Country-by‑Country Reporting – Compilation of Peer Review Reports (Phase 3)

Luxembourg

1. Luxembourg was reviewed as part of the 2017/2018 and the 2018/2019 peer reviews. This report is supplementary to those previous reports (OECD, 2019[1]) (OECD, 2018[2]).

2. The first filing obligation for a CbC report in Luxembourg applies to reporting fiscal years commencing on or after 1 January 2016.

Summary of key findings

3. Luxembourg’s implementation of the Action 13 minimum standard meets all applicable terms of reference (OECD, 2017[3]).

Part A: The domestic legal and administrative framework

4. Luxembourg has legislation in place which implements the BEPS Action 13 minimum standard.

(a) Parent entity filing obligation

5. No changes were identified.

(b) Scope and timing of parent entity filing

6. No changes were identified.

(c) Limitation on local filing obligation

7.  No changes were identified.

(d) Limitation on local filing in case of surrogate filing

8. No changes were identified.

(e) Effective implementation

9. No changes were identified.

Conclusion

10. Luxembourg meets all the terms of reference relating to the domestic legal and administrative framework.

Part B: The exchange of information framework

(a) Exchange of information framework

11. As of 31 March 2020, Luxembourg has 68 bilateral relationships in place, including those activated under the CbC MCAA, bilateral QCAAs and under the EU Council Directive (2016/881/EU). Within the context of its international exchange of information agreements that allow automatic exchange of information, Luxembourg has taken steps to have qualifying competent authority agreements in effect with jurisdictions of the Inclusive Framework that meet the confidentiality, consistency and appropriate use conditions.1 Regarding Luxembourg’s exchange of information framework, no inconsistencies with the terms of reference were identified.

(b) Content of information exchanged

12. No changes were identified.

(c) Completeness of exchanges

13. No changes were identified.

(d) Timeliness of exchanges

14. No changes were identified.

(e) Temporary suspension of exchange or termination of QCAA

15. No changes were identified.

(f) Consultation with other Competent Authority before determining systemic failure or significant non-compliance

16. No changes were identified.

(g) Format for information exchange

17. No changes were identified.

(h) Method for transmission

18. No changes were identified.

Conclusion

19. Luxembourg meets all the terms of reference regarding the exchange of information.

Part C: Appropriate use

Appropriate use

20. No changes were identified.

Conclusion

21. Luxembourg meets all the terms of reference relating to appropriate use of CbC reports.

Summary of recommendations on the implementation of country-by-country reporting

Aspect of the implementation that should be improved		Recommendation for improvement
Part A	Domestic legal and administrative framework	-
Part B	Exchange of information framework	-
Part C	Appropriate use	-

References

OECD (2019), Country-by-Country Reporting – Compilation of Peer Review Reports (Phase 2): Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 13, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/f9bf1157-en. [1]

OECD (2018), Country-by-Country Reporting – Compilation of Peer Review Reports (Phase 1): Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 13, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264300057-en. [2]

OECD (2017), Terms of reference for the conduct of peer review of the Action 13 minimum standard on country-by-country reporting, OECD Publishing, https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/beps-action-13-on-country-by-country-reporting-peer-review-documents.pdf. [3]

Note

← 1.  No inconsistency with the terms of reference will be identified where a QCAA is not in effect with one or more jurisdictions of the Inclusive Framework that meet the confidentiality, consistency and appropriate use conditions, but this is due to circumstances that are not under the control of the reviewed jurisdiction. This may include, for example, where the other jurisdiction intends to exchange CbC reports using the MCAA but it does not have the Convention in effect for the relevant fiscal period, or where the other jurisdiction has declined to have a QCAA in effect with the reviewed jurisdiction.