INFORMATION
Please note that the report (page 14) includes incorrect numbers on the jurisdictions that have received no recommendations and on the number of jurisdiction-specific recommendations. The correct numbers should be:
- 80 jurisdictions did not receive any recommendations, as they have met all the terms of reference.
- 55 recommendations for improvement have been made for the year in review.
The report will be updated and republished in January 2020.
Related EDITIONS
- 2021 Peer Review Reports – This report reflects the outcome of the fifth annual peer review of the implementation of the Action 5 minimum standard and covers 131 jurisdictions. It assesses implementation for the 1 January - 31 December 2021 period.
- 2020 Peer Review Reports – This report reflects the outcome of the fifth annual peer review of the implementation of the Action 5 minimum standard and covers 131 jurisdictions. It assesses implementation for the 1 January - 31 December 2020 period.
- 2019 Peer Review Reports – This report reflects the outcome of the fourth annual peer review of the implementation of the Action 5 minimum standard and covers 124 jurisdictions. It assesses implementation for the 1 January - 31 December 2019 period.
- 2017 Peer Review Reports – This report reflects the outcome of the second annual peer review of the implementation of the Action 5 minimum standard and covers 92 jurisdictions. It assesses implementation for the 1 January 2017 - 31 December 2017 period.
- 2016 Peer Review Reports – The first annual report on compliance with the transparency framework covers the jurisdictions which participated in the BEPS Project prior to the creation of the Inclusive Framework. It assesses implementation for the 1 January - 31 December 2016 period.
News
FURTHER INFORMATION
The Action 5 minimum standard consists of two parts. One part relates to preferential tax regimes, where a peer review is undertaken to identify features of such regimes that can facilitate base erosion and profit shifting, and therefore have the potential to unfairly impact the tax base of other jurisdictions. The second part includes a commitment to transparency through the compulsory spontaneous exchange of relevant information on taxpayer-specific rulings which, in the absence of such information exchange, could give rise to BEPS concerns.