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

Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 5

Report

13 December 2018

Abstract

BEPS Action 5 is one of the four BEPS minimum standards which all Inclusive Framework members have committed to implement. One part of the Action 5 minimum standard is the transparency framework for compulsory spontaneous exchange of information on certain tax rulings which, in the absence of transparency, could give rise to BEPS concerns. Over 120 jurisdictions have joined the Inclusive Framework and take part in the peer review to assess their compliance with the transparency framework.

Specific terms of reference and a methodology have been agreed for the peer reviews to assess a jurisdiction’s implementation of the minimum standard. The review of the transparency framework assesses jurisdictions against the terms of reference which focus on five key elements: i) information gathering process, ii) exchange of information, iii) confidentiality of the information received; iv) statistics on the exchanges on rulings; and v) transparency on certain aspects of intellectual property regimes. Recommendations are issued where improvements are needed to meet the minimum standard.

This report reflects the outcome of the second annual peer review of the implementation of the Action 5 minimum standard and covers 92 jurisdictions. It assesses implementation for the 1 January 2017 – 31 December 2017 period.

Executive Summary

Context for the exchange of information on tax rulings (the “transparency framework”)

1. The BEPS Action 5 minimum standard on the compulsory spontaneous exchange of information on tax rulings (the “transparency framework”) provides tax administrations with timely information on rulings that have been granted to a foreign related party of their resident taxpayer or a permanent establishment, which can be used in conducting risk assessments and which, in the absence of exchange, could give rise to BEPS concerns.

2. The transparency framework requires spontaneous exchange of information on five categories of taxpayer-specific rulings: (i) rulings related to certain preferential regimes, (ii) unilateral advance pricing arrangements (APAs) or other cross-border unilateral rulings in respect of transfer pricing, (iii) rulings providing for a downward adjustment of taxable profits, (iv) permanent establishment (PE) rulings; and (v) related party conduit rulings.1 The requirement to exchange information on the rulings in the above categories includes certain past rulings as well as future rulings, pursuant to pre-defined periods which are outlined in each jurisdiction’s report. The exchanges occur pursuant to international exchange of information agreements, which ensure taxpayer confidentiality.

3. The inclusion of the above categories of rulings in the scope of the transparency framework is not intended to suggest that the issuance of such rulings constitutes a preferential regime or a harmful tax practice. In practice, tax rulings can be an effective way to provide certainty to taxpayers and reduce the risk of disputes. Rather, the need for transparency on rulings is that a tax administration's lack of knowledge or information on the tax treatment of a taxpayer in another jurisdiction can impact the transactions or arrangements undertaken with a related taxpayer resident in their own jurisdiction and thus lead to BEPS concerns. The availability of timely and targeted information about such rulings, as agreed in the template in Annex C of the Action 5 Report, Countering Harmful Tax Practices More Effectively, Taking Into Account Transparency and Substance (OECD, 2015), will be beneficial in enabling tax authorities to quickly identify risk areas.

Scope of this review

4. This is the second annual peer review of the transparency framework. It covers 92 jurisdictions. This includes all OECD and G20 countries and the countries that were in the OECD accession process throughout the BEPS project (which were reviewed in the first annual peer review published in 2017) and also Inclusive Framework members that joined prior to 1 September 2017 and Jurisdictions of Relevance identified by the Inclusive Framework prior to 1 September 2017. Five of these jurisdictions have not been assessed under the transparency framework, namely Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Sint Maarten and the Turks and Caicos Islands. Sint Maarten was affected by a natural disaster during the year in review, and therefore it was considered appropriate that the peer review of the jurisdiction be deferred to the next annual review. Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands are jurisdictions which do not impose any corporate income tax, and cannot legally issue rulings within scope of the transparency framework and nor should Inclusive Framework members exchange information on rulings with them. Therefore, these jurisdictions are considered to be outside the scope of the transparency framework.

5. The reviews on the implementation of the transparency framework contained in this annual report cover the calendar year 2017. Jurisdictions may have made improvements during the calendar year 2018 which have not been reflected in this report. These may be assessed in the subsequent peer review. The reviews have been prepared using information from each reviewed jurisdiction, input from peers who received exchanges of information under the transparency framework, and input from the delegates of the Forum on Harmful Tax Practices (FHTP).

