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

Greece

Greece has met all aspects of the terms of reference (ToR) for the calendar year 2017 (year in review) and no recommendations are made. In the prior year peer review report, Greece received one recommendation. Greece has addressed the issue and the recommendation is removed.

Greece can legally issue one type of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework.

In practice, Greece has issued one past ruling; for the period 1 April 2016 - 31 December 2016; and for the year in review, Greece issued no future rulings within the scope of the transparency framework.

No peer input was received in respect of the exchanges of information on rulings received from Greece.

Introduction

452.  This peer review covers Greece’s implementation of the BEPS Action 5 transparency framework for the year 2017. 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

453.  Greece can legally issue one type of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework: cross-border unilateral advance pricing arrangements (APAs) and any other cross-border unilateral tax rulings (such as an advance tax ruling) covering transfer pricing or the application of transfer pricing principles. Rulings are issued by a specific department within the Directorate of Audits of the Independent Authority for Public Revenue (Greek tax administration, “IAPR”), the Department of Special Tax Audits (the issuing department, “DSTA”).

Past rulings (ToR I.4.1.1, I.4.1.2, I.4.2.1, I.4.2.2)

454.  For Greece, past rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued either: (i) on or after 1 January 2014 but before 1 April 2016; or (ii) on or after 1 January 2010 but before 1 January 2014, provided they were still in effect as at 1 January 2014.

455.  In the prior year peer review report, it was determined that the IAPR’s undertakings to identify past rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. The IAPR’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged, and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.

Future rulings (ToR I.4.1.1, I.4.1.2, I.4.2.1)

456.  For Greece, future rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued on or after 1 April 2016.

457.  In the prior year peer review report, it was determined that the IAPR’s implementation of a new system to identify future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions was sufficient to meet the minimum standard. The IAPR’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged, and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.

Review and supervision mechanism (ToR I.4.3)

458.  In the prior year peer review report, it was determined that the IAPR’s review and supervision mechanism was sufficient to meet the minimum standard. The Head of the DSTA verifies that every unilateral APA issued by its department is identified. The IAPR’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged, and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.

Conclusion on section A

459.  Greece has met all of the ToR for the information gathering process and no recommendations are made.

B. The exchange of information

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

460.  Greece has the necessary domestic legal basis to exchange information spontaneously. Greece notes that there are no legal or practical impediments that prevent the spontaneous exchange of information on rulings as contemplated in the Action 5 minimum standard.

461.  Greece is a party to international agreements permitting spontaneous exchange of information, including (i) the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol (OECD/Council of Europe, 2011) (“the Convention”), (ii) the Directive 2011/16/EU with all other European Union Member States and (iii) double tax agreements in force with 57 jurisdictions.1

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

462.  In the prior year peer review report, it was determined that the IAPR’s completion of the templates was sufficient to meet the minimum standard. Greece noted that three tax officers in the Department of Special Tax Audits are responsible to negotiate APAs, to update information in the database and to forward the information to the Department of International Administrative Co-operation of International Economic Relations Directorate (Greek Competent Authority). Greece confirmed that they will complete the summary section in the template in Annex C of the 2015 Action 5 Report (OECD, 2015) for future rulings as prescribed in the internal FHTP suggested guidance. It is therefore determined that the IAPR’s implementation regarding the completion and exchange procedure continues to meet the minimum standard.

463.  For the year in review, the timeliness of exchanges is as follows:

 

Past rulings in the scope of the transparency framework	Number of exchanges transmitted by 31 December 2017	Delayed exchanges
		Number of exchanges not transmitted by 31 December 2017	Reasons for the delays	Any other comments
	1	0	N/A	The exchange refers to the delayed exchange of the past ruling mentioned in the prior year report.
Future rulings in the scope of the transparency framework	Number of exchanges transmitted within three months of the information becoming available to the competent authority or immediately after legal impediments have been lifted	Delayed exchanges
		Number of exchanges transmitted later than three months of the information on rulings becoming available to the competent authority	Reasons for the delays	Any other comments
	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Total	1	0

 

Follow up requests received for exchange of the ruling	Number	Average time to provide response	Number of requests not answered
	0	N/A	N/A

464.  In prior year peer review report Greece was recommended to ensure that future rulings are exchanged according to the timelines set out in the transparency framework with respect to all other members of the Inclusive Framework, rather than on a timeline aligning with the EU Directive. As noted in the prior year peer review, the one exchange on the past ruling noted above was required to occur in 2016, and – as intended by Greece – was exchanged in 2017 under the EU Directive timelines. With respect to future rulings, this recommendation would mean exchanging on a faster timeline than the EU Directive would require. However, Greece has not issued any future rulings during the year of review and so this issue has not arisen in practice for the year in review. Greece is considering last year’s recommendation and will apply the timelines set out in the transparency framework for the exchange of information on future rulings, and the recommendation is removed.

Conclusion on section B

465.  Greece has the necessary legal basis for spontaneous exchange of information, a process for completing the templates in a timely way and has completed all exchanges on time. Greece has met all of the ToR for the exchange of information process and no recommendations are made.

C. Statistics (ToR IV)

466.  The statistics for the year in review are as follows:

 

Category of ruling	Number of exchanges	Jurisdictions exchanged with
Rulings related to preferential regimes	N/A	N/A
Cross-border unilateral advance pricing arrangements (APAs) and any other cross-border unilateral tax rulings (such as an advance tax ruling) covering transfer pricing or the application of transfer pricing principles	Included in de minimis	N/A
Cross-border rulings providing for a unilateral downward adjustment to the taxpayer’s taxable profits that is not directly reflected in the taxpayer’s financial / commercial accounts	N/A	N/A
Permanent establishment rulings	N/A	N/A
Related party conduit rulings	N/A	N/A
De minimis rule	1	N/A
IP regimes: total exchanges on taxpayers benefitting from the third category of IP assets, new entrants benefitting from grandfathered IP regimes; and taxpayers making use of the option to treat the nexus ratio as a rebuttable presumption	N/A	N/A
Total	1

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

467.  Greece 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
	No recommendations are made.

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.  Parties to the Convention are available here: www.oecd.org/tax/exchange-of-tax-information/convention-on-mutual-administrative-assistance-in-tax-matters.htm. Greece also has bilateral agreements in force with Albania, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, China (People’s Republic of), Qatar, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Korea, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Moldova, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, Swiss Federation, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan and United States.

Note by Turkey: The information in this document with reference to “Cyprus” relates to the southern part of the Island. There is no single authority representing both Turkish and Greek Cypriot people on the Island. Turkey recognises the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Until a lasting and equitable solution is found within the context of the United Nations, Turkey shall preserve its position concerning the “Cyprus issue”.

Note by all the European Union Member States of the OECD and the European Union. The Republic of Cyprus is recognised by all members of the United Nations with the exception of Turkey. The information in this document relates to the area under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.