2016 Terms of Reference: Terms of Reference related to EOIR, as approved by the Global Forum on 29-30 October 2015
A.1: One of the 10 essential elements of the standard of transparency and exchange of information. Element A.1 requires the availability of ownership and identity information, including information on legal and beneficial owners, for all relevant entities and arrangements.
A.2: One of the 10 essential elements of the standard of transparency and exchange of information. Element A.2 requires that jurisdictions ensure that reliable accounting records are kept for all relevant entities and arrangements.
A.3: One of the 10 essential elements of the standard of transparency and exchange of information. Element A.3 requires that banking information be available for all account-holders.
AEOI: Automatic Exchange of Information
AML: Anti-Money Laundering
AML/CFT: Anti-Money Laundering / Countering the Financing of Terrorism
Assessment Panel: An 11-member expert body under the enhanced monitoring process to support the Peer Review and Monitoring Group
B.1: One of the 10 essential elements of the standard of transparency and exchange of information. Element B.1 requires that the competent authority of the jurisdiction has the power to obtain and provide information that is the subject of a request under an exchange of information arrangement from any person within their territorial jurisdiction who is in possession or control of such information.
B.2: One of the 10 essential elements of the standard of transparency and exchange of information. Element B.2 requires that the rights and safeguards (e.g. notification, appeal rights) that apply to persons in the requested jurisdiction should be compatible with effective exchange of information.
Baseline review: In the context of the EOIR standard, the latest complete second round of EOIR peer review based on the 2016 Terms of Reference. Where an EOIR supplementary review under the methodology of second round of EOIR peer reviews has been completed before the implementation of the enhanced monitoring process, the baseline review is that supplementary review.
BO: Beneficial ownership
C: Compliant. One of the four ratings that can be assigned to a jurisdiction on the level of implementation of an element of the standard in its practice and on the overall level of implementation of the standard by a jurisdiction. A Compliant rating is assigned where the essential element is fully implemented. No material deficiencies have been identified and the jurisdiction’s EOIR practice is effective.
C.1: One of the 10 essential elements of the standard of transparency and exchange of information. Element C.1 requires that exchange of information mechanisms (e.g. DTCs, TIEAs) should provide for effective exchange.
C.2: One of the 10 essential elements of the standard of transparency and exchange of information. Element C.2 requires that the jurisdictions’ network of information exchange mechanisms cover all relevant partners.
C.3: One of the 10 essential elements of the standard of transparency and exchange of information. Element C.3 requires that jurisdiction’s mechanisms for exchange of information have adequate provisions to ensure the confidentiality of information received.
C.4: One of the 10 essential elements of the standard of transparency and exchange of information. Element C.4 requires that the wording of the EOI mechanisms respect the rights and safeguards of taxpayers and third parties.
C.5: One of the 10 essential elements of the standard of transparency and exchange of information. Element C.5 requires that the jurisdiction request and provide information under its network of agreements in an effective manner.
CARF: Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework
CDD: Customer Due Diligence
CRS: Common Reporting Standard
DTC: Double Taxation Convention
EOI: Exchange of Information
EOIR: Exchange of Information on Request
EOIR standard: The standard on Transparency and Exchange of Information on Request
Enhanced monitoring: The monitoring process followed by the Global Forum since January 2025 to examine the progress being made by Global Forum members and relevant non-members in relation to their implementation of the international standards of transparency and exchange of information. From January 2025, the process applies first to the EOIR standard. The process will start applying to other international standards overseen by the Global Forum once they have attained a sufficient level of maturity.
FATF: Financial Action Task Force
FIU: Financial Intelligence Unit
Follow-up Report: Until 2023, jurisdictions were invited to annually submit a report on actions taken to address the recommendations made in their EOIR peer review reports. These follow-up reports under the enhanced monitoring process have been replaced by self-assessments.
Global Forum: Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes
Group request: A foreseeably relevant EOI request seeking specific information on subjects that are not individually identifiable but share some identifiable common characteristics.
In-box recommendation: A recommendation issued in a jurisdiction’s peer review report requiring the jurisdiction to correct a deficiency identified in relation to the implementation of the international standard. An in-box recommendation is placed in a dedicated box at relevant places in the peer review report. Each in-box recommendation is accompanied by a clear underlying factor that identifies the deficiency in relation to which the recommendation has been made.
In-depth Review: A detailed peer review of a jurisdiction that has already been subject of a baseline review. An in-depth review can be launched when new developments are likely to result in the change of the overall rating or a particular rating or determination. Then, relevant aspects of the terms of reference of a standard are examined in depth to draw conclusions on the compliance of the jurisdiction with the standard. An in-depth review results in issuance of determinations and ratings for a jurisdiction.
In place or i.p.: One of the three determinations that can be assigned to a jurisdiction on the level of implementation of an element of the standard in its legal and regulatory framework. An In Place determination is appropriate where there are no material deficiencies in the jurisdiction’s legal and regulatory framework.
