The United Kingdom has met all aspects of the terms of reference (OECD, 2021[3]) (ToR) for the calendar year 2020 (year in review), and no recommendations are made.
The United Kingdom can legally issue three types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework.
In practice, the United Kingdom issued rulings within the scope of the transparency framework as follows:
Type of ruling | Number of rulings |
|---|---|
Past rulings | 599 |
Future rulings in the period 1 April 2016 – 31 December 2016 | 71 |
Future rulings in the calendar year 2017 | 16 |
Future rulings in the calendar year 2018 | 20 |
Future rulings in the calendar year 2019 | 14 |
Future rulings in the year in review | 13 |
Peer input was received from three jurisdictions in respect of the exchanges of information on rulings received from the United Kingdom. The input was positive, noting that information was complete, in a correct format and received in a timely manner.
1150. The United Kingdom can legally issue three types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework: (i) preferential regimes;1 (ii) cross-border unilateral APAs and any other cross-border unilateral tax rulings (such as an advance tax ruling) covering transfer pricing or the application of transfer pricing principles; and (iii) permanent establishment rulings.
1151. For the United Kingdom, past rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued either: (i) on or after 1 January 2014 but before 1 April 2016; or (ii) on or after 1 January 2010 but before 1 January 2014, provided they were still in effect as at 1 January 2014. Future rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued on or after 1 April 2016.
1152. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that the United Kingdom’s undertakings to identify past and future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. In addition, it was determined that The United Kingdom’s review and supervision mechanism was sufficient to meet the minimum standard. The United Kingdom’s implementation remains unchanged, and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.
1153. The United Kingdom has met all of the ToR for the information gathering process and no recommendations are made.
1154. The United Kingdom has international agreements permitting spontaneous exchange of information, including being a party to (i) the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol (OECD/Council of Europe, 2011[4]) (“the Convention”) and (ii) bilateral agreements in force with 122 jurisdictions.2
1155. For the year in review, the timeliness of exchanges is as follows:
|
Future rulings within the scope of the transparency framework |
Number of exchanges transmitted within three months of the information becoming available to the competent authority or immediately after legal impediments have been lifted |
Delayed exchanges |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Number of exchanges transmitted later than three months of the information on rulings becoming available to the competent authority |
Reasons for the delays |
Any other comments |
||
|
15 |
0 |
N/A |
N/A |
|
|
Follow up requests received for exchange of the ruling |
Number |
Average time to provide response |
Number of requests not answered |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2 |
4 months |
0 |
1156. During the year in review, the United Kingdom experienced a short delay in responding to a follow up request. The United Kingdom notes that clarification from the requesting jurisdiction was needed and that the follow up request was responded within 90 days of the receipt of the clarification.
1157. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that the United Kingdom’s process for the completion and exchange of templates were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. With respect to past rulings, no further action was required. The United Kingdom’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.
1158. The United Kingdom has the necessary legal basis for spontaneous exchange of information, a process for completing the templates in a timely way and has completed all exchanges. The United Kingdom has met all of the ToR for the exchange of information process and no recommendations are made.
1159. The statistics for the year in review are as follows:
|
Category of ruling |
Number of exchanges |
Jurisdictions exchanged with |
|---|---|---|
|
Ruling related to a preferential regime |
0 |
N/A |
|
Cross-border unilateral APAs and any other cross-border unilateral tax rulings (such as an advance tax ruling) covering transfer pricing or the application of transfer pricing principles |
11 |
Australia, China (People’s Republic of), Guernsey, Hong Kong (China), Mexico, Norway, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, United States |
|
Permanent establishment rulings |
4 |
Norway, Singapore, United States |
|
IP regimes: total exchanges on taxpayers benefitting from the third category of IP assets, new entrants benefitting from grandfathered IP regimes; and taxpayers making use of the option to treat the nexus ratio as a rebuttable presumption |
0 |
N/A |
|
Total |
15 |
1160. The United Kingdom offers an intellectual property regime (IP regime)3 that is subject to the transparency requirements under the Action 5 Report (OECD, 2015[1]). It states that the identification of the benefitting taxpayers occurs as follows:
New entrants benefitting from the grandfathered IP regime: in the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that the United Kingdom’s process for identifying and exchanging information on new entrants to the grandfathered IP regime were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. The United Kingdom’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.
Third category of IP assets: not applicable as the regime does not allow the third category of IP assets to qualify for the benefits.
Taxpayers making use of the option to treat the nexus ratio as a rebuttable presumption: the United Kingdom did not record any elections to use the rebuttable presumption during the year in review.
Aspect of implementation of the transparency framework that should be improved | Recommendation for improvement |
|---|---|
No recommendations are made. |
[3] OECD (2021), BEPS Action 5 on Harmful Tax Practices - Terms of Reference and Methodology for the Conduct of the Peer Reviews of the Action 5 Transparency Framework, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/beps-action-5-harmful-tax-practices-peer-review-transparency-framework.pdf.
[1] OECD (2015), Countering Harmful Tax Practices More Effectively, Taking into Account Transparency and Substance, Action 5 - 2015 Final Report, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264241190-en.
[2] OECD (ed.) (2017b), Harmful Tax Practices - 2017 Progress Report on Preferential Regimes, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264283954-en.
[4] OECD/Council of Europe (2011), The Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264115606-en.
← 1. With respect to the following preferential regimes: 1) Patent box and 2) Shipping regime.
← 2. Participating jurisdictions to the Convention are available here: www.oecd.org/tax/exchange-of-tax-information/convention-on-mutual-administrative-assistance-in-tax-matters.htm. The United Kingdom also has bilateral agreements with Albania, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, British Virgin Islands, Brunei, Bulgaria, Cayman Islands, Chile, China (People’s Republic of), Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Falkland Islands, Faroe Islands, Fiji, Finland, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Gibraltar, Greece, Grenada, Guernsey, Guyana, Hong Kong (China), Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Isle of Man, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Jersey, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Korea, Kosovo, Kuwait, Latvia, Lesotho, Libya, Lithuania, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Montserrat, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, New Zealand, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sudan, Chinese Taipei, Tajikistan, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
← 3. Patent box.