59. A number of jurisdictions reported agreements, concluded with other members of the Inclusive Framework, that are not compliant, not subject to a complying instrument or to a general statement on the detailed LOB, and in respect of which no steps have been taken to implement the minimum standard. These agreements are included in the table titled ‘Other agreements’ in the jurisdictional sections.
60. Where a jurisdiction did not provide reasons why, for that jurisdiction, such agreements do not give rise to material treaty-shopping concerns, it was invited to develop a plan to implement the minimum standard in those agreements concluded with another member of the Inclusive Framework.1
61. Where a jurisdiction already formulated such a plan in the context of the 2021 peer review, it was invited to provide an update on that plan if changes occurred. Jurisdictions facing any difficulty in implementing their plan were also able to report such difficulty to the Secretariat.
62. The information included in an implementation plan concerns the way in which the minimum standard will be implemented – for example, that the jurisdictions will:
include the agreements in their list of covered tax agreements under the BEPS MLI;
enter into bilateral negotiations for the implementation of the minimum standard; or
sign and ratify the BEPS MLI and list the agreements as covered tax agreements.
63. Each year, jurisdictions will be invited to provide an update on their implementation plan if changes occur, and as applicable, to report any difficulty in implementing the plan to the Secretariat.
64. In cases where a jurisdiction did not make a plan (or provide an update on the plan) to implement the minimum standard where a plan was called for, a recommendation to provide one has been made. These recommendations are discussed in Section 6 below.