Enhanced Monitoring Report on the Implementation of the Standard on Transparency and Exchange of Information on Request 2026 Update (June)

United States

(Adopted by the Global Forum in June 2026)

The United States joined the Global Forum on 1 September 2009. The United States underwent its Second Round of EOIR Peer Review in 2018 (United States’ 2018 Report),1 which assessed its legal and regulatory framework in force as of 25 April 2018 and its practical implementation, including in respect of EOI requests received and sent during the review period from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2016. The United States received an overall rating of Largely Compliant and the individual Elements were rated as follows:

 

	A.1	A.2	A.3	B.1	B.2	C.1	C.2	C.3	C.4	C.5	Overall
Determinations	i.p.b.	i.p.	i.p.b.	i.p.	i.p.	i.p.b.	i.p.	i.p.	i.p.	n.a.	LC
Ratings	PC	LC	LC	C	C	LC	C	C	C	LC

Status of implementation of recommendations issued in the peer review report

The United States received 12 in-box recommendations in relation to Elements A.1, A.2, A.3, C.1, C.3 and C.5.

This monitoring report assesses the actions taken by the United States to address the recommendations issued in its EOIR Peer Review Report and the peer input received for the monitoring period 2023-2024.

The report concludes that one recommendation is “considered provisionally addressed in the context of the monitoring process, subject to detailed validation”, one recommendation is “no longer sufficiently material”, eight recommendations are “in the process of being addressed”, while two recommendations “have not been addressed”, and it advises on actions required.

Element A.1: Availability of ownership and identity information

1. Obligations to ensure availability of beneficial ownership information of relevant entities and arrangements

 

Recommendation (A.1, framework)	The United States should take further measures to ensure that all beneficial owners of relevant entities and arrangements are identified in line with the standard.
Underlying factor	Certain beneficial ownership information (i.e. identification of the responsible party) is required to be provided by companies (including LLCs [Limited Liability Companies]) and partnerships upon registration with the IRS [Internal Revenue Service]. However, not all beneficial owners are required to be identified in line with the standard. Beneficial ownership information is also required to be available with certain financial institutions (including banks) but the requirements to identify the beneficial owner(s) of a customer are not fully in line with the standard. Further, all entities are not required to engage such a financial institution. (see paragraphs 80 to 107 of the United States’ 2018 Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	On 1 January 2021, the United States enacted the Corporate Transparency Act, which required reporting entities to disclose their beneficial owners to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). Initially, the entities required to report included a wide range of corporations, limited liability companies and other similar entities, with limited exceptions (mainly entities that were already under enhanced federal reporting requirements). However, the act is currently being litigated, and its implementation with respect to domestic entities has been suspended. In the interim, the scope of reporting entities is narrowed to only entities formed under the laws of a foreign jurisdiction and that have registered to do business in the United States. These foreign entities are not required to report any United States persons as beneficial owners and United States persons are not required to report beneficial ownership with respect to any such foreign entity for which they are a beneficial owner. Currently, there is no enforcement of penalties or fines on domestic entities or foreign entities that fail to report their beneficial owners. Additionally, since 2023, the IRS has introduced new rules that requires individuals associated with an entity to identify themselves with supporting documentation to be given access to the entity’s Business Tax Account (BTA). The criteria lead to identification of senior managing officials of the company. For sole proprietorships, the owner will be identified and for partnerships, the individual to be identified will be the general partner themselves. As of June 2025, more than 250 000 sole proprietors, more than 15 000 individual shareholders, more than 15 000 general partners and more than 30 000 designated officers (senior managers) of United States corporations have been identified. This has increased the amount and scope of beneficial ownership information available to the IRS. The United States reported that using its strong information gathering powers, the IRS, and by extension the competent authority, can always obtain beneficial ownership information from various sources, including tax filings, public records and financial institutions. For the monitoring period 2023 to 2024, requesting jurisdictions sought beneficial ownership information in approximately 180 requests (8% of total requests received), and the United States provided such information.
Conclusion	From January 2021 to March 2025, the United States implemented the Corporate Transparency Act which required a wide range of United States companies and corporations, and foreign entities registered in the United States, to identify and report beneficial ownership information to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). Since March 2025, the implementation of the Corporate Transparency Act was largely suspended, with the scope of entities required to report beneficial ownership information reduced to only foreign entities registered in the United States. Further, these reporting foreign entities are not required to report any United States persons as beneficial owners. The Business Tax Account rules have complemented the existing tax filing requirements to report the “responsible party”, thus increasing the scope and breadth of beneficial ownership information available to the Internal Revenue Service. Although the United States had made material progress with the introduction of the Corporate Transparency Act, the adoption of the rules limiting the scope of the reporting requirements has reduced that progress. Nevertheless, there is some improvement in the legal and regulatory framework compared to the 2018 Report. The definition of beneficial owner pursuant to tax filing requirements and the AML framework remains deficient. Regarding coverage, there are no requirements ensuring that all entities and arrangements identify or report their beneficial ownership information, nor are there requirements for all entities and arrangements to engage an AML-obliged person in an ongoing relationship. Further, there are no ongoing supervisory or enforcement actions related to the Corporate Transparency Act obligations. Finally, the United States reported that through its strong information gathering powers, the competent authority can obtain beneficial ownership information from various sources, including tax filings, public records and financial institutions; however, this practical aspect does not compensate definitional and coverage gaps on the availability of beneficial ownership information. The United States has made progress to address the recommendation. It should report further progress in its next self-assessment.
Status determined	In the process of being addressed
Actions required	In its next self-assessment in 2028, the United States should – Report the actions taken to address the recommendation, i.e. relevant changes in the legal and regulatory framework that will allow availability of accurate, adequate and up-to-date beneficial ownership information of all relevant legal entities and arrangements. Provide updates on the actions taken to implement relevant measures, conduct supervisory actions and enforcement to ensure availability of accurate, adequate and up-to-date beneficial ownership information.

