Switzerland: How Swiss companies should apply the income tests for FATCA classification purposes

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Switzerland: How Swiss companies should apply the income tests for FATCA classification purposes

mercuri.jpg

jagusiewicz.jpg

Ferdinando Mercuri


Adam Jagusiewicz

Because, for most Swiss banks, the review of individual accounts is practically reaching its end under their due diligence procedures, the time has come to enquire about the entity client status under FATCA. For entities like Swiss banks, broker-dealers, asset managers, or insurance companies offering cash value or annuities contracts, the answer is rather easy as these entities fall under one of the FATCA categories of foreign financial institutions (FFI). What about a non-listed operating company, Company C, with premises and staff engaged in a commercial (non-financial) business for more than 30 years, which has granted to a professional asset manager a mandate to partially manage its cash and financial assets on a discretionary basis and deriving from this activity an important financial income: is such entity an FFI or a non-financial foreign entity (NFFE)?

Under the applicable FATCA regulations in Switzerland, if an entity's gross income is primarily attributable to investing, reinvesting or trading in financial assets because such entity's financial assets are managed for such purposes by another FFI which through its management activities derives over the past three years (or the period during which the entity has been in existence) 50% or more of financial income, then such entity qualifies as an FFI (investment entity). In other words, for Company C, the question would be to examine its total gross income over the last three years and assess if its gross income derived from the activities of investing, re-investing or trading of its financial assets by its asset manager equals or exceeds 50% of its total gross income(s). If the financial income meets the required 50% threshold, then Company C will need to consider the status of an FFI. Otherwise, Company C will consider the status of an NFFE.

But this may not be the end. If, after assessment, Company C considers itself as an NFFE, it still needs to examine if it is an active or a passive NFFE. Here, the entity will have to apply a passive income test. This test encompasses a different scope of income than the one considered under the financial income. Under the passive income test, if Company C's gross income (usually for the preceding calendar year) is less than 50% of passive income and less than 50% of its assets produce or are held for the production of passive income, then Company C can consider the status of an active NFFE.

Finally, if these conditions are not met by Company C (more than 50% of its assets produce passive income), then Company C will need to consider the status of a passive NFFE.

Although the process might be burdensome for some companies to go through the assessment, the good news is that once it is properly done, it can be used under the OECD standard for automatic exchange of information as the same tests apply.

Ferdinando Mercuri (fmercuri@deloitte.ch) and Adam Jagusiewicz (ajagusiewicz@deloitte.ch)

Deloitte

Tel: +41 58 279 9242 and +41 58 279 9204

Website: www.deloitte.ch

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

It is understood that the US has vowed to oppose any outcome from talks taking place at the UN
It’s the second year in a row that RSM’s tax business has posted fee income growth above 10%
Recent guidance from the Indian tax authorities should provide confidence for investors, says Sanjay Sanghvi of Khaitan & Co
Grant Wardell-Johnson also suggests there could be solutions to the friction between the US and the OECD when it comes to pillar two
The president had so far avoided announcing tariffs on the US’s neighbours despite previous threats
The firm brought in three managing directors from EY and Deloitte in Europe; in other news, KPMG’s bid to practise law in US was delayed
One expert argues the ERS would be unlikely to improve taxpayers’ experience unless it comes with additional funding to hire more agents and staff
From pillar two and amount B to Apple’s headline EU Commission dispute, Martin Bonner and Yiwen Ping of Kreston Global argue that 2024’s key TP developments will inform 2025
Holland & Knight, Nelson Mullins and McCarter & English made the joint-most tax partner hires in the US last year, according to annual ITR Talent Tracker data
Despite a three-year-high in tax revenues generated from settling TP cases, HMRC reported a sharp fall in resolved MAP disputes
Gift this article