????眼下，美國上市公司會計監(jiān)管委員會(PCAOB)和美國證券交易委員會(SEC)與中方在審計工作底稿問題上的僵持不下。不過，相比起來，正在中美監(jiān)管機構(gòu)之間醞釀的另一場爭端可能將產(chǎn)生更大的影響。

????按照美國《海外賬戶納稅法》(FATCA)的要求，如果美國客戶的賬戶余額超過5萬美元，其他國家的銀行、投資基金及其他金融機構(gòu)就要向美國國家稅務(wù)局(Internal Revenue Service)申報。如果不遵守這項規(guī)定，這些金融機構(gòu)就可能被逐出美國市場。這里所說的是大型金融企業(yè)，比如中國銀行（Bank of China）和匯豐銀行（HSBC）。

????就像上述審計問題一樣，許多國家和地區(qū)都已拒絕提供此類信息；但也和上述審計問題一樣，美國正在和多個國家和地區(qū)就雙邊協(xié)議進行磋商，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，中國大陸也拒絕配合美國監(jiān)管機構(gòu)，這一點并不意外。中國政府可能認(rèn)為，這是美國又一次試圖把美國法律凌駕于中國的國家主權(quán)之上。不過，這項措施針對的是美國公民，而不是中國人，所以和SEC與PCAOB對中國會計公司以及赴美上市的中國公司窮追不舍相比，它可能不會那么容易觸怒中方。

????路透社(Reuters)上周三發(fā)表了一篇有趣的文章，猜測說中國政府可能希望美方提供同樣的信息，并以此來實現(xiàn)合作。中國的稅務(wù)體系對中國公民在全球范圍內(nèi)的收入征稅，這一點和美國非常接近。所以，中國公民通過瞞報美國金融機構(gòu)存款而逃避中國政府稅收和美國人通過在中國金融機構(gòu)存款來逃避美國政府稅收屬于同一種情況。

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

????這就是以其人之道還治其人之身。

????有人建議，可以通過雙向合作來打破中美在審計問題上的僵局。如果美國公司在中國證券交易所上市，中國監(jiān)管機構(gòu)就有權(quán)審查其審計工作底稿及美國審計機構(gòu)。目前還沒有美國公司在中國境內(nèi)上市，但中方計劃建立國際板，情況可能因此發(fā)生改變。不過，假設(shè)通用汽車(General Motors)決定在國際板上市。那么倘若中國監(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防承包商，美國對此將作何反應(yīng)呢？

????對讀到本文并在中國大陸和香港開立了賬戶的美國公民來說，你們的賬戶余額超過5萬美元并不是違法行為。但如果不申報，就有可能惹上麻煩。即便中美沒有就此達成協(xié)議，但在反恐過程中為追蹤資金流而做出的巨大投入意味著美國國家稅務(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的情況下。如果監(jiān)管部門發(fā)現(xiàn)你沒有申報，你就會面臨巨額罰款，甚至有可能坐牢。相比之下，就這些賬戶進行申報，同時繳納所得稅的代價要小得多。（財富中文網(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.