Enhanced Monitoring Report on the Implementation of the Standard on Transparency and Exchange of Information on Request 2026 Update (June)

Executive summary

In December 2025, the Global Forum published the Enhanced Monitoring Report on the Implementation of the EOIR Standard covering the first 25 monitored jurisdictions for which the Global Forum had completed the enhanced monitoring process under the framework for the first round of the enhanced monitoring process (herein the “December 2025 report”).1

A further 14 jurisdictions – Anguilla, Cayman Islands, Croatia, Curaçao, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Mauritius, Monaco, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and the United States2 (herein the “14 monitored jurisdictions”) – have been fully analysed under the enhanced monitoring process since the December 2025 report. Further, following the acceptance of Ghana’s request for an in-depth review, Ghana’s enhanced monitoring process is superseded by the in-depth review.

This report updates the December 2025 report, building on and adding to the findings of that report. It consolidates the findings and aggregate outcomes for the 39 monitored jurisdictions (25 monitored jurisdictions whose reports were adopted by the Global Forum in November 2025 and published in the December 2025 report and 14 monitored jurisdictions additionally presented in this publication) that have been subject to the first round of the enhanced monitoring process so far. The 14 additional individual jurisdiction reports included in this publication analyse the extent to which these monitored jurisdictions have addressed their recommendations together with any peer input received on them. These individual jurisdiction reports also note any additional recommendations issued to the monitored jurisdictions and the next steps expected from them.

Similar updated Enhanced Monitoring Reports, adding the individual jurisdiction reports of further jurisdictions in the first round of enhanced monitoring, will be issued in due course.

Outcomes specific to the 14 jurisdictions monitored since the last report

Welcome progress is noted…

The 14 jurisdictions monitored since the December 2025 report have made progress in implementing the majority of the 92 recommendations3 issued to them in their latest peer review reports. As a result of the steps taken by them, 33 or 36% of these recommendations have been “considered (provisionally) addressed” 4 in the context of the monitoring process. In addition, another 44 or 48% of the recommendations have been determined to be “in the process of being addressed”. For all these recommendations, material progress has been noted.

For the 14 monitored jurisdictions, 31 recommendations pertain to deficiencies in the legal and regulatory frameworks of the jurisdictions. Of these, 13 recommendations have been addressed by the relevant monitored jurisdictions through amendments to their legal and regulatory frameworks. Nevertheless, to demonstrate implementation of the amended frameworks, six new recommendations have been issued in respect of five monitored jurisdictions. In addition to these addressed recommendations, four recommendations in respect of three jurisdictions have been determined to be “no longer sufficiently material” permitting the monitored jurisdictions concerned to stop reporting on them in the future.

The remaining 61 recommendations pertain to identified issues in the effectiveness of the implementation of the monitored jurisdictions’ legal and regulatory frameworks in practice. Of these, 20 recommendations, or 33%, have been considered (provisionally) addressed. A third of these 20 recommendations, i.e. 7 recommendations, pertain to effective exchange of information in practice. In this regard, five monitored jurisdictions have improved their communication, organisational resources and timeliness of responding to requests. For other aspects of the standard, there has been some success in demonstrating the satisfactory implementation of the legal and regulatory frameworks in practice.

…although there remains a need for further action.

Notwithstanding the encouraging progress observed, there is room for further work in some areas. For the 14 monitored jurisdictions, 11 recommendations or 12% have each been determined as “has not been addressed”. Out of these 11 recommendations, for 6 recommendations, no actions or only preliminary steps have been reported, although more than three years have passed since the adoption of the EOIR report. These monitored jurisdictions have been asked to submit a schedule for the completion of the steps necessary to address the recommendation(s), along with an update on progress made by 31 March 2027.

Two out of the 14 monitored jurisdictions have received an additional recommendation to improve an issue identified as having broader than bilateral implication for the implementation of the standard. In one case, the matters raised by peers reflected backsliding. Accordingly, the jurisdiction concerned is required to report annually on the actions taken to address the corresponding recommendation. In respect of the other jurisdiction, a new recommendation on an issue that was not previously identified pertaining to the practical application of the foreseeable relevance standard in certain situations has been made, based on an analysis of the peer input.

Reporting of further steps expected in the next self-assessments, although some recommendations are subject to closer monitoring.