2. Availability of beneficial ownership information on trusts

 

Recommendation (A.1, framework)	The United States should ensure that all beneficial owners of trusts are required to be identified in line with the standard.
Underlying factor	Although the United States law requires identification of the settlor, the trustee, beneficiaries, and any person who exercises control over the trust through a combination of obligations imposed primarily under the state law, federal tax law, and common law; none of these obligations explicitly requires identification of all the beneficial owners of trusts as required under the standard (i.e. including the identity of any other natural person exercising ultimate effective control over the trust through a chain of entities or arrangements). (see paragraphs 141 to 149 of the United States’ 2018 Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	The United States reported that the competent authority can obtain current and accurate information on the beneficial owners of a trust from the trustee at any time. Trustees have access to the most current information identifying settlors, trustees, beneficiaries, and controlling parties and can be compelled to provide such information. Further, the persons with control over the trust in practice are regularly reported, as required under the know-your-customer requirements applicable to banks and other financial and brokerage institutions. In addition, those beneficiaries who receive distributions from a trust are reported to the Internal Revenue Service on the trust’s annual income tax return. In 2024, the Department of Treasury and IRS published proposed regulations that, in relevant part, would enhance information reporting with respect to the ownership of, transfers to, and distributions from foreign trusts (as they relate to United States persons), and would enhance the effectiveness of certain foreign trust anti-abuse provisions. The proposed rules would, for the first time, provide comprehensive regulatory guidance in these areas, clarifying and expanding the circumstances in which information reporting is required. In particular, the proposed regulations would explicitly require reporting when a foreign trust becomes a domestic trust for United States federal tax purposes and would also address scenarios involving intermediaries and the direct or indirect use of foreign trust property by a United States person. Through this regulation, foreign trusts will be required to report parties to the trust and United States beneficiaries to such trusts. The regulations are not yet in force. Additionally, following the enactment of the Corporate Transparency Act in 2021 and issuance of implementing regulations in 2022, in circumstances where the trust owns at least a 25% interest in an entity that is required to file beneficial ownership information under the act, the beneficial ownership information of that trust is required to be reported to FinCEN.
Conclusion	The United States has made limited progress with the implementation of the Corporate Transparency Act; however, the adoption of the rules limiting the scope of the reporting requirements to only foreign companies has substantially limited that progress and it is not clear to what extent these CTA obligations lead to the availability of beneficial ownership information of trusts. Further, regarding the 2024 proposed regulation to strengthen reporting obligations on foreign trusts to report information to the IRS under federal tax law, the 2018 Report already considered that rules existed requiring identity information (parties to the trust) with respect to certain foreign trusts to be reported to the IRS. Thus, akin to the situation at the time of the 2018 Report, there are no complete obligations in the legal and regulatory framework on the identification of beneficial owners of trusts. Whereas some beneficial ownership information on trusts may be obtained from trustees, it is not ascertained whether such information will lead to the identification of all beneficial owners of a trust, in all cases, in line with the standard, in the absence of explicit obligations requiring the identification of beneficial owners of a trust, including the requirement to look through any entity or arrangement interposed in the ownership or control chain of a trust. Therefore, no material progress has been made in addressing the recommendation, since the 2018 Report. The United States is urged to make substantive progress before its next self-assessment.
Status determined	Has not been addressed
Actions required	The United States should submit a schedule for completion of steps to address the recommendation and an update on the progress made by 31 March 2027. In particular, the United States should - Report the actions taken to address the recommendation, i.e. relevant changes in the legal and regulatory framework that will require availability of accurate, adequate and up-to-date beneficial ownership information of trusts in all cases. Report actions and supporting implementation details taken to enforce changes to the legal and regulatory framework.