Key findings

6. Key findings from this first peer review include:

As at 31 December 2017, almost 16 000 tax rulings in the scope of the transparency framework had been issued by the jurisdictions being reviewed;
Almost 21 000 exchanges of information took place by 31 December 2017, with almost 14 000 exchanges undertaken during 2017 and over 6 000 exchanges during 2016;
All jurisdictions already have, or have undertaken steps to implement, the necessary legal framework for spontaneous exchange of information on rulings for the year in review;
60 recommendations for improvement have been made for the year in review;
Of the 49 recommendations for improvement made to the 44 jurisdictions in the previous year peer review, 29 recommendations have been actioned and removed during the year in review;
In a number of cases, the peer review process has assisted jurisdictions in identifying areas where improvement is required, and jurisdictions have been able to take swift action to implement changes. These changes will be reviewed in the subsequent peer review.

A summary of the recommendations made can be found in the following pages.

Next steps

7. The peer review is an annual process that has taken place in 2017 and 2018, with another two reviews to take place in 2019 and 2020. The next annual peer review will continue to track the progress of jurisdictions and the actions taken to respond to recommendations, and an update on statistics on the exchanges of information. The next annual peer review in 2019 will also include jurisdictions which joined the Inclusive Framework, and jurisdictions of relevance identified by the Inclusive Framework, since 1 September 2017, as well as members of the Inclusive Framework on BEPS that are developing countries and which requested an additional year to implement the transparency framework.

