Reports


  • 4-December-2017

    English

    Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – MAP Peer Review Report, Italy (Stage 1) - Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 14

    Under Action 14, jurisdictions have committed to implement a minimum standard to strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of the mutual agreement procedure (MAP). The MAP is included in Article 25 of the OECD Model Tax Convention and commits countries to endeavour to resolve disputes related to the interpretation and application of tax treaties. The Action 14 Minimum Standard has been translated into specific terms of reference and a methodology for the peer review and monitoring process.

    The peer review process is conducted in two stages.  Stage 1 assesses jurisdictions against the terms of reference of the minimum standard according to an agreed schedule of review. Stage 2 focuses on monitoring the follow-up of any recommendations resulting from jurisdictions' stage 1 peer review report. This report reflects the outcome of the stage 1 peer review of the implementation of the Action 14 Minimum Standard by Italy, which is accompanied by a document addressing the implementation of best practices which can be accessed on the OECD website.

  • 4-December-2017

    English

    Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – MAP Peer Review Report, Liechtenstein (Stage 1) - Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 14

    Under Action 14, jurisdictions have committed to implement a minimum standard to strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of the mutual agreement procedure (MAP). The MAP is included in Article 25 of the OECD Model Tax Convention and commits countries to endeavour to resolve disputes related to the interpretation and application of tax treaties. The Action 14 Minimum Standard has been translated into specific terms of reference and a methodology for the peer review and monitoring process. The minimum standard is complemented by a set of best practices.

    The peer review process is conducted in two stages.  Stage 1 assesses jurisdictions against the terms of reference of the minimum standard according to an agreed schedule of review. Stage 2 focuses on monitoring the follow-up of any recommendations resulting from jurisdictions' stage 1 peer review report. This report reflects the outcome of the stage 1 peer review of the implementation of the Action 14 Minimum Standard by Liechtenstein, which is accompanied by a document addressing the implementation of best practices which can be accessed on the OECD website.

  • 4-December-2017

    English

    Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – MAP Peer Review Report, Germany (Stage 1) - Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 14

    Under Action 14, jurisdictions have committed to implement a minimum standard to strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of the mutual agreement procedure (MAP). The MAP is included in Article 25 of the OECD Model Tax Convention and commits countries to endeavour to resolve disputes related to the interpretation and application of tax treaties. The Action 14 Minimum Standard has been translated into specific terms of reference and a methodology for the peer review and monitoring process.

    The peer review process is conducted in two stages.  Stage 1 assesses jurisdictions against the terms of reference of the minimum standard according to an agreed schedule of review. Stage 2 focuses on monitoring the follow-up of any recommendations resulting from jurisdictions' stage 1 peer review report. This report reflects the outcome of the stage 1 peer review of the implementation of the Action 14 Minimum Standard by Germany, which is accompanied by a document addressing the implementation of best practices which can be accessed on the OECD website.

  • 4-December-2017

    English

    Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – MAP Peer Review Report, France (Stage 1) - Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 14

    Under Action 14, jurisdictions have committed to implement a minimum standard to strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of the mutual agreement procedure (MAP). The MAP is included in Article 25 of the OECD Model Tax Convention and commits countries to endeavour to resolve disputes related to the interpretation and application of tax treaties. The Action 14 Minimum Standard has been translated into specific terms of reference and a methodology for the peer review and monitoring process.
     
    The peer review process is conducted in two stages.  Stage 1 assesses jurisdictions against the terms of reference of the minimum standard according to an agreed schedule of review. Stage 2 focuses on monitoring the follow-up of any recommendations resulting from jurisdictions' stage 1 peer review report. This report reflects the outcome of the stage 1 peer review of the implementation of the Action 14 Minimum Standard by France, which is accompanied by a document addressing the implementation of best practices which can be accessed on the OECD website.

