I thought FB messenger.vivekananda wrote:when it was written this post? I do not see it on fbjarora wrote: Question for Skrill on FB: Helllo. I want to ask whether they fall under the new law 2014/107/EU regarding CRS Law as a company PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/si/webapps/mpp/ua/facta-full
The answer Skrill on FB: Hello, Please be advised to refer to our current Privacy Policy published on our Web Page: https://www.skrill.com/en/footer/privacypolicy/. Please, be advised that for any change, our customers are informed via an email. On our Webpage is published always the latest of the Privacy Noticed that is applying to our customers.
Regards,
VV
My note: On website Skrill Privacy Policy is not no note about CRS Law as at PayPal.
E-wallets and CRS
- jarora
- Gaining experience
- Karma: 2
Post
Re: E-wallets and CRS
- Pete1928
- Gaining experience
- Karma: 3
Post
This is interesting, however unfortunately we have nothing to hold on to here.
There are no "e-money providers" in OECD's CRS. There is no special category that refers to e-money providers, because e-money can be different in nature, for example there's paysafecard, which is only prepaid purchase option, without any deposit options whatsoever, there is Paypal who has a banking license within the EU, there is LeuPay that is SATABANK's subsidiary and therefore has different obligations, and then there's its majesty ----> the paysafe group, which is a COMPLETE and utter mystery. They are not operating with bank licenses, they are not classic deposit institutions but also not classic custodial institutions either.
This is a reply from OECD directly (not to me but to a friend of mine who did some research for something else and got a reply from them about this):
"Under the CRS no special rules apply to electronic money providers. Like other financial industry participants, they must determine whether they are a Financial Institution, as defined by the CRS. That determination will depend on the facts and circumstances. For instance, in order to determine whether an electronic money provider is a Depository Institution, the analysis must be done with reference to Section VIII(A)(5) and the related Commentary, in particular paragraph 13.
The mere fact that a Financial Account is an electronic money account does not by itself enable that Financial Account to be specified by a jurisdiction in its domestic law as a low-risk Excluded Account. In order for such Financial Accounts to be specified as Excluded Accounts under the domestic law of an implementing jurisdiction pursuant to Section VIII(C)(17)(g), the jurisdiction needs to ensure that the accounts present a low risk for being used for tax evasion, have substantially similar characteristics to another category of Excluded Accounts and that their status as an Excluded Account does not frustrate the purposes of the CRS. The Commentary on Section VIII(C)(17)(g) provides examples of such low-risk jurisdiction-specific Excluded Accounts."
I was a huge fan of Skrill in recent years, but lately this shady behavior by Skrill is getting on my nerves big time.
First, they do not want to share any information, and I believe it's because they do not know what they will have to do. That's why they ensured themselves with a notification on 31.1. (which is a must under HMRC if you want to legally report for the previous year), however this notification (updated T&C) is also a sham ---> I checked on 1.2.2017. at around 13 AM CET (which means everywhere on the planet January was over) and their T&C were NOT UPDATED!
So on 2.2. we all start getting e-mails that they have updated it on 31.1. That's a blatant lie. And if I had a lot of money I would sue them if they decide to share my 2016 data, simply because it's a sham, we were NOT informed by the HMRC legal deadline, which is 31.1 (this deadline is jurisdiction based, not CRS/OECD and UK has such a law).
THe thing is, I also couldn't find out that bank compliance is going slower than expected, it's just a waiting game now and to be honest I'm getting tired of it.
The worst thing is, why paysafe's rating is going to be garbage very soon, is that they have kindly asked anyone who has any questions concerning their updated T&C to contact them at dataprivacy@paysafe.com.
I sent e-mails from 2 different account e-mails and 2 dump e-mails not connected to accounts.
0 Replies.
Because they are simply useless now, we can only find something out unofficially, and hope that 2016 won't be in the scope. If anyone has any substantial updates, please PM me or share it here.
Re: E-wallets and CRS
Pep the boss wrote: Hello
There is no doubt that Skrill and Neteller are not affected by CRS:
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/international-exchange-of-information/ieim400750
"Electronic Money Institutions authorised under the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 (EMR), which implements the European Union Electronic Money Directive (2009/110/EC) (EMD) in the UK, are not deposit takers for the purposes of the EU Capital Requirements Directive (2013/36/EU) (CRD)."
As you can see on the bottom of Neteller homepage for example, Neteller is regulated by EMR 2011...
This is interesting, however unfortunately we have nothing to hold on to here.
