Understanding First National Bank's Action on an International Boycott

A

The question involves the issue of whether the confirmation of a letter of credit by a U.S. bank constitutes an agreement to participate in or cooperate with an international boycott, and whether it is subject to the reporting requirements of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

An international boycott is an agreement between two or more countries, or between a country and a group of countries, to withhold trade or other business dealings with a targeted country, company or individual, typically for political or economic reasons. U.S. law prohibits U.S. persons, including corporations, from participating in or cooperating with such boycotts, except as authorized by the Department of Commerce.

In this case, ABC Co. has signed a contract to export goods to Country G, which is boycotting certain countries, companies or individuals. The payment for the goods will be made by a letter of credit confirmed by First National Bank, a U.S. bank. The letter of credit requires the goods to be shipped on a ship eligible to enter the port of Country G in conformity with its laws and regulations, and that the insurer of the goods has an agent in Country G.

Country G's laws prohibit blacklisted ships from calling at its ports and blacklisted insurance companies from qualifying agents in Country G. This means that the ship used to transport the goods must not be on Country G's blacklist and the insurance company providing coverage for the goods must have an agent in Country G who is not on Country G's blacklist.

First National Bank confirms the letter of credit, which means that it has agreed to honor the payment obligation if the terms and conditions of the letter of credit are met.

The question is whether First National Bank's confirmation of the letter of credit constitutes an agreement to participate in or cooperate with an international boycott. The answer to this question depends on whether the bank knew or should have known that its actions would further the boycott.

According to the regulations issued by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the confirmation of a letter of credit alone is not sufficient to constitute an agreement to participate in or cooperate with a boycott. However, if the bank knew or should have known that its actions would result in the goods being shipped on a blacklisted ship or insured by a blacklisted insurance company, then its actions could be deemed to further the boycott and constitute a violation of U.S. law.

In this case, the letter of credit requires the goods to be shipped on a ship eligible to enter the port of Country G in conformity with its laws and regulations, and that the insurer of the goods has an agent in Country G. The bank may not have known whether the ship or the insurance company were on Country G's blacklist, but it should have exercised due diligence to ensure that they were not.

Therefore, if the bank knew or should have known that the ship or the insurance company were on Country G's blacklist, and confirmed the letter of credit anyway, then its actions could be deemed to further the boycott and constitute a violation of U.S. law.

Regarding the IRS reporting requirements, U.S. law requires U.S. taxpayers to report certain transactions with foreign countries, including those involving boycotts. The reporting requirements apply to transactions with boycotting countries and to transactions that further a boycott that is not sanctioned by the U.S. government.

If First National Bank's actions are deemed to further a boycott that is not sanctioned by the U.S. government, then it may be subject to the reporting requirements of the IRS. The bank should consult with its legal counsel to determine its reporting obligations.

In conclusion, the answer to the question is likely to be either A or B, depending on whether the bank knew or should have known that its actions would further the boycott, and whether the boycott is sanctioned by