Enhanced monitoring is an ongoing process. The monitored jurisdictions should submit their next self-assessment in accordance with the expectations indicated in their individual monitoring reports. For jurisdictions in cycle 1, this is generally expected in the second round of enhanced monitoring. However, due to delays observed in the addressing of recommendations so far, five of the 14 monitored jurisdictions have been asked to provide a schedule for the completion of specific actions to address the recommendation made and to provide an update on the progress made by 31 March 2027. Similarly, the jurisdiction that has received a new recommendation based on the backsliding observed since its EOIR report is required to provide an update on the progress made to address it by 31 March 2027.

Overall findings from round 1 of the enhanced monitoring process so far

Trends so far suggest progress is being made, as well as a need for further action…

Many monitored jurisdictions have made good progress to address the recommendations issued and to enhance their compliance with the EOIR standard. For example, most monitored jurisdictions have taken actions to improve the availability of beneficial ownership information, such as by moving towards a multi-pronged approach whereby beneficial ownership information is available through more than one source under a jurisdiction’s legal and regulatory framework. Many monitored jurisdictions have introduced centralised beneficial ownership registers, while others report taking actions to improve their existing registers. In terms of the effective exchange of information in practice, most monitored jurisdictions have reported improvements in their timeliness in responding to requests.

Nevertheless, certain areas require more work. Ensuring that beneficial ownership registers are comprehensive in coverage and contain reliable information is a work in progress for several jurisdictions. Further, risks to the availability of ownership and accounting information remain an issue, especially in relation to inactive entities. In addition, supervision and enforcement of legal requirements around accounting information is a broader area for further work for some monitored jurisdictions. This aspect covers demonstrating adequate supervision to allow timely availability and access to accounting information, as well as overseeing requirements in respect of retention of accounting records including after entities cease to exist.

Furthermore, for the effective exchange of information, some monitored jurisdictions must continue improving their engagement and communication with treaty partners, such as by keeping them informed about the progress in processing their requests where information is yet to be provided, as well as by providing timely clarifications in relation to queries from partners on their outgoing requests.

…as outcomes reflect the effectiveness of the monitoring process in providing certainty, targeted feedback and urging prompt corrective actions by monitored jurisdictions…

Cumulatively, 217 recommendations across 39 monitored jurisdictions have been analysed. Of these, 69 or 32% have been “considered (provisionally) addressed” in the context of the monitoring process, 111 or 51% are “in the process of being addressed”, 29 or 13% are each assigned the status of “has not been addressed”, while 8 or 4% have been determined to be “no longer sufficiently material”. This clear determination of statuses coupled with targeted feedback provides certainty to monitored jurisdictions on the expectations for their future reporting. Monitored jurisdictions may have amended their legal frameworks to address earlier identified legal gaps but may not have yet demonstrated full implementation of the amended frameworks, in practice. In such situations, while the original recommendations on the legal and regulatory framework have been considered (provisionally) addressed, monitored jurisdictions have been issued with new recommendations focused on the implementation aspects, which they are required to report on in the future. So far, 13 such new recommendations have been issued to 10 monitored jurisdictions.

For recommendations where monitored jurisdictions have not demonstrated material progress despite more than three years having elapsed since the recommendations were first issued, such recommendations are followed up on more closely. In such cases, monitored jurisdictions are asked to submit a schedule for completion of actions and provide annual updates in such cases. 17 recommendations, concerning 10 monitored jurisdictions, are under such a closer follow-up.

Peers are uniquely placed to know the effectiveness of exchanges of information with a jurisdiction and 53 Global Forum members provided more than 800 pieces of peer input on all jurisdictions monitored in cycle 1. A total of 405 pieces of peer input have been analysed so far in the context of all the monitored jurisdictions. Most of the peer input suggests positive collaboration amongst jurisdictions, with 70% of the submissions showing that the peers providing input were satisfied with their overall EOIR experience with the monitored jurisdictions (for instance, with the process of making requests and receiving the information in return, to facilitate their tax inquiries, or while processing requests received from the monitored jurisdictions). Another 17% of the peer input noted the existence of an EOI relationship but indicated that it was untested in practice. Finally, 13% of the peer input raised at least one matter on which a response from the monitored jurisdiction was required.

