Harmful Tax Practices – 2017 Peer Review Reports on the Exchange of Information on Tax Rulings

Congo

Congo1 did not provide a completed peer review questionnaire to the Secretariat. It is not known whether Congo has implemented the transparency framework. Congo is recommended to ensure that it has put in place an effective information gathering process to identify all relevant past and future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions and to implement a review and supervision mechanism, as soon as possible (ToR I.4). Congo is recommended to put in place a domestic legal framework allowing spontaneous exchange of information on rulings if needed and to ensure the timely exchange of information on rulings in the form required by the transparency framework (ToR II.5).

It is not known whether Congo can legally issue any types of ruling within the scope of the transparency framework,2 or whether in practice Congo issued any such rulings.

As no exchange of information on rulings was conducted, no peer input was received in respect of the exchanges of information on rulings received from Congo.

1. Congo did not provide written comments on this peer review report.

2. According to publicly available information, it appears that Congo can legally issue APAs.

Introduction

260.  This peer review covers Congo’s implementation of the BEPS Action 5 transparency framework for the calendar year 2017 (year in review). The report has four parts, each relating to a key part of the ToR. Each part is discussed in turn. A summary of recommendations is included at the end of this report.

A. The information gathering process

261.  Congo was not yet able to complete the peer review questionnaire. It is not known whether Congo has implemented the transparency framework.

Conclusion on section A

262.  Congo is recommended to ensure that it has put in place an effective information gathering process to identify all relevant past and future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions and to implement a review and supervision mechanism as soon as possible (ToR I.4).

B. The exchange of information

Legal basis for spontaneous exchange of information (ToR II.5.1, II.5.2)

263.  It is not known whether Congo has the necessary domestic legal basis to exchange information spontaneously. Congo is recommended to put in place a domestic legal framework allowing spontaneous exchange of information on rulings if needed (ToR II.5.1).

264.  Congo currently has three agreements1 in effect which would allow for spontaneous exchange of information under the transparency framework. Congo is not a Party to the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol (OECD/Council of Europe, 2011) (“the Convention”). Congo is encouraged to continue its efforts to expand its international exchange of information instruments to be able to exchange rulings. It is however noted that jurisdictions are assessed on their compliance with the transparency framework in respect of the exchange of information network in effect for the year of the particular annual review.

Completion and exchange of templates (ToR II.5.3, II.5.4, II.5.5, II.5.6, II.5.7)

265.  It is not known whether Congo has put in place a process to exchange information on rulings in accordance with the form and timelines required by the transparency framework. Congo is recommended to ensure the timely exchange of information on rulings in the form required by the transparency framework.

Conclusion on section B

266.  Congo is recommended to put in place a domestic legal framework allowing spontaneous exchange of information on rulings if needed and to ensure the timely exchange of information on rulings in the form required by the transparency framework (ToR II.5).

C. Statistics (ToR IV)

267.  Congo did not provide statistical data for the year in review. In the absence of this information, no statistics can be reported.

D. Matters related to intellectual property regimes (ToR I.4.1.3)

268.  Congo does not offer an intellectual property regime for which transparency requirements under the Action 5 Report (OECD, 2015) were imposed.

Summary of recommendations on implementation of the transparency framework

 

Aspect of implementation of the transparency framework that should be improved	Recommendation for improvement
It is not known whether Congo has an information gathering process in place.	Congo is recommended to ensure that it has put in place an effective information gathering process to identify all relevant past and future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions and to implement a review and supervision mechanism, as soon as possible.
It is not known whether Congo has a domestic legal framework allowing spontaneous exchange of information on rulings if needed and a process in place to ensure the timely exchange of information on rulings in the form required by the transparency framework.	Congo is recommended to put in place a domestic legal framework allowing spontaneous exchange of information on rulings if needed and to ensure the timely exchange of information on rulings in the form required by the transparency framework.

References

OECD (2017), BEPS Action 5 on Harmful Tax Practices – Terms of Reference and Methodology for the Conduct of the Peer Reviews of the Action 5 Transparency Framework, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD, Paris. www.oecd.org/tax/beps/beps-action-5-harmful-tax-practices-peer-review-transparencyframework.pdf.

OECD (2015), Countering Harmful Tax Practices More Effectively, Taking into Account Transparency and Substance, Action 5 - 2015 Final Report, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264241190-en.

OECD/Council of Europe (2011), The Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264115606-en.

Note

← 1.  Congo has Double Tax Agreements with France, Italy and Mauritius.