Summary of recommendations made

Aspect of the implementation of the transparency framework that should be improved		Recommendation for improvement
Andorra
Andorra experienced difficulties in identifying all potential exchange jurisdictions for past rulings (ToR I.4.2.2).		Andorra is recommended to continue to apply the “best efforts approach” to identify potential exchange jurisdictions for all past rulings.
Andorra experienced difficulties in identifying all potential exchange jurisdictions for future rulings (ToR I.4.2.1).		Andorra is recommended to ensure that all potential exchange jurisdictions are identified swiftly for all future rulings.
Andorra did not undertake spontaneous exchange of information on tax rulings within scope of the transparency framework during the year in review (ToR II.5).		Andorra is recommended to continue its efforts to complete the templates for all relevant rulings and to ensure that the exchanges of information on rulings occur as soon as possible.
Angola
Angola has not yet finalised the steps to have in place its necessary information and gathering process (ToR.I.4).		Angola is recommended to finalise its information gathering process for identifying all past and future rulings and potential exchange jurisdictions, with a review and supervision mechanism, as soon as possible.
Angola has not yet finalised the steps to have effective compulsory spontaneous exchange of information on the tax rulings within the scope of the transparency framework (ToR.I.5).		Angola is recommended to continue to put in place a domestic legal framework allowing spontaneous exchange of information on rulings and to continue its efforts to complete the templates for all relevant rulings and to ensure that the exchanges of information on rulings occur as soon as possible.
Argentina
Argentina experienced difficulties on the identification of information on future rulings (ToR I.4.1.2).		Argentina is recommended to provide any necessary interpretive guidance and continue its efforts to ensure that there is an effective system for identifying all future rulings in a timely way.
Australia
		No recommendations are made.
Austria
Austria encountered delays in the timely exchange of information on past and future rulings. This is a continuing recommendation from the prior year peer review (ToR II.5.6).		Austria is recommended to ensure that all information on past and future rulings is exchanged as soon as possible.
Barbados
Barbados did not complete the information gathering process during the year in review (ToR I.4).			Barbados is recommended to finalise its information gathering process for identifying all past and future rulings and potential exchange jurisdictions, with a review and supervision mechanism, as soon as possible.
Barbados did not undertake spontaneous exchange of information on tax rulings within scope of the transparency framework during the year in review (ToR II.5).			Barbados is recommended to continue its efforts to complete the templates for all relevant rulings and to ensure that the exchanges of information on rulings occur as soon as possible.
Belgium
Belgium has not exchanged all information on new taxpayers benefitting from the grandfathered IP regime, and new assets of existing taxpayers benefitting from the grandfathered regime as this information was not able to be collected during the year in review (ToR I.4.1.3).			Belgium is recommended to continue its efforts to identify and exchange information on new entrants to the grandfathered IP regime.
Belize
		No recommendations are made.
Benin
		No recommendations are made.
Brazil
		No recommendations are made.
Brunei Darussalam
		No recommendations are made.
Bulgaria
		No recommendations are made.
Burkina Faso
	No recommendations are made.
Cameroon
It is not known whether Cameroon has an information gathering process in place (ToR.I.4).		Cameroon 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 Cameroon has a domestic legal framework allowing spontaneous exchange of information on rulings if needed and has a process in place to ensure the timely exchange of information on rulings in the form required by the transparency framework (ToR.II.5).		Cameroon 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.
Canada
				No recommendations are made.
Chile
		No recommendations are made.
China (People’s Republic of)
During the year in review, China’s Competent Authority collected information on future rulings on an annual basis, which is longer than necessary (ToR II.5.5).		China is recommended to reduce the timelines for providing the information on future rulings to the Competent Authority.
Colombia
Colombia did not complete exchanges of information on past rulings in accordance with the timelines (ToR II.5.6). This is a continuing recommendation from the prior year peer review.			Colombia is recommended to ensure that all information on past rulings is exchanged as soon as possible.
Congo
It is not known whether Congo has an information gathering process in place (ToR.I.4).			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 has a process in place to ensure the timely exchange of information on rulings in the form required by the transparency framework (ToR.II.5).			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.
Costa Rica
For the year in review, Costa Rica did not apply the “best efforts approach” to identify all potential exchange jurisdictions for all past rulings (ToR I.4.2.2).			Costa Rica is recommended to continue to apply the “best efforts approach” to identify potential exchange jurisdictions for all past rulings.
Costa Rica does not yet ensure that information on all potential exchange jurisdictions is always obtained for future rulings (ToR I.4.2.1).			Costa Rica is recommended to continue its efforts to ensure that all potential exchange jurisdictions are identified swiftly for all future rulings.
In the year in review, Costa Rica had not yet finalised the process to complete the templates and submit them to the Competent Authority and had not undertaken any exchanges of information (ToR II.5).			Costa Rica is recommended to continue its efforts to complete the templates for all relevant rulings and to ensure that the exchanges of information on rulings occur as soon as possible.
Côte d’Ivoire
			No recommendations are made.
Croatia
			No recommendations are made.
Curaçao
The information gathering process is still underway in Curaçao with respect to past and future rulings and the classification of these rulings under each category (ToR I.4.1.2).			Curaçao is recommended to continue to finalise its information gathering process identifying all past and future rulings as soon as possible.
