Partager

Centre de politique et d'administration fiscales

book

Harmful Tax Practices – 2018 Peer Review Reports on the Exchange of Information on Tax Rulings

Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 5

BEPS Action 5 is one of the four BEPS minimum standards which all Inclusive Framework members have committed to implement. One part of the Action 5 minimum standard is the transparency framework for compulsory spontaneous exchange of information on certain tax rulings which, in the absence of transparency, could give rise to BEPS concerns. Over 135 jurisdictions have joined the Inclusive Framework and take part in the peer review to assess their compliance with the transparency framework. Specific terms of reference and a methodology have been agreed for the peer reviews to assess a jurisdiction’s implementation of the minimum standard. The review of the transparency framework assesses jurisdictions against the terms of reference which focus on five key elements: i) information gathering process, ii) exchange of information, iii) confidentiality of the information received; iv) statistics on the exchanges on rulings; and v) transparency on certain aspects of intellectual property regimes. Recommendations are issued where improvements are needed to meet the minimum standard. This report reflects the outcome of the annual peer review of the implementation of the Action 5 minimum standard and covers 112 jurisdictions. It assesses implementation for the 1 January - 31 December 2018 period.

Published on December 23, 2019

In series:OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Projectview more titles

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword
Abbreviations and acronyms
Executive Summary
The review of the BEPS Action 5 standard on the exchange of information on certain tax rulings
References
Country profiles111 chapters available
Andorra
Angola
Argentina
Aruba
Australia
Austria
Barbados
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei Darussalam
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Cameroon
Canada
Chile
China (People’s Republic of)
Colombia
Congo
Costa Rica
Côte d’Ivoire
Croatia
Curaçao
Czech Republic
Democratic Republic of Congo
Denmark
Djibouti
Egypt
Estonia
Finland
France
Gabon
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Guernsey
Haiti
Hong Kong (China)
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Isle of Man
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jersey
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Korea
Latvia
Liberia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macau (China)
Malaysia
Maldives
Malta
Mauritius
Mexico
Monaco
Mongolia
Montserrat
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Nigeria
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
The Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russian Federation
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
San Marino
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sweden
Switzerland
Thailand
Trinidad & Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Viet Nam
Zambia
Powered by OECD iLibrary