  • 4-December-2017

    English

    Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – MAP Peer Review Report, Sweden (Stage 1) - Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 14

    Under Action 14, jurisdictions have committed to implement a minimum standard to strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of the mutual agreement procedure (MAP). The MAP is included in Article 25 of the OECD Model Tax Convention and commits countries to endeavour to resolve disputes related to the interpretation and application of tax treaties. The Action 14 Minimum Standard has been translated into specific terms of reference and a methodology for the peer review and monitoring process. The minimum standard is complemented by a set of best practices.

    The peer review process is conducted in two stages.  Stage 1 assesses jurisdictions against the terms of reference of the minimum standard according to an agreed schedule of review. Stage 2 focuses on monitoring the follow-up of any recommendations resulting from jurisdictions' stage 1 peer review report. This report reflects the outcome of the stage 1 peer review of the implementation of the Action 14 Minimum Standard by Sweden, which is accompanied by a document addressing the implementation of best practices which can be accessed on the OECD website.

  • 4-December-2017

    English

    Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – MAP Peer Review Report, Austria (Stage 1) - Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 14

    Under Action 14, jurisdictions have committed to implement a minimum standard to strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of the mutual agreement procedure (MAP). The MAP is included in Article 25 of the OECD Model Tax Convention and commits countries to endeavour to resolve disputes related to the interpretation and application of tax treaties. The Action 14 Minimum Standard has been translated into specific terms of reference and a methodology for the peer review and monitoring process. The minimum standard is complemented by a set of best practices.

    The peer review process is conducted in two stages.  Stage 1 assesses jurisdictions against the terms of reference of the minimum standard according to an agreed schedule of review. Stage 2 focuses on monitoring the follow-up of any recommendations resulting from jurisdictions' stage 1 peer review report. This report reflects the outcome of the stage 1 peer review of the implementation of the Action 14 Minimum Standard by Austria, which is accompanied by a document addressing the implementation of best practices which can be accessed on the OECD website.

  • 4-December-2017

    English

    Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – MAP Peer Review Report, Luxembourg (Stage 1) - Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 14

    Under Action 14, jurisdictions have committed to implement a minimum standard to strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of the mutual agreement procedure (MAP). The MAP is included in Article 25 of the OECD Model Tax Convention and commits countries to endeavour to resolve disputes related to the interpretation and application of tax treaties. The Action 14 Minimum Standard has been translated into specific terms of reference and a methodology for the peer review and monitoring process. The minimum standard is complemented by a set of best practices.

    The peer review process is conducted in two stages.  Stage 1 assesses jurdisdictions  against the terms of reference of the minimum standard according to an agreed schedule of review. Stage 2 focuses on monitoring the follow-up of any recommendations resulting from jurisdictions' stage 1 peer review report. This report reflects the outcome of the stage 1 peer review of the implementation of the Action 14 Minimum Standard by Luxembourg, which is accompanied by a document addressing the implementation of best practices which can be accessed on the OECD website.

  • 30-November-2017

    English

    Harmful Tax Practices - 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 on certain rulings which, in the absence of transparency, could give rise to BEPS concerns. Over 100 jurisdictions have joined the Inclusive Framework and will take part in a 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 countries 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 of rulings; and v) transparency on certain aspect of intellectual property regimes.

    This report reflects the outcome of the first peer review of the implementation of the Action 5 minimum standard. It covers the jurisdictions which participated in the BEPS Project prior to the creation of the Inclusive Framework, and it assesses implementation for the 1 January 2016 – 31 December 2016 period.

  • 23-November-2017

    English

    Revenue Statistics: 1965-2016

    Data on government sector receipts, and on taxes in particular, are basic inputs to most structural economic descriptions and economic analyses and are increasingly used in economic comparisons. This annual publication gives a conceptual framework to define which government receipts should be regarded as taxes.  It presents a unique set of detailed an internationally comparable tax data in a common format for all OECD countries from 1965 onwards.

  • 17-November-2017

    English

  • 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 > >>