Curaçao experienced delays in exchanging information on past and future rulings (ToR II.5.6).			Curaçao is recommended to continue its efforts to ensure all information on past and future rulings is exchanged as soon as possible.
Czech Republic
The Czech Republic has not completed the exchange of information on past rulings and is experiencing significant delays in the exchange of information on future rulings due to the application of the timelines set out in the EU Directive 2011/16/EU, but also exceeding those timelines in complex cases (ToR II.5.6.). This is a continuing recommendation from the prior year peer review.			The Czech Republic is recommended to ensure that all information on past and future rulings is exchanged as soon as possible.
Democratic Republic of the Congo
			No recommendations are made.
Denmark
			No recommendations are made.
Djibouti
			No recommendations are made.
Estonia
			No recommendations are made.
Finland
			No recommendations are made.
France
France has experienced delays in exchanging information on future rulings. This is a continuing recommendation from the prior year peer review (ToR II.5.6).			France is recommended to ensure that all information on future rulings is exchanged as soon as possible.
France did not identify or exchange information on new entrants to the IP regime or taxpayers benefitting from the third category of IP asset. This is a continuing recommendation from the prior year peer review (ToR I.4.1.3).			France is recommended to identify and exchange information on all new entrants to the IP regime, and to identify and exchange information on taxpayers benefitting from the third category of IP asset.
Germany
Germany identified 12 additional past rulings during the year of review and therefore after the timeline of 31 December 2016 due to a misunderstanding of the "still in effect at 1 January 2014" requirement (ToR I.4.1.1).			No recommendation is made because Germany addressed the problem and completed the exchanges of information on all past rulings within the month the rulings were identified and this is not a recurring issue.
Greece
			No recommendations are made.
Guernsey
			No recommendations are made.
Haiti
			No recommendations are made.
Hong Kong (China)
			No recommendations are made.
Hungary
Hungary was only able to identify potential exchange jurisdictions for around half of the past rulings issued, even though Hungary may have additional ownership information in its possession or this information is accessible to the tax administration, including through access to company incorporation databases (ToR I.4.2.2).			Hungary is recommended to continue to apply the “best efforts approach” to identify potential exchange jurisdictions for all past rulings.
Hungary was only able to identify potential exchange jurisdictions for around half of the future rulings issued until 31 December 2017, even though Hungary may have additional ownership information in its possession or this information is accessible to the tax administration, including through access to company incorporation databases. It is noted that Hungary has amended its issuing procedure for future rulings as of 1 January 2018 requiring the taxpayers to provide information on relevant exchange jurisdictions (ToR I.4.2.1). This is a continuing recommendation from the prior year peer review.			Hungary is recommended to ensure that all potential exchange jurisdictions are identified swiftly for all future rulings.
Hungary was not able to exchange future and past rulings in the year of review with non EU Member States as it did not have the legal basis to do so. Hungary introduced a new legal basis as of 1 January 2018 and has exchanged information on rulings with all G20 and non-EU Member States. For the exchange of information with EU Member States Hungary did not meet the timelines of the transparency framework (ToR II.5.6). This is a continuing recommendation from the prior year peer review.			Hungary is recommended to ensure that all information on future rulings is exchanged as soon as possible.
Hungary has not identified and exchanged information on new entrants to the grandfathered IP regime, although information for the 2015 period should be available (ToR I.4.1.3). This is a continuing recommendation from the prior year peer review.			Hungary is recommended to continue its efforts to identify and exchange information on new entrants to the grandfathered IP regime.
Iceland
			No recommendations are made.
India
India experienced difficulties to identify immediate parent and ultimate parent companies for past rulings, even though India may have additional ownership information in its possession or this information is accessible to the tax administration, including through access to company incorporation databases and in tax return filings (ToR I.4.2.2). This is a continuing recommendation from the prior year peer review.			India is recommended to continue to apply the “best efforts approach” to identify potential exchange jurisdictions for all past rulings.
India experienced difficulties to identify immediate parent and ultimate parent for future rulings issued between 1 April 2016 until the new issuing procedures take effect. By introducing the new issuing procedures, which requires the taxpayer to provide all necessary information on potential exchange information, India has addressed the issue for future rulings which have been issued after the new issuing procedures come into effect. The issue is therefore limited to future APAs and PE rulings, where taxpayers have applied before the amended application forms were introduced. (ToR I.4.2.1)			India is recommended to ensure that all potential exchange jurisdictions are identified swiftly for all future rulings.
India experienced delays in the exchange of information on past and future APAs. This is a continuing recommendation from the prior year peer review regarding the exchange of APAs. Subsequent to receiving this recommendation in October 2017, India has addressed the delay in the exchange of rulings by amending the issuing procedure for APAs and PE rulings as of 16 June 2017 and 13 July 2018 respectively. (ToR II.5.6)			India is recommended to ensure that all information on past and future APAs is exchanged as soon as possible.
Indonesia
			No recommendations are made.
Ireland
			No recommendations are made.
Isle of Man
			No recommendations are made.
Israel
Israel experienced delays in the provision of rulings to the Competent Authority during the year in review (ToR II.5.5).			Israel is recommended to reduce the timelines for providing the information on future rulings to the Competent Authority.