There are no "e-money providers" in OECD's CRS. There is no special category that refers to e-money providers, because e-money can be different in nature, for example there's paysafecard, which is only prepaid purchase option, without any deposit options whatsoever, there is Paypal who has a banking license within the EU, there is LeuPay that is SATABANK's subsidiary and therefore has different obligations, and then there's its majesty ----> the paysafe group, which is a COMPLETE and utter mystery. They are not operating with bank licenses, they are not classic deposit institutions but also not classic custodial institutions either.
This is a reply from OECD directly (not to me but to a friend of mine who did some research for something else and got a reply from them about this):
"Under the CRS no special rules apply to electronic money providers. Like other financial industry participants, they must determine whether they are a Financial Institution, as defined by the CRS. That determination will depend on the facts and circumstances. For instance, in order to determine whether an electronic money provider is a Depository Institution, the analysis must be done with reference to Section VIII(A)(5) and the related Commentary, in particular paragraph 13.
The mere fact that a Financial Account is an electronic money account does not by itself enable that Financial Account to be specified by a jurisdiction in its domestic law as a low-risk Excluded Account. In order for such Financial Accounts to be specified as Excluded Accounts under the domestic law of an implementing jurisdiction pursuant to Section VIII(C)(17)(g), the jurisdiction needs to ensure that the accounts present a low risk for being used for tax evasion, have substantially similar characteristics to another category of Excluded Accounts and that their status as an Excluded Account does not frustrate the purposes of the CRS. The Commentary on Section VIII(C)(17)(g) provides examples of such low-risk jurisdiction-specific Excluded Accounts."
I was a huge fan of Skrill in recent years, but lately this shady behavior by Skrill is getting on my nerves big time.
First, they do not want to share any information, and I believe it's because they do not know what they will have to do. That's why they ensured themselves with a notification on 31.1. (which is a must under HMRC if you want to legally report for the previous year), however this notification (updated T&C) is also a sham ---> I checked on 1.2.2017. at around 13 AM CET (which means everywhere on the planet January was over) and their T&C were NOT UPDATED!
So on 2.2. we all start getting e-mails that they have updated it on 31.1. That's a blatant lie. And if I had a lot of money I would sue them if they decide to share my 2016 data, simply because it's a sham, we were NOT informed by the HMRC legal deadline, which is 31.1 (this deadline is jurisdiction based, not CRS/OECD and UK has such a law).
THe thing is, I also couldn't find out that bank compliance is going slower than expected, it's just a waiting game now and to be honest I'm getting tired of it.
The worst thing is, why paysafe's rating is going to be garbage very soon, is that they have kindly asked anyone who has any questions concerning their updated T&C to contact them at dataprivacy@paysafe.com.
I sent e-mails from 2 different account e-mails and 2 dump e-mails not connected to accounts.
0 Replies.
Because they are simply useless now, we can only find something out unofficially, and hope that 2016 won't be in the scope. If anyone has any substantial updates, please PM me or share it here.
- Pete1928
- Gaining experience
- Karma: 3
Post
all that is incorrect.
There are no "e-money providers" in OECD, it depends on the circumstances. Some may share, some may not, no one knows at the moment for sure.
The thing is, if they ask for TIN, that means they will share, if they don't, they won't - yet.
The only thing I'm trying to find out for sure is that 2016 only balances on 31.12. will be reported, because on OECD there is no mention of that that they will start "slowly only with balances" and then from 2017 all is reportable.
There is nothing official or unofficial. If anyone has anything, feel free to share.
Re: E-wallets and CRS
jarora wrote:Yes it is true. It should be monitored Privacy Policy and News from official page OECD. Thanks all.vivekananda wrote:this is post one mounth ago...Pete1928 wrote: This is the response I got today from Skrill, so I believe there is even legal basis to take them for their word on this one, at least for 2016.
Of course they will sooner or later be treated as a reporting FI, however it seems that for 2016 this is not the case, or if someone has any other ideas of how interpret the e-mail below, replied by Skrill today.
Dear XXXXX,
Thank you for your recent enquiry into the OECD /Standard for automatic exchange of financial account for tax matters.
Paysafe is compliant with all reporting obligations related to financial accounts. Currently, the OECD’s Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information (or Common Reporting Standards) do not apply to e-money issuers. Paysafe continues to follow this legislation as it develops.
Kind regards,
Skrill Help Team
I think that the law does not change so quickly that it would now be some changes.
all that is incorrect.
There are no "e-money providers" in OECD, it depends on the circumstances. Some may share, some may not, no one knows at the moment for sure.
