Slightly old news but anyone heard anything about which are the 20 other banks?

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...ow/5677242.cms

By process of elimination, my best guess is 20 of the top banks from the list below that have physical offices/affiliations/dealings in the US... Thoughts?

http://www.swconsult.ch/cgi-bin/banklist.pl

Reviving this thread to point out a very good article from The Economist, which I found this morning in my inbox and a copy printed on my desk, courtesy of our excellent team assistant!

Don't Ask, Won't Tell

Particularly interesting this excerpt:

"The embattled Swiss bemoan the pressure and even like to label their detractors “imperialists”. A common (and reasonable) complaint is that many of the countries pressing them are also tax havens in their own right. The United States houses money from Latin America in its Florida banks, and under Delaware and Nevada law it is easy to set up a tax-friendly shell company. Britain has the Channel Islands. “They have no moral right to push Switzerland on this, because they haven’t cleaned up their own mess,” harrumphs a Swiss proponent of secrecy. But, clearly that is not stopping them."

May I offer a differing opinion ? To take the two comments in order:

There is nothing improper about "housing" money in US banks, in Swiss banks, or any other place. However, the US will exchange information with any foreign country with which it has an information sharing agreement (or tax treaty), so the implication (that Latin American money is dodging local taxes with the consent of the US) is false.

Similarly, there is nothing improper about placing a company in a low(er)-tax jurisdiction. (Why on earth are so many international companies sited in Ireland, or Switerland? Lower taxes than in France is one reason.) Yet, again, there is the innuendo ("tax-friendly shell companies"). Any information on any company formed in the US is available to the IRS on request (and thus to any foreign gov't requesting it). A company which hides its books & records from the gov't may be dissolved, and have its assets seized (leaving it up to owners to come forward and identify themselves to the IRS). There is nothing at all in the US which is equivelant to (for example) companies with bearer shares (still permitted in CH?).

The Economist does not seem very fond of fact-checking, and the lament of the Swiss, cited in this article, seems rather hallucinatory and self-serving.

Really? Can you then please explain what this is about? No need to say that this regulation was eventually withdrawn.

The regulation proposed and the letter you posted have no relevance at all to the fact I cited: the US will exchange tax information with any country with which it has an agreement or tax treaty. Whether or not information is automatically sent to the IRS is immaterial.

Whatever opinion you find "disgusting", you can find a politician in any country who supports that opinion. You can find demons anywhere if you are determined to find them, and (from your prior posts on this forum) you are quite determined to find demons in the USA.

There is one relevance that you don't want to see : the opposition of various US politicians to this legislation and later its complete withdrawal is a clear evidence that the US is encouraging tax evasion by latin american taxpayers while going after swiss banks at the same time. Do as I Say, Not as I Do. Anyone with an ounce of honesty would recognize that.

The opinion of various US politicians does not represent the USA. Anyone "with an ounce of honesty" would understand that. That you routinely resort to ad hominem accusations reflects only on yourself.

As far as I know, the US government represents the USA and it is the US government that rejected this legislation.

From what I see and read around me I think there are quite a few people who are not pleased with US tax policy.

It was not legislation, it was a proposed IRS regulation. It was not "rejected" by the government, it was proposed then withdrawn by the IRS. As to the politicians who objected: as I wrote above, you can find demons (fools, crooks) in any country.

However, that is not in any way relevant to the point I made above: the IRS will share information on bank accounts etc with other nations, under tax treaties or other agreements, and the Economist's argument, quoted by the original post, is not supported by any facts.

Why did this "proposed IRS regulation" was withdrawn? It was a very good idea though and quite fashionable at the moment. The quest for more fiscal transparency! Isn't that what the US government is asking swiss banks for?

Latin american tax payers hiding money from their government with the help of US banks would leave immediately if this regulation was passed. Therefore they are evading taxes in their country with the consent of the US. And that would hurt the US economy and that's why this regulation was withdrawn. Denying this (which you did) is either dishonest or biased.

Incidentally, looking at the outcry when the regulation was discussed, there seems to be quite a few demons in Florida....

The reality is that the US government gives itself the right to do certain things to protect its interests and at the same time uses all its power to prevent other nations from using the same means. Whatever you think the reactions of the Swiss is quite understandable.

We disagree, but I am not going to exchange insults with you.

I must learn to never, ever, trust anything you write. My error !!

The proposed IRS regulation was not withdrawn, and it fact it has progressed to the status of a "Final Rule" per an IRS publication dated January 20, 2012. You can find a PDF here or Google for the name:
Treas-Fincen-2012-0002-0001.