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

Belize

Belize has met all aspects of the terms of reference (ToR) for the calendar year 2017 (year in review) that can be met in the absence of rulings being issued.

Belize indicates that it cannot legally issue any type of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework.

As no rulings were issued, no exchange of information was required. No peer input was received in respect of the exchanges of information on rulings received from Belize.

Introduction

130.  This peer review covers Belize’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

131.  As no rulings are issued, this section is not assessed.

B. The exchange of information

132.  As no rulings are issued, this section is not assessed.

C. Statistics (ToR IV)

133.  As no rulings are issued, no statistical data can be reported.

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

134.  Belize offers a preferential regime, the International business companies regime, which also offer benefits to income from intellectual property (“IP regime”). However for the year in review no transparency requirements under the Action 5 Report (OECD, 2015) were relevant, as follows:

• New entrants benefitting from the grandfathered IP regime: not applicable for the year in review, because Belize is currently in the process of amending the regime and has not taken a decision yet on whether it will provide grandfathering to existing taxpayers. Should Belize provide grandfathering to taxpayers that entered the regime after the publication of the 2017 Progress Report, which occurred on 16 October 2017, then the enhanced transparency requirements will apply and this will be taken into account during the subsequent peer review.

• Third category of IP assets: not applicable to this regime, which in 2017 was in the process of being amended..

• Taxpayers making the use of the option to treat the nexus ratio as a rebuttable presumption: not applicable to this regime, which in 2017 was in the process of being amended.

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.