Posted: 12:03 am ET
Follow @Diplopundit
Extracted from CRS RL34112 | August 2016 — via Secrecy News
Via CRS
Snapshot: U.S. Deportations to Top Receiving Countries: FY2013-FY2015
Category Archives: Snapshots
Snapshot: Countries With Bilateral Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) Under #FATCA
Posted: 2:33 am ET
Follow @Diplopundit
Via CRS
Extracted from CRS #R44616 – FATCA Reporting on U.S. Accounts: Recent Legal Developments via Secrecy News:
Enacted in 2010, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) is intended to curb U.S. tax evasion occurring through the use of offshore accounts. Key among its provisions is the requirement that foreign financial institutions (FFIs), such as foreign banks and hedge funds, report information on their U.S. account holders to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). FFIs that fail to comply will have tax withheld at a rate of 30% on many payments made to them from U.S. sources, including interest and dividends.
Since FATCA’s passage, there has been international criticism of the FFI provisions, generally focused on whether the United States was correct to take FATCA’s unilateral approach. Questions have arisen about whether FATCA’s requirements are inconsistent with existing U.S. treaty obligations; how to handle potential conflict of law issues arising when an FFI is faced with complying with FATCA or its home country’s domestic (e.g., banking and privacy) laws; and whether the United States has intruded into other countries’ sovereignty.
Recognizing that these concerns could affect the success of FATCA, the United States has entered into bilateral intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) with numerous countries in order to implement the FFI requirements. Under some of these agreements, FFIs report information on their U.S. account holders to their home country, which then provides the information to the IRS. In general, for those FFIs that are not covered by such an agreement, FATCA requires that they report the information directly to the IRS.
As of August 1, 2016, there are 63 IGAs that are currently in force. Additionally, the United States treats certain countries as having an IGA in effect even though the country has not taken all the steps necessary to actually bring the agreement into force. In July 2016, the IRS made a significant announcement regarding these countries: they will stop being treated as having an IGA in effect in 2017 unless they comply with certain requirements by December 31, 2016. Among other things, the country must explain why the IGA is not yet in force and provide a step-by-step timeline for doing so. The Treasury Department and the IRS will then decide whether it is appropriate to continue to treat the country as having an IGA in effect.
#
Snapshot: ARB Recommendations — Procedural Action and Responsibilities
Posted: 1:26 am ET
Follow @Diplopundit
Via 12 FAH 12 Exhibit H-013 | M/PRI 12-08-2014
Per 12 FAH 12, following receipt of an Accountability Review Board’s report, the Secretary will determine what actions should be taken with respect to the recommendations. The Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources will oversee the Department’s progress on ARB implementation. The Under Secretary for Management (M), in coordination with the Under Secretary for Political Affairs (P), is responsible for implementation of ARB recommendations. On behalf of the Secretary and other Department principals, the Office of Management Policy, Rightsizing and Innovation (M/PRI) will coordinate and track recommendations and manage the overall implementation process.
Related item:
12 FAM 030 ACCOUNTABILITY REVIEW BOARD (ARB)
#
Snapshot: U.S. Assistance to the Philippines, FY2008-2015
Posted: 3:22 am ET
Follow @Diplopundit
Via CRS:
Full report available here: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43498.pdf
#
Security Assistance to Egypt: End-Use Monitoring and Leahy Vetting
Posted: 12:03 am ET
Follow @Diplopundit
Via gao.gov:
U.S. agencies allocated approximately $6.5 billion for security-related assistance to Egypt in fiscal years 2011 through 2015. As of September 30, 2015, over $6.4 billion of the $6.5 billion total had been committed or disbursed. The majority of the funding (99.5 percent) was provided to Egypt through the Department of State’s (State) Foreign Military Financing (FMF) account. The funds from this account were used to purchase and sustain a wide variety of military systems, including F-16 aircraft, Apache helicopters, and M1A1 tanks.
via gao.gov
The Departments of Defense (DOD) and State implemented end-use monitoring for equipment transferred to Egyptian security forces, but challenges including obtaining Egyptian government cooperation hindered some efforts. DOD completed all required end-use monitoring inventories and physical security inspections of storage sites for missiles and night vision devices (NVD) in fiscal year 2015, but DOD lacked documentation showing that it completed physical security inspections for these sensitive items in prior years. Despite agreeing to give access, the Egyptian government prevented DOD officials from accessing a storage site to verify the physical security of some NVDs prior to 2015, according to DOD officials and documents. State conducted 12 end-use checks of U.S. equipment exported to Egypt in fiscal years 2011 to 2015, but State data indicate that the Egyptian government’s incomplete and slow responses to some inquiries limited U.S. efforts to verify the use and security of certain equipment, including NVDs and riot-control items. Despite this lack of cooperation, since 2008, State has not used outreach programs in Egypt that are intended to facilitate host country cooperation and compliance with State’s monitoring program. According to State officials, this was due to the small number of end-use checks conducted in Egypt and the lower priority assigned to Egypt than to other countries.