Most of the matters raised by peers continued to be resolved bilaterally, as the monitored jurisdictions engaged directly and proactively with the peers once they were aware of the point(s) raised. More generally, effective communication amongst exchange partners is noted as an important area that poses challenges in some cases, with peers continuing to report difficulties in contacting some competent authorities or not receiving timely status updates or clarifications in relation to some requests. Occasionally, technical issues in the transmission of electronic mails have also resulted in delays.

Some of the analysed peer input has led to the identification of matters with broader than bilateral implications on the implementation of the standard. In such cases, recommendations have been issued to the jurisdictions. So far, four such new recommendations have been made to four jurisdictions.

Finally, backsliding on the earlier commitment to fully implement the EOIR standard has so far been identified in respect of three jurisdictions, either through their self-assessments or based on the analysis of peer input. Such monitored jurisdictions are also placed under a closer follow-up and are requested to provide annual updates on the remediation of recommendations issued to them.

…as EOIR volumes reflect widespread use and monitored jurisdictions’ efforts towards effective exchange.

The enhanced monitoring exercise provides an opportunity to monitor EOIR in practice. It shows the continued widespread and established use of EOIR as a tool for tax cooperation. Exchange of information is effective if it takes place in a timely manner. Cumulatively, the 39 monitored jurisdictions received 18 493 requests5 over the calendar years 2023 and 2024. Most monitored jurisdictions provided timely responses to the EOI requests they received. On average, 70% of the requests were answered within 90 days and a further 14% were answered within 180 days. Most monitored jurisdictions have improved timeliness of responding to requests.

Notes

← 1.  The 25 jurisdictions whose individual jurisdiction reports were adopted by the Global Forum in November 2025 and were covered by the December 2025 report were Andorra, Argentina, Aruba, Austria, Bahrain, Barbados, Belgium, Bermuda, Brazil, Dominica, Dominican Republic, France, Greece, Isle of Man, Japan, Korea, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Spain, and Turks and Caicos Islands. See the report OECD (2025), Enhanced Monitoring Report on the Implementation of the Standard on Transparency and Exchange of Information on Request 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4db1a02b-en.

← 2.  Note on the jurisdictions covered by enhanced monitoring: The EOIR enhanced monitoring process covers all Global Forum members that have completed their baseline review, i.e. their second round EOIR peer review and that have been issued with an overall rating. This baseline forms the basis for their enhanced monitoring reports. Of the 88 jurisdictions in cycle 1, Antigua and Barbuda, Seychelles and Vanuatu are exempted from the first round of enhanced monitoring due to their ongoing in-depth reviews (supplementary reviews) when enhanced monitoring for cycle 1 commenced and Russia is excluded for exceptional reasons. A report on Ukraine will not be published as it has only undergone a Phase 1 review. Further, Sierra Leone and Nepal are new members of the Global Forum. Although assigned to cycle 1, they will not undergo enhanced monitoring until they have undergone their baseline reviews.

← 3.  These 92 recommendations are those that have been issued on material issues identified in the peer review reports and appear in clearly identifiable boxes in the reports (in-box recommendations). Reference to “recommendations” in this executive summary is to such recommendations. In the first round of enhanced monitoring, recommendations on less material issues that appear in the text of the peer review report and are recorded in a separate Annex to it (in-text recommendations) are analysed only for jurisdictions seeking to stop reporting on their recommendations. See also Chapter 1 (Scope and methodology).

← 4.  For recommendations considered addressed in the context of the monitoring process, two statuses are used in the individual jurisdiction reports to convey the different context and situations of jurisdictions. The statuses communicate that the acceptance of a recommendation as addressed is commensurate with the level of comfort that can be established in the context of the desk-based monitoring process and is provisional because a definitive conclusion would be possible only through an in-depth peer review. These two statuses are collectively referred to as considered (provisionally) addressed in the report. For further explanations on the two statuses, see Chapter 1 (Scope and methodology, discussion under PRMG decisions on “Statuses determined and actions required”). Chapters 1 and 2 include a detailed discussion on the statistics in this Executive Summary and the reports that underlie the statistics are indicated in the endnotes to these chapters.

← 5.  This number is the total number of requests indicated in the self-assessments by the monitored jurisdictions. There is no one single specified method for counting requests and jurisdictions count them using different methods. The most common methods are counting requests by the number of individual request letters, by the number of taxpayers covered in the requests, or by counting the different pieces of requested information. Some jurisdictions use a combination of these methods.