Share

Base erosion and profit shifting

Country-by-Country Reporting: Update on exchange relationships and implementation

 

Last updated: December 2018

OVERVIEW

Country-by-Country reporting under the BEPS Action 13 minimum standard applies to reporting fiscal years of MNE groups commencing on or after 1 January 2016, and the first automatic exchanges of CbC reports took place in June 2018. Jurisdictions that are members of the OECD Inclusive Framework on BEPS have made significant progress to ensure that MNE groups within the scope of the minimum standard are required to file CbC reports; that a framework is in place for the automatic exchange of CbC reports; and that local filing is required only where permitted under the minimum standard. A summary of this progress is set out below. 

 

Implementation of a CbC reporting obligation

Over 60 jurisdictions1 that are members of the Inclusive Framework have introduced a CbC reporting obligation for MNE groups for reporting fiscal years commencing in 2016. In total, around 75 Inclusive Framework jurisdictions2 have introduced, or taken steps to begin introduction of, a CbC reporting obligation, including those with a later commencement date.

 

The international framework for the exchange of CbC reports

In excess of 2000 relationships for the exchange of CbC reports have been activated. These include relationships:

  • between the 75 jurisdictions that are signatories to the CbC multilateral competent authority agreement
  • between the 28 EU Member States under European Council Directive 2016/881/EU
  • between jurisdictions that have bilateral qualifying competent agreements in effect (including bilateral arrangements between the US and over 35 jurisdictions3).

 

Steps taken to reduce the incidence of local filing by constituent entities in MNE groups

While not forming part of the Action 13 minimum standard, exceptionally a jurisdiction may require the filing of a CbC report by a resident constituent entity that is not the ultimate parent entity of its group (referred to as local filing). There is no requirement for a jurisdiction to apply local filing but, where it does so, this may be done only in three specific circumstances.


First, where the ultimate parent entity of an MNE group is not obligated to file a CbC Report in its residence jurisdiction.

Second, where the residence jurisdiction of the ultimate parent entity has a current international agreement (multilateral or bilateral tax convention or tax information exchange agreement providing for the automatic exchange of tax information) with the residence jurisdiction of a constituent entity, but there is no qualifying competent authority agreement in place between the two jurisdictions. This does not include circumstances where there is no such international agreement in effect.

Third, where there has been a systemic failure to exchange CbC Reports by the residence jurisdiction of the ultimate parent entity.


Even where one of these circumstances is present, local filing is not permitted where a CbC report will be filed by another constituent entity in the MNE group acting as a substitute for the ultimate parent entity (referred to as surrogate parent filing), subject to conditions.

A practical issue arises with respect to jurisdictions which intend to exchange CbC reports under the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters (the Convention) but did not have this instrument in effect for the first reporting fiscal year (commencing as from 1 January 2016). This impacted the ability of these jurisdictions to exchange CbC reports and, in some cases, could have resulted in local filing for MNE groups. Jurisdictions and the OECD have worked extensively to develop solutions to address this issue and to enable the exchange of CbC reports relating to the first reporting fiscal year. 

 

An evolving landscape for CbC reporting

The global landscape for CbC Reporting by MNE groups is still evolving. The initial period may be challenging for both tax administrations and MNE groups (e.g. where during a transitional period an MNE group may be exposed to local filing in multiple jurisdictions but has prepared its CbC report in accordance with the rules in place in its parent jurisdiction), which may call for a pragmatic approach that takes into account best efforts made to comply with CbC related obligations. These challenges should diminish over time, as the global landscape for CbC Reporting becomes more settled and both tax administrations and MNE groups gain in experience. 

The steps described above are reflected in the latest summary of the status of the implementation of CbC reporting by jurisdictions. The OECD continues to work closely with jurisdictions to support the effective implementation of CbC reporting in accordance with the Action 13 minimum standard, and to put in place relationships for the exchange of CbC reports, to ensure that CbC reporting operates as intended from the perspective of both tax authorities and MNE groups.

 

Further information

The Country-by-Country Reporting requirements form one of the four BEPS minimum standards. Each of these minimum standards is subject to peer review in order to ensure timely and accurate implementation and thus safeguard the level playing field. All members of the Inclusive Framework on BEPS commit to implementing the Action 13 minimum standard on CbC reporting, and to participating in the peer review. 


1 Jurisdictions with a CbC reporting filing obligation for 2017, based on current information provided by jurisdictions, include Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cayman Islands, Chile, China (People's Republic of), Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Greece, Guernsey, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Isle of Man, Italy, Japan, Jersey, Kazakhstan, Korea, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, Uruguay, United States and Viet Nam. 

2 Jurisdictions that have introduced a CbC reporting filing obligation commencing later than 2017, based on information provided by each jurisdiction, include Andorra, Bahamas, Côte d’Ivoire, Curaçao, Hong Kong (China), Jamaica, Mauritius, Monaco, Nigeria, Senegal, Sri Lanka and Switzerland.

3 See www.irs.gov/businesses/country-by-country-reporting-jurisdiction-status-table. These arrangements include a joint statement issued by France and the US that CbC reports for 2016 and 2017 will be exchanged spontaneously.

 

Related Documents