3. Supervision and enforcement of beneficial ownership arising from tax obligations

 

Recommendation (A.1, practice)	The United States should strengthen its measures to ensure the availability of beneficial ownership information in practice in line with the standard.
Underlying factor	Although certain beneficial ownership information in respect of companies, partnerships and trusts is required to be reported to the IRS [Internal Revenue Service], supervisory measures to ensure that the beneficial ownership information is adequate, accurate and up to date are not sufficient. (see paragraphs 100 to 107 of the United States’ 2018 Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	The United States regulatory agencies supervise banks and other AML‑obliged persons regarding their compliance with requirements to identify beneficial owners and verify their identity during their customer due diligence processes. They also supervise the reporting improvements related to pertinent forms, which result in the collection of additional information, and the refinement of information already being collected. One of the key relevant regulatory agencies is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. It examines institutions’ compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and other Anti-Money laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) laws and regulations as part of each risk management examination. It also examines AML/CFT programmes during examinations conducted by state banking authorities if the state lacks the authority or resources to conduct the examination. In 2021, it conducted 1 285 AML/CFT examinations that also examined customer due diligence procedures and conducted all required follow-up examinations for supervised institutions. Between 2022 and 2023, the examinations averaged 1 289 AML/CFT examinations per year. In 2024, it conducted 1 214 AML/CFT examinations. Monetary sanctions have been issued against non-compliant AML-obliged persons. Additionally, technology enhancements that will enable the Internal Revenue Service to more efficiently access and analyse submitted beneficial ownership data are being considered for implementation.
Conclusion	The United States has reported various supervisory measures, mainly on financial sector AML-obliged persons to ensure the proper identification of beneficial owners. Where non-compliance has been identified, monetary sanctions were issued. Regarding supervisory activities targeting the beneficial ownership information submitted to the tax authorities, the IRS monitors submissions of information, although no specific verification mechanisms on beneficial ownership information have been provided at this stage. Further, the Internal Revenue Service has planned some actions. The United States has made progress to address the recommendation. It should report further progress in its next self-assessment.
Status determined	In the process of being addressed
Actions required	In its next self-assessment in 2028, the United States should: Provide updated statistics on the supervisory activities undertaken by the authorities to ensure the availability of adequate, accurate and up to date beneficial ownership information. Provide details and relevant statistics on the activities conducted to ensure that the beneficial ownership information submitted to the tax authorities is accurate, adequate and up to date. Provide updated statistics on sanctions and other enforcement measures undertaken when non-compliance, regarding the availability of beneficial ownership information, is established.

4. Implementation of the obligations on single-member foreign-owned Limited Liability Companies to report legal ownership information

 

Recommendation (A.1, practice)	The United States should monitor the implementation of the new law to ensure that legal ownership information of all single-member LLCs [Limited Liability Companies] is available.
Underlying factor	Federal tax law requiring all single-member foreign-owned LLCs [Limited Liability Companies] to report and maintain ownership information is very recent, untested, and covers new persons who were previously not required to register and report to the IRS [Internal Revenue Service]. (see paragraphs 116 to 123 of the United States’ 2018 Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	The United States collects legal ownership information on single-member foreign-owned LLCs primarily through their tax filing requirements with the IRS. Single-member foreign-owned LLCs that have no immediate filing requirements with the IRS must submit a particular form, Form 5472 that requires identity information on the ownership of the LLC. This obligation applies to single-member foreign-owned LLCs that had any transaction, such as amounts paid or received in connection with the formation, dissolution, acquisition and disposition of the entity, including contributions to and distributions from the entity, for a particular tax year. For tax year 2023, 41 541 forms were submitted. Moreover, the IRS compliance-based programmes that utilise data collected continue to be implemented to ensure availability of ownership information of single-member foreign-owned LLCs. The United States has consistently provided requested legal ownership information on single-member foreign-owned LLCs to its peers.
Conclusion	The information identifying the owners of single-member foreign-owned LLCs is collected via forms submitted to the IRS and through the Corporate Tax Transparency Act. However, the information provided does not demonstrate what percentage of such entities have provided their legal ownership information to the IRS or that sanctions have been applied against those that have not filed the required form or that have filed incorrect information. The United States has made progress to address the recommendation. It should report further progress in its next self-assessment.
Status determined	In the process of being addressed
Actions required	In its next self-assessment in 2028, the United States should - Provide updated details on the supervisory mechanisms undertaken to ensure the availability of legal ownership information of single-member foreign-owned LLCs. Provide statistics to demonstrate the coverage of the supervisory measures and relevant outcomes, including sanctions where non-compliance was identified, specifically on single member foreign owned LLCs.

