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

Aruba

Aruba has met all aspects of the terms of reference (OECD, 2021[1]) (ToR) for the calendar year 2022 (year in review), and no recommendations are made.

In the prior year report, Aruba did not receive any recommendations.

Aruba can legally issue five types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework.

In practice, Aruba 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 Aruba.

Information gathering process (ToR I.A)

88. Aruba can legally issue the following five 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; (iii) rulings providing for unilateral downward adjustments; (iv) permanent establishment rulings; and (v) related party conduit rulings.

89. For Aruba, past rulings are any tax rulings issued prior to 1 September 2018. However, there is no obligation for Aruba to conduct spontaneous exchange information on past rulings. Future rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued on or after 1 September 2018.

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

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

Exchange of information (ToR II.B)

92. Aruba has the necessary domestic legal basis to exchange information spontaneously. Aruba 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.

93. Aruba has international agreements permitting spontaneous exchange of information, including being a jurisdiction participating in (i) the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol (OECD/Council of Europe, 2011[2]) (“the Convention”) and (ii) bilateral agreements in force with 25 jurisdictions.2

94. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Aruba’s process for the completion and exchange of templates were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. Aruba’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.

95. During the year in review, no exchanges were required to take place and no data on the timeliness of exchanges is reported.

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

Statistics (ToR IV.D)

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

Matters related to intellectual property regimes (ToR I.A.1.3)

98. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Aruba’s information gathering and exchange of information processes for matters related to intellectual property regimes3 were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. Aruba’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.

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

[1] OECD (2021), 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, https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/beps-action-5-harmful-tax-practices-peer-review-transparency-framework.pdf.

[3] 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.

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