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

Peru

Peru 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.

In the prior year report, as well as in the 2017 peer review, Peru had received one recommendation. Peru has resolved this issue and therefore the prior year recommendation is removed.

Peru can legally issue one type of ruling within the scope of the transparency framework.

In practice, Peru issued no rulings within the scope of the transparency framework.

As no exchanges were required to take place, no peer input was received in respect of the exchanges of information on rulings received from Peru.

A. The information gathering process

819. Peru can legally issue the following type of ruling within the scope of the transparency framework: 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;1

820. For Peru, past rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued either: (i) on or after 1 January 2015 but before 1 September 2017; or (ii) on or after 1 January 2012 but before 1 January 2015, provided they were still in effect as at 1 January 2015. Future rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued on or after 1 September 2017.

821. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Peru’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 Peru’s review and supervision mechanism was sufficient to meet the minimum standard. For the purpose of formalising the process, Peru notes its intention to put in place a procedure by the end of 2021 for identifying the relevant exchange jurisdictions at the time of the taxpayer’s request. Peru’s implementation remains unchanged, and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.

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

B. The exchange of information

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

824. Peru 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) bilateral agreements in force with seven jurisdictions, (iii) multilateral tax agreements in force with three jurisdictions, and iv) tax information exchange agreements in force with two jurisdictions.2

825. As Peru did not issue any past or future rulings in scope of the transparency framework in the relevant periods, Peru was not required to exchange any information on rulings in the year in review and no data on the timeliness of exchanges can be reported.

826. Peru has the necessary legal basis and administrative process in place for spontaneous exchange of information. For the purpose of formalising the process, Peru notes that a formal procedure for the completion and exchange of templates will be established by the end of 2021. Peru has met all of the ToR for the exchange of information process that can be met in the absence of rulings being issued and exchanged in practice and no recommendations are made.

C. Statistics (ToR IV)

827. As no rulings were issued, no statistics can be reported.

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

828. Peru does not offer an intellectual property regime for which transparency requirements under the Action 5 Report (OECD, 2015[1]) 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

[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.