????眼下,，美國(guó)上市公司會(huì)計(jì)監(jiān)管委員會(huì)(PCAOB)和美國(guó)證券交易委員會(huì)(SEC)與中方在審計(jì)工作底稿問(wèn)題上的僵持不下。不過(guò),，相比起來(lái),，正在中美監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)之間醞釀的另一場(chǎng)爭(zhēng)端可能將產(chǎn)生更大的影響。

????按照美國(guó)《海外賬戶納稅法》(FATCA)的要求,，如果美國(guó)客戶的賬戶余額超過(guò)5萬(wàn)美元,，其他國(guó)家的銀行、投資基金及其他金融機(jī)構(gòu)就要向美國(guó)國(guó)家稅務(wù)局(Internal Revenue Service)申報(bào),。如果不遵守這項(xiàng)規(guī)定,，這些金融機(jī)構(gòu)就可能被逐出美國(guó)市場(chǎng)。這里所說(shuō)的是大型金融企業(yè),，比如中國(guó)銀行（Bank of China）和匯豐銀行（HSBC）,。

????就像上述審計(jì)問(wèn)題一樣，許多國(guó)家和地區(qū)都已拒絕提供此類信息,；但也和上述審計(jì)問(wèn)題一樣,，美國(guó)正在和多個(gè)國(guó)家和地區(qū)就雙邊協(xié)議進(jìn)行磋商，尤其重要的是,，其中包括以銀行保密工作著稱的瑞士,。

????和香港一樣，中國(guó)大陸也拒絕配合美國(guó)監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu),，這一點(diǎn)并不意外,。中國(guó)政府可能認(rèn)為，這是美國(guó)又一次試圖把美國(guó)法律凌駕于中國(guó)的國(guó)家主權(quán)之上,。不過(guò),，這項(xiàng)措施針對(duì)的是美國(guó)公民，而不是中國(guó)人,，所以和SEC與PCAOB對(duì)中國(guó)會(huì)計(jì)公司以及赴美上市的中國(guó)公司窮追不舍相比,，它可能不會(huì)那么容易觸怒中方。

????路透社(Reuters)上周三發(fā)表了一篇有趣的文章,，猜測(cè)說(shuō)中國(guó)政府可能希望美方提供同樣的信息,，并以此來(lái)實(shí)現(xiàn)合作。中國(guó)的稅務(wù)體系對(duì)中國(guó)公民在全球范圍內(nèi)的收入征稅,，這一點(diǎn)和美國(guó)非常接近,。所以，中國(guó)公民通過(guò)瞞報(bào)美國(guó)金融機(jī)構(gòu)存款而逃避中國(guó)政府稅收和美國(guó)人通過(guò)在中國(guó)金融機(jī)構(gòu)存款來(lái)逃避美國(guó)政府稅收屬于同一種情況,。

????此外,，中方可能有意通過(guò)這類信息來(lái)追查腐敗官員。2011年,，中國(guó)人民銀行公布的數(shù)據(jù)顯示,，有16,000-18,000名政府官員和國(guó)企人員攜1,200多億美元（7,452億元人民幣）潛逃國(guó)外。其中多數(shù)資金都流入了美國(guó),。

????這就是以其人之道還治其人之身,。

????有人建議，可以通過(guò)雙向合作來(lái)打破中美在審計(jì)問(wèn)題上的僵局,。如果美國(guó)公司在中國(guó)證券交易所上市,，中國(guó)監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)就有權(quán)審查其審計(jì)工作底稿及美國(guó)審計(jì)機(jī)構(gòu)。目前還沒(méi)有美國(guó)公司在中國(guó)境內(nèi)上市,，但中方計(jì)劃建立國(guó)際板,，情況可能因此發(fā)生改變。不過(guò),，假設(shè)通用汽車(General Motors)決定在國(guó)際板上市,。那么倘若中國(guó)監(jiān)管人員出現(xiàn)在底特律(Detroit)并要求查看德勤(Deloitte)的工作底稿，考慮到通用汽車是一家主要國(guó)防承包商,，美國(guó)對(duì)此將作何反應(yīng)呢,？

????對(duì)讀到本文并在中國(guó)大陸和香港開(kāi)立了賬戶的美國(guó)公民來(lái)說(shuō)，你們的賬戶余額超過(guò)5萬(wàn)美元并不是違法行為,。但如果不申報(bào),，就有可能惹上麻煩。即便中美沒(méi)有就此達(dá)成協(xié)議,，但在反恐過(guò)程中為追蹤資金流而做出的巨大投入意味著美國(guó)國(guó)家稅務(wù)局有權(quán)找到這些賬戶,，特別是在你曾嘗試將其中的資金帶回美國(guó)的情況下。如果監(jiān)管部門(mén)發(fā)現(xiàn)你沒(méi)有申報(bào),，你就會(huì)面臨巨額罰款,，甚至有可能坐牢。相比之下,，就這些賬戶進(jìn)行申報(bào),，同時(shí)繳納所得稅的代價(jià)要小得多。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：Charlie

????There is a battle brewing between U.S. and Chinese regulators that may be bigger than the current standoff between the PCAOB and SEC with Chinese regulators over audit working papers.

????The Foreign Accounts Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) requires non-U.S. banks, investment funds and other financial institutions to tell the U.S. Internal Revenue Service about accounts held by Americans with more than $50,000. If financial institutions do not cooperate, they could be kicked out of the U.S. We are talking big institutions here, like Bank of China and HSBC.

????Like in the auditing standoff, many other countries have also resisted providing this information, and also like the auditing standoff, bilateral arrangements have been negotiated with many countries, including most importantly the popular bank secrecy country of Switzerland.

????Unsurprisingly, China is holding out, as is Hong Kong. China probably views this as another attempt by the U.S. to extend U.S. law to China that impinges on China’s national sovereignty. This is an action against U.S. citizens, not Chinese, so it is probably less offensive to the Chinese than the SEC/PCAOB actions which go after Chinese accounting firms and U.S. listed Chinese companies.

????In an interesting article today, Reuters speculates that the Chinese want similar information from the U.S. in exchange for cooperation. China’s tax system is very similar to the U.S. in that it taxes its citizens on their worldwide income. So, if Chinese citizens have unreported deposits in U.S. financial institutions they are evading Chinese taxes in the same way that Americans are suspected of evading U.S. taxes with deposits in Chinese financial institutions.

????But the Chinese are probably interested in getting this information to track down corrupt officials. In 2011, the People’s Bank of China reported that between 16,000 and 18,000 officials and employees of state-owned companies had left China with more than $120 billion stolen from China. Most of this money went to the United States.

????What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

????It has been suggested that one solution to the auditing standoff is to make that cooperation a two way street. If U.S. companies are listed on Chinese stock exchanges, then Chinese regulators should have the right to inspect U.S. audit working papers and U.S. auditors. No U.S. companies are presently listed on China’s stock exchanges, but plans for an International Board could change that. But suppose that General Motors decides to list on the International Board. How will the U.S. react to Chinese regulators showing up in Detroit demanding to see the Deloitte’s working papers, considering that GM is a major defense contractor?

????For my readers who are U.S. citizens with accounts in China and Hong Kong, it is not illegal to have foreign accounts with more than $50,000. However, you are going to get caught if you do not report them. Even if no deal is reached between the U.S. and China on this matter, the huge investment in tracking funds to fight terrorism means that the IRS has the power to find these accounts, particularly if you ever try to bring them back to the U.S. It costs a lot less to report the accounts and pay tax on the earnings than to pay the huge penalties, potentially including jail time, when you get caught.