The U.S. government completed some, but not all, human rights vetting required by State policy before providing training or equipment to Egyptian security forces. State deemed GAO’s estimate of the percentage of Egyptian security forces that were not vetted to be sensitive but unclassified information, which is excluded from this public report. Moreover, State has not established specific policies and procedures for vetting Egyptian security forces receiving equipment. Although State concurred with a 2011 GAO recommendation to implement equipment vetting, it has not established a time frame for such action. State currently attests in memos that it is in compliance with the Leahy law. However, without vetting policies and procedures, the U.S. government risks providing U.S. equipment to recipients in Egypt in violation of the Leahy laws.
Read in full here.
#
By the Numbers: Diplomatic Security Hiring and Vetting — 2015
Posted: 3:55 am ET
Updated: Aug 17, 1:19 pm PST
Follow @Diplopundit
The State Department confirmed to us that the total number of applicants is 10,000 not 10,0000 as indicated in the infographic below.
Click image for larger view — via State/DS
#
Snapshot: Foreign Service Family Member Population Overseas (April 2016)
Posted: 3:02 am ET
Follow @Diplopundit
Via state.gov/flo – April 2016 report. The previous report dated November 2015 puts that overseas population at 11,678 with the same breakdown at 77% female and 23% male.
Related posts:
- Snapshot: Foreign Service Family Member Employment by Bureau and Geographic Distribution Nov 2015
- Snapshot: Employment Status of Foreign Service Family Members Overseas Nov 2015
- Snapshot: Foreign Service Adult Family Member Population Overseas Nov 2015
Snapshot: U.S. Security- Related Assistance for Egypt, FY2011-2015, as of 9/30/15
Snapshot: U.S. State Department Core Staffing (1995-2015)
Updated: 3:33 am ET
Follow @Diplopundit
Via heritage.org:
Related post:
Heritage: How to Make the State Department More Effective at Implementing U.S. Foreign Policy
#
Snapshot: Investor EB-5 Visa Program (FY2013 – FY2015)
Posted: 12:18 am EDT
Follow @Diplopundit
Excerpted from the prepared statement of Nicholas Colucci, the Chief of the Immigrant Investor Program Office for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) at the House Judiciary Committee Hearing, “Is the Investor Visa Program an Underperforming Asset?”, February 11, 2016:
Congress created the EB-5 visa program in 1990 as a tool to stimulate the U.S. economy by encouraging foreign capital investments and job creation. The EB-5 program makes immigrant visas and subsequent “green cards” available to foreign nationals who invest at least $1,000,000in a new commercial enterprise (NCE) that will create or preserve at least ten full- time jobs in the United States. A foreign national may invest $500,000 if the investment is in a targeted employment area (TEA), defined to include certain rural areas and areas of high unemployment.
The regional center program which has been in the news lately was first enacted in 1992, and provides an allocation of EB-5 visas to be set aside for investors in regional centers designated by USCIS. According to Mr. Colucci, there are currently 796 regional centers. This is up from about 588 at the end of fiscal year (FY) 2014, and 11 at the end of 2007.
STATISTICS
In FY 2013, USCIS approved a total of:
• 3,699 Form I-526 petitions (Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur)
• 844 Form I-829 petitions (Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions)
• 118 Form I-924 applications (Application for Regional Center Under the Immigrant Investor Program)
In FY 2014, USCIS approved a total of:
• 4,925 I-526 petitions
• 1,603 I-829 petitions
• 294 I-924 applications
In FY 2015, USCIS approved a total of:
• 8,756 I-526 petitions
• 1,067 I-829 petitions
• 262 I-924 applications
Note: Form I-526, Petition for Immigrant Investor, is filed by all immigrant investors. Approval classifies the investor under section 203(b)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act so that he or she (and derivative beneficiaries) can apply for an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to conditional permanent resident. If admitted as an immigrant or adjustment of status is approved, the immigrant investor generally must then file Form I-829, Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions, within 90 days of the two year anniversary of his or her admission or adjustment as a conditional permanent resident. Other EB-5-specific forms include Form I-924, Application For Regional Center Under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program, which is used to apply for regional center designation, and Form I-924A, Supplement to Form I-924, which approved regional centers file annually to demonstrate continued eligibility for the designation.
Related items:
- Immigration Investor Program | 02.11.16 Colucci Testimony.pdf (106.9 KBs)
- U.S. Government Accountability Office | 02.11.16 Gambler Testimony.pdf (231.5 KBs)
#
