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

Ireland

Ireland has met all aspects of the terms of reference (OECD, 2017[3]) (ToR) for the calendar year 2019 (year in review) and no recommendations are made.

Ireland can legally issue three types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework.

In practice, Ireland issued rulings within the scope of the transparency framework as follows:

• 29 past rulings;

• For the period 1 April 2016 - 31 December 2016: no future rulings;

• For the calendar year 2017: two future rulings,

• For the calendar year 2018: 39 future rulings, and

• For the year in review: five future rulings.

Peer input was received from three jurisdictions in respect of the exchanges of information on rulings received from Ireland. The input was positive, noting that information was complete, in a correct format and almost all received in a timely manner.

A. The information gathering process

536. Ireland can legally issue three types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework: (i) preferential regimes;1 (ii) cross-border unilateral 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; and (iii) permanent establishment rulings.

537. For Ireland, 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. Future rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued on or after 1 April 2016.

538. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Ireland’s undertakings to identify past and future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. In addition, it was determined that Ireland’s review and supervision mechanism was sufficient to meet the minimum standard. Ireland’s implementation remains unchanged, and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.

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

B. The exchange of information

540. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Ireland’s process for the completion and exchange of templates were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. With respect to past rulings, no further action was required. Ireland’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.

541. Ireland has international agreements permitting spontaneous exchange of information, including being a party to the (i) Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol (OECD/Council of Europe, 2011[4]) (“the Convention”), (ii) the Directive 2011/16/EU with all other European Union Member States and (iii) double tax agreements in force with 73 jurisdictions, 69 of which allow for spontaneous exchange of information.2

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

 

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
	5	0	N/A	N/A

 

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

543. Ireland 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. Ireland has met all of the ToR for the exchange of information process and no recommendations are made.

C. Statistics (ToR IV)

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

 

Category of ruling	Number of exchanges	Jurisdictions exchanged with
Ruling related to a preferential regime	De minimis rule applies	N/A
Cross-border unilateral advance pricing agreements (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	0	N/A
Permanent establishment rulings	De minimis rule applies	N/A
De minimis rule	5
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	0	N/A
Total	5

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

545. Ireland offers an intellectual property regime (IP regime)3 that is subject to the transparency requirements under the Action 5 Report (OECD, 2015[1]). It states that the identification of the benefitting taxpayers will occur as follows:

• New entrants benefitting from the grandfathered IP regime: as this is a new IP regime rather than a grandfathered IP regime, transparency on new entrants is not relevant.

• Third category of IP assets: the relevant part of the annual corporation tax return has been designed to capture the data that Ireland will require for its reporting and exchange of information obligations under the framework. So far, there have been no taxpayers benefitting from the third category of IP assets.

• Taxpayers making use of the option to treat the nexus ratio as a rebuttable presumption: not applicable as the regime does not allow the nexus ratio to be treated as a rebuttable presumption.

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

[3] 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 Publishing, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/beps-action-5-harmful-tax-practices-peer-review-transparency-framework.pdf.

[1] 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://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264241190-en.

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