wp-cont...ian-STI-regarding-FATCA-and-CRS-June-2020.pdf

I would say Revolut UK would fall under this, so no reporting :
HMRC confirms that EMIs and PIs are not Depository Institutions for the purposes of reporting under the CRS or FATCA. In Guidance Note IEIM401540, HMRC confirms that e-money accounts and unregulated payment products issued by CIs are not Depository Accounts for the purpose of reporting under the CRS or FATCA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Btraveler
In regards to Revolut moving European customers to new Lithuania branch, again from https://www.e-ma.org/emaweb/wp-cont...ian-STI-regarding-FATCA-and-CRS-June-2020.pdf

"In fact the EMA is currently providing input to OECD discussions on a proposal to bring e-money into the scope of CRS; it is currently considered by the OECD to be out of scope"

"We would like to propose that the STI FAQ sections for CRS and for FATCA be amended to clarify that e-money institutions, payment institutions and e-money accounts should not be included within the scope of CRS and FATCA reporting."


I think its fair to assume Revolut is still not reporting for this year, but the morons at the OECD are clearly cooking something ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: kkein and Btraveler
  • Like
Reactions: kkein and Btraveler
Very good explanation. Is that exactly: At this moment they are not reporting. In the next 2 years, they will do it for sure, but if they are granted the banking license, then it can be before that deadlines
 
You are so dramatic.
no no, I just realize that so many people in the past say they won't report with this and that service and later we found it to be posted here on the same forum that they do!
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnLocke
Seems to be very confusing about the terms of payments being credited as you say this leads people to assume things. I did not find any information other than what you have said about the amount credited to your account from the investment products. Which means that all this talk about the turnover balance being reported is wrong. I also cannot find any national legislation on custody accounts for any EU country that reports within the framework of AOEI and CRS turnover balances to the account, or amounts credited to the account that do not relate to the investments from the account
Depends on how you read "payments credited", but it's either a mistake or deliberate loose wording to reserve room to maneuver (legal liability risks).

I've seen full data of my own reports, and this information is never featured.

The CRS is a standardized protocol with fixed data-value pairs. Banks can't make their own version of CRS as all data-value pairs are harmonized at the OECD level. Interest and dividend income, other investment income credited to your account, from the investment products you maintain with the bank who reports, IS part of your income under CRS rules. But received salary, received loan principal repayments, received payments from other accounts in your name, refunded hotel booking fees, received mom's birthday present... IS NOT. Any other approach would make the bank engage in guessing games.

With the bolded-out text, note that there's a difference if you receive investment income from companies where the reporting bank is not your investment custodian/broker. In that case, this data falls out of scope too. The reason is the same, if they don't manage your investments account, there's no way to conclude if the incoming funds constitute fresh income, taxed capital of prior years, or a mix of both. There are no grounds to report any of it as received income; reporting anything as income on assumptions, or payment descriptions alone would be malicious activity towards the customer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnLocke
Which means that all this talk about the turnover balance being reported is wrong.
I can assure you it is not wrong, not at all. It may depend on the EMI or the country you live in. But I got punished hard a few years ago!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mirhadi
Sorry to hear about your experience, what I am mentioning now is about all EU regulated FIs who need to comply with their national legislation which in this case is based on the EU Directive, Council Directive 2014/107/EU so just handing out your turnover balance is not something that would just happen, except if there was a request for this and so on from the other tax authority etc, but this is not based on the directive in the EU for automatic exchanges, I get what information was shared with the tax authority in one of the the Nordic countries within the framework of their national law based on the directive, and so far it has never reported a turnover balance. Although I agree that the definition of other income is vague, especially when some FIs themselves only use that statement, which creates uncertainty, but the banks freely choosing to share information for which there is no legal support in national legislation based on the EU directive is a direct crime against banking secrecy in that country if it exists lol)), but of course other non-eu regulated FI's I have no idea so it could be the case they share everything depending on their national legislation..
 
Unfortunately, it is not always the case that what the banks and other financial institutions write on their website, or what an employee of the respective bank says, corresponds to reality. Through bitter experience, I have learned that one should only use a bank if one is willing to lay all cards on the table and pay taxes on the deposits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MichelRippon989
  • Like
Reactions: MichelRippon989

Latest Threads