Element A.2: Availability of accounting information

5. Implementation of the obligations on single-member foreign-owned Limited Liability Companies to report accounting information

 

Recommendation (A.2, practice)	The United States should monitor the implementation of the new requirements to ensure that accounting records and underlying documentation of all single-member foreign-owned LLCs [Limited Liability Companies] are available.
Underlying factor	Federal tax law subjects all single-member foreign-owned LLCs [Limited Liability Companies] to tax filing obligations and requires them to maintain accounting information. These requirements are very recent and cover new persons who were previously not required to register and report to the IRS [Internal Revenue Service]. (see paragraphs 162, 163 and 178 of the United States’ 2018 Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) evaluates a taxpayer’s internal controls for purposes of determining the accuracy and reliability of the taxpayer’s records. The examiners familiarise themselves with the taxpayer’s general record keeping and day-to-day operations in relation to customers, suppliers, sales, and other aspects. Although the availability and accuracy of accounting information may not be the primary focus of such examinations, when the taxpayer does not have all records to justify positions taken, adjustments are made accordingly. These adjustments can lead to additional tax assessments where examinations reveal under‑reported income or deductions not supported by proper documentation, and they also involve refinements to the criteria used to select cases for audit, all aimed at improving overall taxpayer compliance.Single-member foreign-owned LLCs are registered separately within each of the 56 sub-federal jurisdictions and as such, there is no authoritative consolidated number of these entities. The United States Small Business Association estimates that approximately 33.2 million small businesses existed in 2023. Of these, 6.4 million are expected to be conducting business in the United States and subject to IRS tax filing requirements. Additionally, single-member foreign-owned LLCs with no immediate tax obligations must file Form 5472, which contains extensive information on transactions between the LLC and its foreign owner. For tax year 2023, 41 541 forms were submitted. In tax year 2023, the IRS closed 582 944 tax return audits on all entities required to submit tax returns, which include single-member foreign-owned LLCs, resulting in USD 31.9 billion in proposed tax adjustments. The United States has consistently provided requested accounting information to its peers.
Conclusion	In general, the IRS evaluates the internal controls and record keeping procedures of taxpayers, but no information was provided on single-member foreign-owned LLCs in particular. The reported information shows that entities have provided accounting and transactional information to the IRS subject to relevant obligations and that the IRS has also conducted audits on some returns submitted. Nevertheless, it is not demonstrated what percentage of single-member foreign-owned LLCs have complied with the obligations to report transactional information to the IRS or to maintain accounting records as required. The United States has made progress to address the recommendation. It should report further progress in its next self-assessment.
Status determined	In the process of being addressed
Actions required	In its next self-assessment in 2028, the United States should: Provide updates on the supervisory mechanisms undertaken to ensure the availability of accounting information of single-member foreign-owned LLCs. Provide statistics to demonstrate the coverage of the supervisory measures and relevant outcomes, including sanctions where non-compliance was identified, specifically on single-member foreign-owned LLCs.

6. Effectiveness of supervisory activities to ensure availability of accounting information, particularly in respect of underlying documentation

 

Recommendation (A.2, practice)	The United States should strengthen its measures to ensure that accounting information is being maintained by relevant entities (including single-member LLCs [Limited Liability Companies]) and arrangements in line with the standard in all cases.
Underlying factor	Although the IRS [Internal Revenue Service] carries out significant number of supervisory activities, the extent to which they ensure availability of accounting information is not clear, particularly in respect of underlying documentation. (see paragraphs 171 to 179 of the United States’ 2018 Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	IRS tax examinations evaluate a taxpayer’s internal controls for purposes of determining the accuracy and reliability of a taxpayer's books and records. Therefore, auditors examine the taxpayer’s day-to-day operations with respect to customers, suppliers, management, sales, work performed, pricing, location, employees, assets used, production, and record-keeping. Although the availability and accuracy of accounting information may not necessarily be the primary focus of such examinations, when the taxpayer does not have all records to justify positions taken, adjustments on the tax assessed or the examination selection criteria are made accordingly. In tax year 2023, the IRS closed 582 944 tax return audits on all entities required to submit tax returns, which include single-member foreign-owned LLCs, resulting in USD 31.9 billion in proposed tax adjustments. For tax years 2022 and 2023 (for one category), different types of entities filed over 8 million entity returns. The United States has consistently provided requested accounting information to its peers.
Conclusion	The United States has reported the numbers of tax returns filed and tax examinations closed. There is a slight increase in the number of returns filed by entities and there are continued improvements in audit case selection and continuance of a comprehensive set of compliance activities. Nevertheless, the United States has not provided detailed information to elaborate on the coverage of these compliance and supervisory activities, especially regarding the availability of underlying documentation. The United States has made progress to address the recommendation. It should report further progress in its next self-assessment.
Status determined	In the process of being addressed
Actions required	In its next self-assessment in 2028, the United States should - Provide updated details of the supervisory mechanisms undertaken to ensure the availability of accounting information, including underlying documentation of all relevant entities and arrangements. Provide statistics to demonstrate the coverage of the supervisory measures and relevant outcomes, including sanctions where non-compliance was identified.

Element A.3: Availability of banking information

7. Availability of beneficial ownership information for legal entity bank account holders

 

Recommendation (A.3, framework)	The United States should ensure that beneficial ownership information is available in line with the standard for all legal entity account holders.
Underlying factor	The United States has introduced rules requiring banks to identify beneficial owners of legal entity customers. These rules ensure that BO is available in respect of all account holders except in certain cases. In particular, there may be limited cases where the person identified may not be the BO as defined under the standard; where the account holder is controlled by a trust (or any arrangement considered as a trust under applicable U.S.[United States] law) the BO will be considered the trustee; or BO [beneficial ownership] information may not be necessarily available in respect of some pre-existing accounts where the identification of the account-holder has not yet been updated. (see paragraphs 206 to 207 of United States’ 2018 Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	Customer Due Diligence (CDD) regulations have been improved. Since 31 May 2018, the Code of Federal Regulations § 1010.230 (Beneficial ownership requirements for legal entity customers), requires banks to establish and maintain written procedures that are reasonably designed to identify and verify beneficial owners of legal entity customers and to include such procedures in their AML compliance programmes. At the time of opening a bank account, banks are required to identify the beneficial owners of legal entity customers and to verify the identity of each beneficial owner. Additionally, the Corporate Transparency Act requires certain revisions to the CDD regulations to bring it into conformance with the CTA, but FinCEN has not yet issued the rules to implement these revisions due to ongoing litigation.
Conclusion	The United States has made progress with the requirement to update the customer due diligence rules. The requirement in the CTA to update the CDD rules would improve on the gaps identified in Regulation CFR §1010.230 discussed in the 2018 Report, especially regarding the definition and methods to identify beneficial owners. However, the implementing rules are not yet issued due to ongoing litigation of the Corporate Transparency Act. The United States should report further progress in its next self-assessment.
Status determined	In the process of being addressed
Actions required	In its next self-assessment in 2028, the United States should - Report progress on the status of the rules requiring the revision of the customer due diligence rules or any other actions taken to address the recommendation, i.e. relevant changes in the legal and regulatory framework that will allow availability of beneficial ownership information of all bank accounts held in United States banks. Report actions and supporting implementation details taken to enforce changes to the legal and regulatory framework.

8. Availability of beneficial ownership information for bank account holders who are trusts

 

Recommendation (A.3, framework)	The United States should ensure that banks identify and verify the identity of all beneficial owners of a trust which have an account with a bank in the United States in line with the standard.
Underlying factor	The U.S. [United States] rules do not ensure identification by banks of all beneficial owners of account holders who are trusts. According to the U.S.[United States] rules banks are required to identify only a trustee of the trust where the account is opened in the name of the trust. (see paragraph 208 of the United States’ 2018 Report)
Summary of actions reported	The United States competent authority can obtain current and accurate information on the beneficial owners of a trust from the trustee at any time. The trustee will always have (or will have access to) the most current information identifying settlors, trustees, beneficiaries, and controlling parties when needed, and can be compelled to provide that information to the competent authority for exchange. Additionally, the persons with control over the trust are regularly reported, as required under the know-your-customer requirements applicable to banks and other financial and brokerage institutions. In addition, those beneficiaries who receive distributions from a trust are reported to the Internal Revenue Service on the trust’s annual income tax return. Additionally, in circumstances where the trust owns at least a 25% interest in an entity that is required to file under the Corporate Transparency Act, beneficial ownership information of that trust is required to be reported.
Conclusion	The United States had made limited progress with the introduction of the Corporate Transparency Act; however, the adoption of the interim rules limiting the scope of the reporting requirements to only foreign companies, has limited progress that had been introduced. Moreover, the requirements of the Corporate Transparency Act do not cover the customer due diligence obligations of banks. Thus, akin to the situation at the time of the 2018 Report, there are no complete obligations in the legal and regulatory framework on the identification of beneficial owners of bank accounts of trusts. Whereas some beneficial ownership information on trusts may be obtained from trustees, it is not ascertained whether such information will lead to the identification of all beneficial owners of a bank account of a trust, in all cases, in line with the standard, in the absence of explicit obligations requiring the identification of beneficial owners of a trust, including the requirement to look through any entity or arrangement interposed in the ownership or control chain of a trust. Therefore, no material progress has been made in addressing the recommendation, since the 2018 Report. The United States is urged to make substantive progress before its next self-assessment.
Status determined	Has not been addressed
Actions required	The United States should submit a schedule for completion of steps to address the recommendation and an update on the progress made by 31 March 2027. In particular, the United States should – Provide the actions taken to address the recommendation, i.e. relevant changes in the legal and regulatory framework that will require availability of accurate, adequate and up-to-date beneficial ownership information on bank accounts of trusts in all cases. Report actions and supporting implementation details taken to enforce changes to the legal and regulatory framework.

9. Implementation of obligations to maintain beneficial ownership information on bank accounts

 

Recommendation (A.3, practice)	The United States should monitor the new obligations to identify beneficial owners of banks' account-holders to ensure they are properly implemented in practice.
Underlying factor	Federal rules which require banks to identify and verify BO [beneficial ownership] of legal entity customers bring substantive broadening of banks' obligations to identify beneficial owners of account-holders. As the new obligations only took effect from May 2018, their implementation in practice is not yet tested. (see paragraphs 209 to 211 of the United States’ 2018 Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	The United States federal authorities continuously examine the banks under their supervision to ensure compliance with the new rules contained under the Bank Secrecy Act. The examination procedures have been published and are regularly updated. United States depository institutions must undergo an on-site examination every 12 to 18 months. In addition to the supervisory activities of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the National Credit Union Administration (NCAU) supervises over 4 700 credit unions with over 142 million members (each of which will have at least one account), while the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), responsible for supervising the federal banking system, covers approximately 67% of all United States commercial banking assets. In 2021, the FDIC conducted 1 285 AML/CFT examinations and conducted all required follow-up examinations. Between 2022 and 2023, the examinations averaged 1 299 AML/CFT examinations per year. In 2024, the FDIC conducted 1 214 AML/CFT examinations. The OCC and NCAU also conducted regular supervision of AML/CFT compliance on all the banking institutions under their supervision. These examinations evaluate bank’s CDD and beneficial ownership identification requirements in addition to other AML/CFT aspects. Deficiencies identified were promptly addressed and in other cases monetary sanctions have also been issued against non-compliant AML-obliged persons.
Conclusion	The United States appears to have made progress to address the recommendation. The United States has reported various supervisory measures on banks to ensure the proper identification of beneficial owners. The reported activities cover a wide range of banking institutions. Although a considerable number of detailed examinations are conducted, non-compliance has been detected in a small percentage of cases. Where non-compliance has been identified, sanctions, including monetary penalties, were issued in appropriate cases. In a cross-section of cases primarily investigated by the FDIC, OCC and NCAU, FinCEN in collaboration with the said agencies has issued monetary sanctions of up to USD 4.9 billion to banks and a credit union for violation of AML/CFT procedures that included CDD violations.
Status determined	Considered provisionally addressed in the context of the monitoring process, subject to detailed validation.
Actions required	No immediate action required.

Element C.1: EOIR instruments

10. Ratification of signed EOI agreements

 

Recommendation (C.1, framework)	The United States should ratify its signed EOI [Exchange of Information] agreements, including the 2010 Protocol to the Multilateral Convention, expeditiously so that all its EOI relationships are in force or expeditiously pursue any alternative means to ensure effective EOI arrangements that meet the standard are in force with affected jurisdictions.
Underlying factor	Since July 2010, the United States has not ratified any signed EOI [Exchange of Information] agreement that requires U.S. [United States] ratification. Of these EOI instruments, only the ratification of the 2010 Protocol to the Multilateral Convention and the DTC with Viet Nam directly impacts the U.S.[United States] ability to exchange to the standard. It is noted that the United States is able to enter into a TIEA [Tax Information Exchange Agreement] without going through a ratification process. Nevertheless, as a result the United States currently does not have an EOI relationship in force with 38 out of [its]129 its EOI partners. While peers have not indicated that this has been an issue, the absence of ratification would impede EOI in practice with these partners. (See paragraphs 306 to 315 of the United States’ 2018 Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	The United States reported that since the 2018 Report, the protocols to the Double Tax Conventions with Japan, Luxembourg, Spain and Switzerland, all of which updated the EOI provisions, have been brough into force. In addition, on 22 June 2023, the United States Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification to a new comprehensive Double Tax Convention between the United States and Chile that contains EOI provisions consistent with the standard. Additionally, the United States continues to increase bilateral EOIR relationships via two additional avenues. Firstly, the United States continues to exchange diplomatic notes to reach agreement with certain partner jurisdictions allowing for bilateral exchanges under the terms of the original 1988 Multilateral Convention (meeting of minds). The United States established such relationships with Armenia (October 2024), Austria (2020), Chile (September 2021), Georgia (December 2018), Hungary (December 2018), Japan (September 2019) and Mexico (May 2022). Secondly, the United States continues to negotiate and bring into force bilateral tax information exchange agreements (TIEAs) with new exchange partners, and new TIEAs were brought into force with Ecuador in October 2022 and with Uruguay in November 2024.
Conclusion	The United States has ratified four Protocols to Double Tax Conventions all of which updated the EOI provisions in those treaties and brought them in line with the standard. Regarding EOI relationships that were not in force at the time of the peer review due to lack of ratification, a DTC with Chile has been ratified, bringing an EOI relationship between Chile and the United States, into force. Further a Tax Information Exchange Agreement with Uruguay and meeting of minds arrangements with Armenia and Georgia have established new EOI relationships. For five other jurisdictions, the “meeting of minds’’ arrangements have complemented existing bilateral instruments. Lastly, a new TIEA with Ecuador has established another EOI relationship. Although the United States has ratified four of the pending protocols to Double Tax Conventions and 11 more EOI relationships came into force, the proportion of signed EOI relationships that are not yet in force has increased slightly The United States has made progress to address the recommendation. It should report further progress in its next self-assessment.
Status determined	In the process of being addressed
Actions required	In its next self-assessment in 2028, the United States should: Provide updates on the ratification and bringing into force of the remaining signed agreements. Provide updates on efforts to create more bilateral EOI relationships in line with the standard.

Element C.3: Confidentiality

11. Amount of information disclosed to information holders

 

Recommendation (C.3, framework)	The United States should ensure that only the minimum information necessary to obtain the requested information is disclosed to information holders.
Underlying factor	A summons notice requires disclosure of the name of the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s contact information and the tax year to which the requested information relates. While the disclosure of the name of the taxpayer and the tax year to which information relates is usually necessary to describe the requested information, and in the majority of cases the requested information is obtained through alternative means (e.g. an IDR [Information Document Request]), nevertheless the disclosure of this information may not always be necessary to the description of the requested information. (see paragraphs 334 to 336 of the United States’ 2018 Report for more information).
Summary of actions reported	According to United States legal procedure, summonses require the disclosure of the taxpayer’s name and address and the tax year(s) to which the information relates. This same scope of information is generally also necessary to describe the requested information. The United States competent authority ensures only the minimum information necessary is disclosed to information holders when collecting information for exchange purposes. Further, the competent authority has informed partner jurisdictions with which the United States has active exchange relationships of these obligations. No partner raised any concerns regarding these requirements.
Conclusion	The competent authority has informed partner jurisdictions from whom the United States has received EOI requests of the United States legal requirements. No partner raised any concerns regarding these requirements. This approach complements the mitigations already discussed in the peer review report. In most cases, the name of the taxpayer and the tax year to which the requested information relates are a necessary part of the description of the requested information and the disclosure only occurs in a small proportion of cases. Where the requesting jurisdiction has noted that the persons subject to the request should not be made aware of the request, the United States competent authority engages such peers to ensure that exceptions can be utilised. The peer review report determined this gap to be of limited materiality and the practical approaches adopted by the United States have further reduced the materiality. Therefore, although the United States has not reported any legislative changes, there are mitigations and practices that ensure that the disclosure of information via summons does not interfere with the effective exchange of information. Consequently, this recommendation can be considered as no longer sufficiently material. The United States is no longer required to report, in application of paragraph 61 of the Enhanced Monitoring Methodology.
Status determined	No longer sufficiently material.
Actions required	No immediate action required.

Element C.5: Effective exchange of information

12. Timeliness of responses

 

Recommendation (C.5, practice)	The United States should speed up the provision of the requested information.
Underlying factor	The United States response times have increased since the first round review, as well as throughout the current period under review, with 30% of requests received throughout the current period responded to within 90 days. Although the United States took certain positive steps, the time taken to provide a response to a request does not ensure effective exchange of information in all cases as was also pointed out by a few peers. (see paragraphs 358 to 370 of the United States’ 2018 Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	By 2020, the United States EOI Program implemented additional measures, including the further expansion of its human resources and continued enhancements to its EOIR inventory management tools and procedures, to improve the timeliness of its responses to requests for information. During the period July 2019 to August 2020, six new full-time employees, most of whom primarily process EOIR requests, were hired. An additional 8 staff have been hired since then and by January 2026, the total staff complement of officials engaged in processing EOI requests has increased to 37 frontline staff and 5 managers. All new employees have significant prior Internal Revenue Service compliance experience and have received in-depth virtual and on-the-job training on EOI. In addition, the EOI inventory management system (IMS) is subject to regular improvements. In parallel with these efforts, the EOI Program published another substantial update to its Internal Revenue Manual procedural guidance in February 2023, to add clarity and detail regarding EOIR case processing steps and timelines as well as expanded information pertaining to spontaneous exchanges and joint audits. Moreover, the United States has also maintained constant and effective communication with its peers regarding all EOI requests, including through in-person meetings, conference calls, and other regular status updates consistently provided in line with the standard. These measures have resulted in improvements in the timeliness of responses in comparison to the peer review period despite the continuing significant volume of complex requests received, e.g. transfer pricing, cryptocurrency, and group as well as large bulk requests.
Conclusion	There has been some improvement in the overall timeliness of responses. However, there is still scope for improvement as peers have reported concerns related to timeliness of responses, which is further confirmed by the time taken by the United States to answer EOI requests received in 2023 and 2024. Some further innovations are in progress. The United States has made some progress to address the recommendation. It should report further progress in its next self-assessment.
Status determined	In the process of being addressed
Actions required	In its next self-assessment in 2028, the United States should – Report on actions taken to further improve the timeliness of responses to EOI requests.

EOIR experience

Over the monitoring period, the United States received 2 130 requests and sent 212 requests. Argentina, France and Belgium were the top three partners in respect of incoming requests. Switzerland, Canada and the United Kingdom were the key partners in respect of outgoing requests. The United States reported providing full and final responses in 81% of all the received requests and indicated 16% as pending requests. The majority of the pending requests were received in 2024 and over 45% of these pending cases involve complex requests, while another 33% of the pending requests were received in the last quarter of 2024.

Twenty-three peers provided peer input on the United States, of which 3 peers raised matters on the timeliness of responses and 10 peers (including 2 of the 3 peers raising timeliness issues) reported pending requests that were sent to the United States in 2023. These matters are covered under the existing Recommendation 12 on timeliness of responses and the in-text recommendation on appropriately balancing staffing and resources devoted to the EOI Program, and the administrative steps and procedural requirements necessary to obtain and provide the requested information.

New developments having a bearing on the EOIR standard

No recent developments that could have a bearing on the EOIR standard (other than those reported to address recommendations) have been reported by the United States or have otherwise come to light.

Next steps

The United States should continue taking actions towards implementing the standard effectively.

The following next steps are expected from the United States:

• For the recommendations where lack of material progress has been identified for more than three years since the last review, the United States should submit to the PRMG - i) a schedule for completion of steps to address the recommendation and ii) an update, including details on the progress on such recommendations by 31 March 2027:

  • Recommendation 2, on availability of beneficial ownership information for trusts (Element A.1).

  • Recommendation 8, on availability of beneficial ownership information for bank account holders who are trusts (Element A.3).

• Submit its next self-assessment in 2028 under the second round of enhanced monitoring.

Views/response of the monitored jurisdiction

The United States welcomes the findings and conclusions of this report, which we consider a fair and accurate assessment of our progress in addressing the relevant recommendations. We express our deep appreciation to the Secretariat for their diligence in drafting this analysis, and we thank our valued exchange partners and all PRMG colleagues, including those who provided input and comments in this process.

While the report acknowledges substantive improvements in several areas, we recognize the areas where further development is recommended, and we will continue to devote the resources necessary to address these issues. Moreover, we reiterate our strong commitment to the EOIR standard and the peer review process. We look forward to continued engagement with the Global Forum in the years ahead.

Note

← 1.  OECD (2018), Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes: United States 2018 (Second Round): Peer Review Report on the Exchange of Information on Request, Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264302853-en.