Israel encountered delays in the exchange of information for all future rulings issued in 2017 within the scope of the transparency framework issues (ToR II.5.6). This is a continuing recommendation from the prior year peer review.			Israel is recommended to ensure that all information on future rulings is exchanged as soon as possible.
Italy
Italy amended its procedure to transmit information on future rulings to the Competent Authority on a quarterly basis. However, in practice the information was delayed in its transmission to the Competent Authority, on average within five months and particular delays were encountered with regard to rulings on preferential regimes (ToR II.5.5). This is a continuing recommendation from the prior year peer review. Italy already amended its procedure to address this issue, which will be reviewed in the next peer review report.			Italy is recommended to continue its efforts to reduce the timelines for providing the information on future rulings to the Competent Authority.
Italy has introduced an Inter-Ministerial Decree to identify new entrants of the grandfathered IP regime. However, the Decree only came into force on 6 February 2018 and Italy was not able to identify all relevant information on new entrants to the IP regime that obtained benefits with respect to trademarks during the year of review (ToR I.4.1.3). This is a continuing recommendation from the prior year peer review.			Italy is recommended to continue its efforts to identify and exchange information on new entrants to the grandfathered IP regime.
Jamaica
It is not known whether Jamaica has an information gathering process in place (ToR.I.4).			Jamaica 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 Jamaica has a domestic legal framework allowing spontaneous exchange of information on rulings and has in place a process for completion of templates and exchange of information on rulings (ToR.II.5).			Jamaica 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.
Japan
			No recommendations are made.
Jersey
			No recommendations are made.
Jordan
			No recommendations are made.
Korea
			No recommendations are made.
Latvia
The tax administration’s internal regulations do not permit spontaneous exchange of information with non-EU countries (ToR II.5.1).			Latvia is recommended to finalise the amendments to the tax administration’s internal regulations to permit exchange of information on rulings with non-EU Member States.
Latvia transmits information on future rulings to EU Member States to the Competent Authority at six monthly intervals each year, to align with the EU Directive deadlines, which is longer than necessary (ToR II.5.5).			Latvia is recommended to reduce the timelines for providing the information on future rulings to the Competent Authority.
Liberia
			No recommendations are made.
Liechtenstein
			No recommendations are made.
Lithuania
			No recommendations are made.
Luxembourg
			No recommendations are made.
Macau (China)
			No recommendations are made.
Malaysia
Malaysia did not have a sufficient information gathering process during the year in review (ToR.I.4).			Malaysia is recommended to finalise its information gathering process for identifying all past and future rulings and potential exchange jurisdictions, with a review and supervision mechanism, as soon as possible.
Malaysia did not undertake spontaneous exchange of information on the tax rulings within scope of the transparency framework during the year in review (ToR.II.5).			Malaysia is recommended to continue its efforts to complete the templates for all relevant rulings and to ensure that the exchanges of information on rulings occur as soon as possible.
Malta
			No recommendations are made.
Mauritius
			No recommendations are made.
Mexico
Mexico experienced significant delays in exchanging information on future rulings (ToR II.5.6).			Mexico is recommended to ensure that all information on future rulings is exchanged as soon as possible.
Monaco
			No recommendations are made.
Montserrat
			No recommendations are made.
The Netherlands
Although most taxpayers benefitting from the third category of assets in the new IP regime obtain a ruling and are identified and exchanged upon in accordance with the process used for all other rulings, the Netherlands is not yet able to identify taxpayers benefitting from the third category of assets in the IP regime to the extent they do not obtain a ruling (ToR I.4.1.3).			The Netherlands is recommended to continue its efforts to identify and exchange information on taxpayers benefitting from the third category of IP assets as soon as possible.
New Zealand
			No recommendations are made.
Nigeria
			No recommendations are made.
Norway
			No recommendations are made.
Pakistan
			No recommendations are made.
Panama
			No recommendations are made.
Papua New Guinea
			No recommendations are made.
Paraguay
Paraguay does not yet have in place a process to identify all information on potential exchange jurisdictions (ToR I.4).			Paraguay is recommended to finalise its information gathering process for identifying all past and future rulings and potential exchange jurisdictions, with a review and supervision mechanism, as soon as possible.
Paraguay does not yet have in place a process for completion of templates and exchange of information on rulings (ToR II.5).			Paraguay is recommended to continue to put in place a domestic legal framework allowing spontaneous exchange of information on rulings and to continue its efforts to complete the templates for all relevant rulings and to ensure that the exchanges of information on rulings occur as soon as possible.
Peru
			No recommendations are made.
Philippines
The Philippines does not currently collect information on all potential exchange jurisdictions, particularly the ultimate parent company for past rulings (ToR I.4.2.2).			The Philippines is recommended to apply the “best efforts approach” to identify potential exchange jurisdictions for all past rulings.
The Philippines does not currently collect information on all potential exchange jurisdictions, particularly the ultimate parent company for future rulings (ToR I.4.2.1).			The Philippines is recommended to ensure that all potential exchange jurisdictions are identified swiftly for future rulings.
The Philippines does not have a review and supervision mechanism in place to ensure that all relevant information on the identification of rulings and potential exchange jurisdictions is captured adequately (ToR I.4.3).			The Philippines is recommended to have in place a review and supervision mechanism to ensure that all relevant information is captured adequately.
