Harmful Tax Practices – 2024 Peer Review Reports on the Exchange of Information on Tax Rulings

Nigeria

Nigeria has met all aspects of the terms of reference (OECD, 2021[1]) (ToR) for the calendar year 2024 (year in review) and no recommendations are made.

In the prior year report, as well as in the 2021 and 2022 peer reviews, Nigeria received two recommendations. Nigeria has resolved those issues, related to having the necessary information gathering process for relevant rulings and having in place a process to ensure the timely exchange of information on rulings in the form required by the transparency framework. Therefore, the recommendations are now removed.

Nigeria can legally issue five types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework.

In practice, Nigeria issued rulings within the scope of the transparency framework as follows:

Type of ruling	Number of rulings
Past rulings	0
Future rulings in the period 1 April 2017 – 31 December 2017	0
Future rulings in the calendar year 2018	0
Future rulings in the calendar year 2019	0
Future rulings in the calendar year 2020	0
Future rulings in the calendar year 2021	0
Future rulings in the calendar year 2022	0
Future rulings in the calendar year 2023	0
Future rulings in the year in review	3

No peer input was received in respect of the exchanges of information on rulings received from Nigeria.

Information gathering process (ToR I.A)

1. Nigeria can legally issue the following four 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; (iii) rulings providing for unilateral downward adjustments; (iii) permanent establishment rulings; and (iv) related party conduit rulings.

2. During the year of review Nigeria introduced a new type of ruling: 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. Nigeria confirms that newly established information gathering process will apply to the new type of rulings.

Past rulings (ToR I.A.1.1, I.A.1.2, I.A.2.1, I.A.2.2)

3. For Nigeria, past rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued either (i) on or after 1 January 2015 but before 1 April 2017; and (ii) on or after 1 January 2012 but before 1 January 2015, provided they were still in effect as at 1 January 2015.

4. Nigeria confirms that no past rulings have been issued, as its administrative framework for issuing rulings only took effect at a later stage. Therefore, this section is not assessed.

Future rulings (ToR I.A.1.1, I.A.1.2, I.A.2.1)

5. For Nigeria, future rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued on or after 1 April 2017.

6. In the prior years’ peer review reports, Nigeria did not yet have a process in place to identify and keep track of the relevant future rulings. Therefore, Nigeria was recommended to ensure that it has put in place an effective information gathering process to identify all relevant future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions.

7. During the year in review, Nigeria implemented an administrative framework for the identification and exchange of information of rulings. Nigeria now has an internal manual that sets out which are the relevant categories of rulings for which information needs to be exchanged. Staff members from the Tax Treaties Implementation and Rulings Unit (TTIRU) of the Competent Authority Department (CAD) of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) are responsible for the identification of in-scope rulings, in collaboration with the Advance Pricing Agreement Division (APAD), while the Exchange of Information Division (EOID) is responsible for the exchange. The taxpayer is obliged to provide the information on the relevant exchange jurisdictions, which is then also verified by the relevant departments.

8. Once the ruling is identified, it is reviewed and validated by the TTIRU and CAD to ensure that it is subject to spontaneous exchange under the transparency framework. TTIRU is then obliged to prepare a monthly compilation of relevant rulings.

9. During the year in review, it was determined that Nigeria’s undertakings to identify future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions were sufficient to meet the minimum standard and the recommendation is now removed.

Review and supervision (ToR I.A.3)

10. In the prior years’ peer review reports, Nigeria did not yet have a review and supervision process in place (ToR I.A.3). Therefore, Nigeria was recommended to have in place a review and supervision mechanism to ensure that all relevant information is captured adequately.

11. Nigeria’s review and supervision mechanism is described in the previous paragraphs.

12. During the year in review, it was determined that Nigeria’s review and supervision mechanism was sufficient to meet the minimum standard.

Conclusion on section A

13. Nigeria has met all of the ToR for the information gathering process and no recommendations are made.

Exchange of information (ToR II.B)

14. Nigeria has the necessary domestic legal basis to exchange information spontaneously. Nigeria notes that there are no legal or practical impediments that prevent the spontaneous exchange of information on rulings as contemplated in the Action 5 minimum standard.

15. Nigeria has international agreements permitting spontaneous exchange of information, including: (i) the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol (OECD/Council of Europe, 2011[2]) (“the Convention”) and (ii) bilateral agreements in force with 15 jurisdictions.2

Completion and exchange of templates (ToR II.B.3, II.B.4, II.B.5, II.B.6, II.B.7)

16. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Nigeria’s process for the completion and exchange of templates was not fully in place. Therefore, Nigeria was recommended to develop a process to complete the templates on relevant rulings and to ensure that the exchanges of information on rulings occur in accordance with the form and timelines under the transparency framework. With respect to past rulings, no action was required.

17. As described in the previous section, the TTIRU prepares a compilation of rulings in scope of the transparency framework. The TTRU is also required to prepare the templates in line with Annex C of the BEPS Action 5 Report (OECD, 2015[3]). It needs to complete the summary section of the template in line with the FHTP’s guidelines.

18. The TTIRU will then send the compilation to the EOID on a monthly basis. The EOID transmits the rulings to the relevant jurisdictions in accordance with the timeline requirements of the transparency framework.

19. During the year in review, no exchanges took place and no data on the timeliness of exchanges is reported.3

Conclusion on section B

20. Nigeria has the necessary legal basis for spontaneous exchange of information and has a process for completing the templates in a timely way. Nigeria has met all of the ToR for the exchange of information process and no recommendations are made.

Statistics (ToR IV.D)

21. As there was no information on rulings exchanged by Nigeria for the year in review, no statistics can be reported.

Matters related to intellectual property regimes (ToR I.A.1.3)

22. Nigeria does not offer an intellectual property regime for which transparency requirements under the Action 5 Report (OECD, 2015[3]) were imposed.

Summary of recommendations on implementation of the transparency framework

Aspect of implementation of the transparency framework that should be improved	Recommendation for improvement
	No recommendations are made.

Notes

← 1.  Free trade zones.

← 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. Nigeria also has bilateral agreements with Belgium, Canada, China (People’s Republic of), Czechia, France, Netherlands, Pakistan, Philippines, Romania, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Singapore, South Africa, and United Kingdom.

← 3.  Nigeria issued three rulings during the year in review and timely exchanged them in 2025.