Michael, No I didn't think you were referring to me (I generally know when I am being offensive :-) ) I just lost the drift there for a few minutes. I do think you might have been just a bit over-sensitive though, which is easy to do in these sorts of discussions.
Heck John it's not your accountant that will have to pay the fines!
Obviously the fisc is not interested in accounts that have nothing to do with you. I would argue that being a signatory on an account, with the ability to add / withdraw funds - makes you an 'owner'. If you receive correspondence (statements etc) relating to these accounts at your French address then, the UK bank will now be reporting it's existence to the French fisc anyway.
As far as Paypal goes - Hilary has already cleared up the rules and regs earlier in this post. You do need to declare a Paypal, or any other such e-commerce account, if the turnover is more than 10,000€ pa.
Moving on to dormant and zero balance accounts - It takes a few minutes to complete forms 3916 (or add a manual list!) - why take the risk?
Be Careful John, just because they don’t ask doesn’t mean you shpuldn’t declare. They will just say they assumed you were compliant.
This isn’t driven by anything so recent as “current” revenue issues Annette. There has been a drive for joined up revenue collection systems across the EU for twenty years plus. All that investment is now paying off as more and more systems talk to one another and drive down the level at which it is cost effective to pursue and enforce. IMO the only Government departments in any EU country that approach private sector efficiency are the revenue collection ones. That’s because they are vital to paying public sector salaries and pensions 
I’d say it’s probably quite simple. If Paypal has a banking licence in the relevent foreign jurisdiction it is a “bank account” if not, it isn’t. It’s a pity that it would seem the individual account holder has to ascertain this.
Norman, I was referring to Mr Brian's postings. "Impossible to believe that anyone did not know he had to fill in a form", "Punishment fits the crime", "those who do not comply risk a fine", "doesn't "see mistakes as honest mistakes" "those who are less than truthful", "don't think these fines have anything to do with taxation but with the authorities being able to follow a paper trail when large amounts are transferred. Other considerations like money laundering and drug dealing are more important". I hope you did not think I was referring to you. I was directly replying to Mr Brian's latest post.
You, on the otherhand, must be a very busy chap indeed.
Thanks for that heads up Pat. I’m a signatory on quite a few foreign accounts (my Mum, my Daughter, etc) and when I saw the 1500 quid a year per account I had a quick panic. My accountant says that accounts not actually owned by me, nor Paypal, nor credit cards are liable to disclosure. He also said that old dormant accoumts one might have lying around with zero or near zero balances don’t count either.
Would that they stuck to large amounts.
Mike,
I didn't HAVE to buy it. I could have chose Apple or as I have done with many programmes chosen Open Office. No-one was standing alongside me with a big club or knife to my throat.
The difference between us is that I accept that those who CREATE - or INVENT something such as Bill Gates, or Steve Jobs which enrich themselves and on the way through provide mass employment and even invent completely new ways of doing things are not to be castigated but congratulated. If they get rich beyond their wildest dreams, well bl****y good luck to them!
....and I am an old fart!
Congratulations Norman! You are the only person I know who thinks he paid a fair price for his Microsoft operating system.......
Michael, it might be useful if you indicated to whom this is directed as I for one can't find any such accusation in the Postings.
You have already accused me of ignorance, stupidity and lying, now you accuse me of transferring large amounts of money connected with money laundering and drug dealing. What a pleasant chap you must be.
Exploiting their emplpyees? Hmm. I suppose any Trade Unionist would apply that principle. Providing employment? How does that stack up? Forcing people to be employees? Doubtful.
Overcharging their Customers? If you believe in a free market economy, which I suspect you don't, who says what is overcharging? I am not aware of any system which says anyone MUST buy from any company - other than Monopolistic Governmental ones.
In my experience those providing overpriced and poor service tend to be those in the Public Sector (ie State owned) rather than those in the Private Sector subject to competitive pressures.
Very few companies I have known as you have described survive. State-owned Monopolies do, as they are paid by and through taxation.
Yes, I heard the football match story. But it seems he was there in his official capacity and made the mistake of thinking that nobody would mind if he took his kids with him.
As to the military expenditure, I am totally with you. If you have a full-time military force, they will always find a war that needs fighting. And the armaments industry will always find a way of selling their products.
Socialist economic principles? Now there I think we have to disagree. If the rich became wealthy entirely by their own efforts, they might have a case for hanging on to it all. But if, as I believe is usually the case, their wealth is derived from exploiting their employees and overcharging their customers, then I think a bit of redistribution is not such a bad idea.
I don’t think that the fines have anything to do with taxation but with the authorities being able to follow a paper trail when large amounts are transferred. Other considerations like money laundering and drug dealing are more important. The fine detail of the requirements might seem to be a pain but they are an important part of the whole picture.
If I were you, Stuart, I would fill one in straight away, or make a list of your overseas accounts, take it down to the tax office and plead for it to be attached to your return for this year.
How can it be concealment when in 2012 we gave them a full list of our overseas accounts and in every year since then a spreadsheet showing all overseas interest payments together with the name of the account in the heading? I grant you that I didn't give the account numbers in the spreadsheet, nor dates of opening (it had quite gone out of my head that one was opened on 16 September 1968!) but the tax authorities have acknowledged that we had told them about the accounts. We have always sought to be open and above board with all authorities whether in France or in other countries. Our own tax office in Le Blanc have expressed astonishment that this has happened. Those in Chateauroux have said that whilst it has always been a requirement it has never been enforced except where tax avoidance was suspected. They have now had a directive that it must be applied in all cases. Hence my warning and hence my comment that it is a nice little earner. I don't know many expatriates in France but a straw poll of those that I do know suggests, if they are a representative sample, that 80 per cent of expatriates are not aware of this requirement and could be similarly fined.
We have not actually been asked to pay the money, yet. I understand that if and when we are, there will be an option to stagger the payments. We are hoping that a 99 year repayment period might seem reasonable.
Mike
I have no feeling one way or the other for the present government. and I certainly didn't mean to imply that they benefitted personally from my fine. I have always believed that we should pay for the services we receive and that part of my tax should be for the common good. But, since we have paid all the tax that is due, this smacks of maximising revenue by any means possible.
I've done ours online for the last few years. Until now I've had to tick a box to say that we had them. This year I couldn't complete the return until I went to form 3916 and completed that with account numbers and bank addresses. So things are obviously a changing.....