The Philippines does not yet have the necessary legal framework in place for exchanging information on rulings and a process in place to ensure the timely exchange of information on rulings in the form required by the transparency framework (ToR II.5).			The Philippines is recommended to continue to put in place a domestic legal framework allowing spontaneous exchange of information on rulings and to ensure the timely exchange of information on rulings in the form required by the transparency framework.
Poland
Poland encountered delays in identifying all potential exchange jurisdictions for future rulings other than APAs. This is a continuing recommendation from the prior year peer review (ToR II.4.2.1).			Poland is recommended to ensure that all potential exchange jurisdictions are identified swiftly for future rulings other than APAs.
A number of the exchanges on information on rulings were not sent to all potential exchange jurisdictions (ToR II.5.6).			No recommendation is made because Poland completed the exchanges of information on all past and future rulings by February 2018 and steps have been taken to ensure that this does not recur.
Portugal
Portugal encountered some minor delays in the exchange of information on rulings within scope of the transparency framework. This is a continuing recommendation from the prior year peer review (ToR II.5.6).			Portugal is recommended to ensure that all information on future rulings is exchanged as soon as possible.
Romania
Romania does not have a review and supervision mechanism in place to ensure that all relevant information on the identification of rulings and potential exchange jurisdictions is captured adequately (ToR I.4.3).			Romania is recommended to have in place a review and supervision mechanism to ensure that all relevant information is captured adequately.
In the year in review, Romania did not have in place a process for completion of templates and exchange of information on rulings (ToR II.5).			Romania is recommended to continue its efforts to complete the templates for all relevant rulings and to ensure that the exchanges of information on rulings occur as soon as possible.
Russian Federation
			No recommendations are made.
San Marino
			No recommendations are made.
Saudi Arabia
			No recommendations are made.
Seychelles
			No recommendations are made.
Sierra Leone
			No recommendations are made.
Singapore
Singapore identified additional 37 past rulings only in 2018 during a review process.			No recommendation is made because Singapore has addressed the issue and it is not expected to recur.
Singapore experienced some delays in exchanging information on past and future rulings.			No recommendation is made because Singapore completed the exchange of all past rulings by May 2018 (except the recently identified LoAs which will be exchanged by August 2018) and this is not a recurring issue. The future rulings were exchanged within a very short period of the deadline and steps have been taken to ensure that this does not recur.
Sint Maarten
			Review deferred, as the jurisdiction suffered a natural disaster.
Slovak Republic
			No recommendations are made.
Slovenia
			No recommendations are made.
South Africa
			No recommendations are made.
Spain
Spain has not exchanged information on new assets of existing taxpayers benefitting from the grandfathered regime as this information was not available during the year in review (ToR I.4.1.3).			Spain is recommended to identify and exchange relevant information on new assets of existing taxpayers benefitting from the grandfathered IP regime.
Sri Lanka
It is not known whether Sri Lanka has an information gathering process in place (ToR I.4).			Sri Lanka 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 Sri Lanka has a domestic legal framework allowing spontaneous exchange of information on rulings and has a process in place to ensure the timely exchange of information on rulings in the form required by the transparency framework (ToR II.5).			Sri Lanka 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.
Sweden
Sweden did not identify all past rulings (ToR I.4.1.2).			No recommendation is made because Sweden identified additional past rulings in 2017 which it has exchanged by June 2017 and Sweden has reviewed its process for identifying past and future rulings to ensure that this is not a recurring issue.
Sweden did not identify all potential exchange jurisdictions for future rulings (ToR I.4.2.1). This is a continuing recommendation from the prior year peer review.			Sweden is recommended to amend its rulings practice to require taxpayers to provide information on all potential exchange jurisdictions for future rulings as soon as possible.
Switzerland
			No recommendations are made.
Trinidad and Tobago
			No recommendations are made.
Turkey
Turkey has not been able to identify and exchange information on new entrants to the grandfathered IP regime (ToR I.4.1.3). This is a continuing recommendation from the prior year peer review.			Turkey is recommended to identify and exchange information on new entrants to the grandfathered IP regime.
United Kingdom
The United Kingdom experienced some delays exchanging information on future rulings (ToR II.5.6).			No recommendation is made because the United Kingdom completed the exchange of all future rulings in the year of review, implemented new procedures and hired additional staff to prevent further delay, therefore it is considered not a recurring issue.
The United Kingdom has not exchanged information on new assets of existing taxpayers benefitting from the grandfathered IP regime, as this information was still not available. The United Kingdom is currently evaluating ways to collect alternative information on new IP assets for the purpose of exchanging under the transparency framework (ToR I.4.1.3). This is a continuing recommendation from the prior year peer review.			The United Kingdom is recommended to identify and exchange alternative information on new assets of existing taxpayers benefitting from the grandfathered IP regime.
United States
			No recommendations are made.
Viet Nam
Viet Nam is currently putting in place a process for completion of templates and exchange of information on rulings (ToR II.5).			Viet Nam is recommended to continue to put in place a process to complete the templates for all relevant rulings and to ensure the timely exchange of information on rulings in the form required by the transparency framework.