The thing is, if they ask for TIN, that means they will share, if they don't, they won't - yet.
The only thing I'm trying to find out for sure is that 2016 only balances on 31.12. will be reported, because on OECD there is no mention of that that they will start "slowly only with balances" and then from 2017 all is reportable.
There is nothing official or unofficial. If anyone has anything, feel free to share.
- mario21
- Gaining experience
- Karma: 2
Post
PP since 2007 has acquired a bank license in Luxembourg. I think this is exactly the problem.
From PP's User Agreement (for EU users):
Luxembourg's authority implementing the AEOI (Administration des contributions directes) has released a FAQ page saying in a few words that: entities providing e-money services, in general, don't fall under the crs law. However, in case an entity also carries out activities which go beyond the activity of an electronic money institution and which qualify as activities carried out by a Financial Institution (within the meaning of the CRS), then it will be considered as a financial institution and must comply with the CRS law.
do a search for "FAQ+CRS" on their site, you' ll find that faq
Re: E-wallets and CRS
i agree 100%. I am not a law expert, but I have done my own search on this matter.jauser wrote: Gaypal is sure to start sharing information from 2017-2018 because is a bank https://thebanks.eu/banks-by-country/Luxembourg
I understand that a e-money as skril may not share info because dont is depository institution but I'm not sure.
I think that they will share info according:
* E-money services supplied from bank= Share info (le.upay,n2,6,payal..)
* E-money services supplied from e-money institution regulated by act 2011= No share info (rev.olut, advca.sh, ok pay..)
* E-money services plus payment gateways supplied from payment institution¿regulated by act 2009?= I don´t know (pays.era, worl.dpay...)
Can anyone tell me if a payment institution is like a e-money instituion in terms of AEO.I?
Best regards
PP since 2007 has acquired a bank license in Luxembourg. I think this is exactly the problem.
From PP's User Agreement (for EU users):
*ayPal (Europe) S.à r.l. et Cie, S.C.A. ...is duly licensed as a Luxembourg credit institution in the sense of Article 2 of the law ... and is under the prudential supervision of the Luxembourg supervisory authority, the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier.
Luxembourg's authority implementing the AEOI (Administration des contributions directes) has released a FAQ page saying in a few words that: entities providing e-money services, in general, don't fall under the crs law. However, in case an entity also carries out activities which go beyond the activity of an electronic money institution and which qualify as activities carried out by a Financial Institution (within the meaning of the CRS), then it will be considered as a financial institution and must comply with the CRS law.
do a search for "FAQ+CRS" on their site, you' ll find that faq
- jarora
- Gaining experience
- Karma: 2
Post
Effective Date: Apr 27, 2017
3. How We Share Information with Other Third Parties (section 6.a.)
If a user qualifies as a specified U.S. person under FATCA Law and/or as a reportable person under CRS Law and assuming the FATCA Law and CRS Law impose obligations on PayPal (in either case, as a “Reportable Account Holder”), this information will be automatically exchanged by PayPal with the Luxembourg tax authorities. The Luxembourg tax authorities will exchange this information with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service if FATCA Law applies and/or, if CRS Law applies, with the competent authority or authorities of your respective country or countries of tax residence that are participating jurisdictions under CRS Law.
It should be the same for all but I do not know whether is automatically between the Luxembourg tax authorities will exchange this information with the competent authority my country or it require to any stimulus. What do you think?
Re: E-wallets and CRS
https://www.paypal.com/si/webapps/mpp/ua/upcoming-policies-fullPete1928 wrote: all that is incorrect.
There are no "e-money providers" in OECD, it depends on the circumstances. Some may share, some may not, no one knows at the moment for sure.
The thing is, if they ask for TIN, that means they will share, if they don't, they won't - yet.
The only thing I'm trying to find out for sure is that 2016 only balances on 31.12. will be reported, because on OECD there is no mention of that that they will start "slowly only with balances" and then from 2017 all is reportable.
There is nothing official or unofficial. If anyone has anything, feel free to share.
Effective Date: Apr 27, 2017
3. How We Share Information with Other Third Parties (section 6.a.)
If a user qualifies as a specified U.S. person under FATCA Law and/or as a reportable person under CRS Law and assuming the FATCA Law and CRS Law impose obligations on PayPal (in either case, as a “Reportable Account Holder”), this information will be automatically exchanged by PayPal with the Luxembourg tax authorities. The Luxembourg tax authorities will exchange this information with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service if FATCA Law applies and/or, if CRS Law applies, with the competent authority or authorities of your respective country or countries of tax residence that are participating jurisdictions under CRS Law.
It should be the same for all but I do not know whether is automatically between the Luxembourg tax authorities will exchange this information with the competent authority my country or it require to any stimulus. What do you think?
-
Pep the bossPe
Post
Re: E-wallets and CRS
Pete1928 wrote:Pep the boss wrote: Hello
There is no doubt that Skrill and Neteller are not affected by CRS:
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/international-exchange-of-information/ieim400750
"Electronic Money Institutions authorised under the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 (EMR), which implements the European Union Electronic Money Directive (2009/110/EC) (EMD) in the UK, are not deposit takers for the purposes of the EU Capital Requirements Directive (2013/36/EU) (CRD)."
As you can see on the bottom of Neteller homepage for example, Neteller is regulated by EMR 2011...
This is interesting, however unfortunately we have nothing to hold on to here.
There are no "e-money providers" in OECD's CRS. There is no special category that refers to e-money providers, because e-money can be different in nature, for example there's paysafecard, which is only prepaid purchase option, without any deposit options whatsoever, there is Paypal who has a banking license within the EU, there is LeuPay that is SATABANK's subsidiary and therefore has different obligations, and then there's its majesty ----> the paysafe group, which is a COMPLETE and utter mystery. They are not operating with bank licenses, they are not classic deposit institutions but also not classic custodial institutions either.
This is a reply from OECD directly (not to me but to a friend of mine who did some research for something else and got a reply from them about this):
"Under the CRS no special rules apply to electronic money providers. Like other financial industry participants, they must determine whether they are a Financial Institution, as defined by the CRS. That determination will depend on the facts and circumstances. For instance, in order to determine whether an electronic money provider is a Depository Institution, the analysis must be done with reference to Section VIII(A)(5) and the related Commentary, in particular paragraph 13.
The mere fact that a Financial Account is an electronic money account does not by itself enable that Financial Account to be specified by a jurisdiction in its domestic law as a low-risk Excluded Account. In order for such Financial Accounts to be specified as Excluded Accounts under the domestic law of an implementing jurisdiction pursuant to Section VIII(C)(17)(g), the jurisdiction needs to ensure that the accounts present a low risk for being used for tax evasion, have substantially similar characteristics to another category of Excluded Accounts and that their status as an Excluded Account does not frustrate the purposes of the CRS. The Commentary on Section VIII(C)(17)(g) provides examples of such low-risk jurisdiction-specific Excluded Accounts."
I was a huge fan of Skrill in recent years, but lately this shady behavior by Skrill is getting on my nerves big time.
First, they do not want to share any information, and I believe it's because they do not know what they will have to do. That's why they ensured themselves with a notification on 31.1. (which is a must under HMRC if you want to legally report for the previous year), however this notification (updated T&C) is also a sham ---> I checked on 1.2.2017. at around 13 AM CET (which means everywhere on the planet January was over) and their T&C were NOT UPDATED!
So on 2.2. we all start getting e-mails that they have updated it on 31.1. That's a blatant lie. And if I had a lot of money I would sue them if they decide to share my 2016 data, simply because it's a sham, we were NOT informed by the HMRC legal deadline, which is 31.1 (this deadline is jurisdiction based, not CRS/OECD and UK has such a law).
THe thing is, I also couldn't find out that bank compliance is going slower than expected, it's just a waiting game now and to be honest I'm getting tired of it.
The worst thing is, why paysafe's rating is going to be garbage very soon, is that they have kindly asked anyone who has any questions concerning their updated T&C to contact them at dataprivacy@paysafe.com.
I sent e-mails from 2 different account e-mails and 2 dump e-mails not connected to accounts.
0 Replies.
Because they are simply useless now, we can only find something out unofficially, and hope that 2016 won't be in the scope. If anyone has any substantial updates, please PM me or share it here.
- Attachments
-
Last edited by Pep the boss on Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Pep the bossPe
Post
Re: E-wallets and CRS
So the "Commentary 13" PETE1928 mentionned proves that I was right.
Last edited by Pep the boss on Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Pete1928
- Gaining experience
- Karma: 3
Post
The question is, however, why force the T&C update to 31.1. then?
Why post a broad spectrum of potential information exchange with all sorts of governmental and regulatory bodies (in Skrill and Neteller's T&C update)?
Why not just tell their clients, from help@skrill.com or dataprivacy@paysafe.com ---> guys, this is what's going or not going to happen?
I believe it's because they don't know at this point. What do you think? Where do Skrill and Neteller end up in the attachment you posted?
Re: E-wallets and CRS
Listen man, this isn't about who's right, I am the biggest fan of you being right, if that means skrill won't exchange anything.Pep the boss wrote: So the "Commentary 13" JARORA mentionned proves that I was right.
The question is, however, why force the T&C update to 31.1. then?
Why post a broad spectrum of potential information exchange with all sorts of governmental and regulatory bodies (in Skrill and Neteller's T&C update)?
Why not just tell their clients, from help@skrill.com or dataprivacy@paysafe.com ---> guys, this is what's going or not going to happen?
I believe it's because they don't know at this point. What do you think? Where do Skrill and Neteller end up in the attachment you posted?
- Pete1928
- Gaining experience
- Karma: 3
Post
Re: E-wallets and CRS
This is why I think you are not correct, not because I want to have a pissing contest 
.
https://haydonperryman.com/gb/guidance/fatca/03-21/
In addition to the above, any account that would otherwise fall within the definition of a financial account (depository, investment, custodial, insurance) shall not fail to qualify as a financial account just because it is maintained in an e-Money format. For example, an online depository account (sometimes known as an ‘e-wallet’) is treated the same way as a traditional depository account.
I know this says under "FATCA" and not CRS but I believe the guidelines may be similar. Then again, I want to be wrong on this.
.https://haydonperryman.com/gb/guidance/fatca/03-21/
In addition to the above, any account that would otherwise fall within the definition of a financial account (depository, investment, custodial, insurance) shall not fail to qualify as a financial account just because it is maintained in an e-Money format. For example, an online depository account (sometimes known as an ‘e-wallet’) is treated the same way as a traditional depository account.
I know this says under "FATCA" and not CRS but I believe the guidelines may be similar. Then again, I want to be wrong on this.
Last edited by Pete1928 on Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Pep the bossPe
-
Pep the bossPe
Post
Re: E-wallets and CRS
FATCA & CRS are different...Pete1928 wrote: This is why I think you are not correct, not because I want to have a pissing contest
https://haydonperryman.com/gb/guidance/fatca/03-21/
In addition to the above, any account that would otherwise fall within the definition of a financial account (depository, investment, custodial, insurance) shall not fail to qualify as a financial account just because it is maintained in an e-Money format. For example, an online depository account (sometimes known as an ‘e-wallet’) is treated the same way as a traditional depository account.
I know this says under "FATCA" and not CRS but I believe the guidelines may be similar. Then again, I want to be wrong on this.
- Pete1928
- Gaining experience
- Karma: 3
Post
Why do that?
Re: E-wallets and CRS
Again, I wish you are right, but how do you explain the questions I asked in the post on the previous page? Why post T&C update on 31.1. even thought it wasn't even posted then (!!!), and HMRC's 2016 notification for 2016 reporting is 31.1.2017.Pep the boss wrote:FATCA & CRS are different...Pete1928 wrote: This is why I think you are not correct, not because I want to have a pissing contest
https://haydonperryman.com/gb/guidance/fatca/03-21/
In addition to the above, any account that would otherwise fall within the definition of a financial account (depository, investment, custodial, insurance) shall not fail to qualify as a financial account just because it is maintained in an e-Money format. For example, an online depository account (sometimes known as an ‘e-wallet’) is treated the same way as a traditional depository account.
I know this says under "FATCA" and not CRS but I believe the guidelines may be similar. Then again, I want to be wrong on this.
Why do that?
-
Pep the bossPe
- Pete1928
- Gaining experience
- Karma: 3
Post
""Where we are required or permitted to do so by law: we may be required by law to pass information about you to regulatory authorities and law enforcement bodies worldwide, or we may otherwise determine that it is appropriate or necessary to do so. Such disclosures may also include requests from governmental or public authorities, or with commercial organisations with whom you may have had dealings and whom are seeking to mitigate fraud risk, or for the purposes of litigation or legal process, national security or where we deem it in the national or public interest or otherwise lawful to do so; ""
Re: E-wallets and CRS
Well I would have preferred if this wasn't posted on 31.1. (in reality it was already 1.2. and passed the deadline, but what can you do).
""Where we are required or permitted to do so by law: we may be required by law to pass information about you to regulatory authorities and law enforcement bodies worldwide, or we may otherwise determine that it is appropriate or necessary to do so. Such disclosures may also include requests from governmental or public authorities, or with commercial organisations with whom you may have had dealings and whom are seeking to mitigate fraud risk, or for the purposes of litigation or legal process, national security or where we deem it in the national or public interest or otherwise lawful to do so; ""
-