In place but needs improvement or i.p.b.: One of the three determinations that can be assigned to a jurisdiction on the level of implementation of an element of the standard in its legal and regulatory framework. A legal and regulatory framework Needs Improvement where the deficiency identified relates to a material aspect of the implementation of the element in question. A material deficiency is one that prevents the implementation of a core aspect of the element.
Individual jurisdiction report: A report on a jurisdiction covered by the enhanced monitoring during the year, which documents the analysis on the progress reported by jurisdictions in implementing the standard, the conclusions on the status of each recommendation, issuance of new recommendations (if any), summary of peer input, new developments in the jurisdiction and next steps that the jurisdiction is expected to take. A separate individual jurisdiction report is contained in Part II of this report for each jurisdiction covered under enhanced monitoring.
In-text recommendation: A recommendation that has been made in the peer review report of a jurisdiction flagging an issue, which under the circumstances at the time of the review, has been considered to not have had and is unlikely to have more than a negligible impact on EOIR in practice, but for which there was a concern that the circumstances may change and the relevance of the issue may increase. All in-text recommendations are placed in Annexure 1 of the peer review report of a jurisdiction.
Issues with broader implications for the implementation of the standard: Issues identified in respect of a jurisdiction in the course of the enhanced monitoring process (for instance, through peer input) that suggest that there is a deficiency in the legal and regulatory framework or its implementation in the jurisdiction that has been found to adversely impact effective exchange of information. As opposed to bilateral issues between treaty partners that may be resolved through bilateral discussions, these deficiencies can have a more widespread impact on the jurisdiction’s implementation of the standard.
KYC: Know Your Customer
LC: Largely Compliant. One of the four ratings that can be assigned to a jurisdiction on the level of implementation of an element of the standard in its practice and on the overall level of implementation of the standard by a jurisdiction. A Largely Compliant rating is assigned where the essential element is implemented to a large extent. At least one material deficiency has been identified which has had, or which is likely to have, limited effect on EOIR in practice or there is insufficient experience with the implementation of the element in practice to support a finding that EOIR is effective in practice.
Monitored jurisdiction: Jurisdictions covered under the enhanced monitoring process during the year
Monitoring period: A period of two calendar years immediately preceding the year of monitoring. For instance, for the enhanced monitoring exercise in 2025, the monitoring period for the monitored jurisdictions is calendar years 2023 and 2024. This is the period pertaining to which jurisdictions must report the actions they have taken to address the recommendations. Further, this is the period pertaining to which peers provide their input on the monitored jurisdictions.
Multilateral Convention: Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters, as amended in 2010
NC: Non-Compliant. One of the four ratings that can be assigned to a jurisdiction on the level of implementation of an element of the standard in its practice and on the overall level of implementation of the standard by a jurisdiction. A Non-Compliant rating is assigned where the essential element is not implemented. At least one material deficiency has been identified which has had, or which is likely to have, a fundamental effect on EOIR in practice.
Not in place or n.i.p.: One of the three determinations that can be assigned to a jurisdiction on the level of implementation of an element of the standard in its legal and regulatory framework. A determination of Not in Place is appropriate in those circumstances where the deficiency identified is fundamental to the implementation of the standard, such that it may widely prevent exchange of information.
PC: Partially Compliant. One of the four ratings that can be assigned to a jurisdiction on the level of implementation of an element of the standard in its practice and on the overall level of implementation of the standard by a jurisdiction. A Partially Compliant rating is assigned where the essential element is only partly implemented. At least one material deficiency has been identified which has had, or which is likely to have, a significant effect on EOIR in practice.
Peer Input: Input provided by Global Forum members on their experience in relation to the monitored international standard on a peer jurisdiction undergoing monitoring or review. Peer input is submitted by way of a dedicated online peer input questionnaire. Peers may provide positive feedback on their relationship or raise any concerns in their exchange relationships in their input.
PRMG: Peer Review and Monitoring Group for the EOIR standard, the subsidiary body in charge of carrying out the peer review and non-member reviews and monitoring of the implementation of the EOIR standard
Review period: The practical implementation of the EOIR standard is generally assessed over a three-year period called the review period. Under the Methodology for the Second Round of EOIR Peer Reviews, this is the three-year period ending on the last day of the quarter, two quarters prior to the launch date of the review. Under the Methodology for In-depth Reviews, this is generally the three-year period comprising three full calendar years preceding the year of launch of the review. In exceptional circumstances, the PRMG may provide for a longer than three-year review period.
Self-assessment: A dedicated report submitted by each monitored jurisdiction for the consideration of the PRMG indicating clearly the actions taken by the jurisdiction over the monitoring period to address the recommendations made to it in its most recent peer review report. It also includes details about its experience implementing the standard and the jurisdiction’s responses to any adverse (raising any issues) peer input.
TIEA: Tax Information Exchange Agreement