Reference

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264241190-en.

Note

← 1. The Action 5 Report, Countering Harmful Tax Practices More Effectively, Taking Into Account Transparency and Substance (OECD, 2015) also provides that additional types of rulings could be added to the scope of the transparency framework in the future, where the FHTP and the Inclusive Framework agree that such a ruling could lead to BEPS concerns in the absence of spontaneous information exchange.

In the same series

See all publications

Report

Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – Simplified Peer Review, Jamaica (Stage 1)

16 September 2024
Report

Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – Simplified Peer Review, Antigua and Barbuda (Stage 1)

16 September 2024
Report

Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – Simplified Peer Review, Nigeria (Stage 1)

16 September 2024
Report

Country-by-Country Reporting – Compilation of 2024 Peer Review Reports

16 September 2024
Report

Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – Simplified Peer Review, Belize (Stage 1)

16 September 2024
Report

Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – Simplified Peer Review, Dominican Republic (Stage 1)

16 September 2024
Report

Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – Simplified Peer Review, Egypt (Stage 1)

16 September 2024
Report

Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – Simplified Peer Review, Mauritius (Stage 1)

16 September 2024

Related publications

See all publications

Report

Harmful Tax Practices – 2022 Peer Review Reports on the Exchange of Information on Tax Rulings

13 December 2023
Report

Harmful Tax Practices – 2021 Peer Review Reports on the Exchange of Information on Tax Rulings

14 December 2022
Report

Harmful Tax Practices – 2020 Peer Review Reports on the Exchange of Information on Tax Rulings

14 December 2021
Report

Harmful Tax Practices – 2019 Peer Review Reports on the Exchange of Information on Tax Rulings

15 December 2020
Report

Harmful Tax Practices – 2018 Peer Review Reports on the Exchange of Information on Tax Rulings

23 December 2019
Report

Harmful Tax Practices - 2018 Progress Report on Preferential Regimes

29 January 2019
Report

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

4 December 2017
Report

Harmful Tax Practices - 2017 Progress Report on Preferential Regimes

16 October 2017

Publications

Featured publications

Data

Featured data

News & Events

Featured Events

About

Engage with us

Work with us

Publications

Featured publications

Data

Featured data

News & Events

Featured Events

About

Engage with us

Work with us

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

More info

Cite this content as:

Abstract

Executive Summary

Context for the exchange of information on tax rulings (the “transparency framework”)

Scope of this review

Key findings

Next steps

Summary of recommendations made

Reference

Note

In the same series

Related publications

Topics

Countries & regions

Data

Publications

News & Events

About

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Countries

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Publications

Publications

Featured publications

Data

Data

Featured data

News & Events

News & Events

Featured Events

About OECD

About

Engage with us

Work with us

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment