Base erosion and profit shifting

BEPS Action 5 peer review and monitoring


Overview | Preferential Tax Regimes | Transparency FrameworkNews | Further information



The Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting ("BEPS Action Plan") identified 15 actions to address BEPS in a comprehensive manner. In October 2015, the G20 Finance Ministers endorsed the BEPS package which includes the report on Action 5: Countering Harmful Tax Practices More Effectively, Taking into Account Transparency and Substance ("the 2015 Action 5 Report").

The Action 5 Report is one of the four BEPS minimum standards. Each of the four BEPS minimum standards is subject to peer review in order to ensure timely and accurate implementation and thus safeguard the level playing field. All members of the Inclusive Framework on BEPS commit to implementing the Action 5 minimum standard, and commit to participating in the peer review.

The minimum standard of the Action 5 Report 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.

An ongoing monitoring and review mechanism on these two parts takes place separately, and the results are therefore published separately as well.


Preferential tax regimes

Harmful Tax Practices - 2017 Progress Report on Preferential Regimes

In January 2019, the OECD released Harmful Tax Practices - 2018 Progress Report on Preferential Regimes, approved by the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS. The Progress Report includes the results of the review of preferential tax regimes, which has been undertaken by the Forum on Harmful Tax Practices (FHTP) since the start of the BEPS Project in accordance with the BEPS Action 5 minimum standard. It reflects results as at January 2019. While the consolidated regime results are now contained in the 2018 Progress Report, the 2017 Progress Report includes important guidance on the standards applicable to substantial activities requirements for non-IP regimes, the timelines for amending or abolishing regimes and the monitoring of certain regimes in practice.

The 2018 Progress Report also includes three annexes:

  1. Output of BEPS Action 5 mandate for considering revisions or additions to FHTP framework;
  2. Monitoring data on grandfathered non-IP regimes; and
  3. Key reference documents.

Annex A contains the earlier published global standard on substantial activities in no or only nominal tax jurisdictions. The Inclusive Framework on BEPS has decided to resume the application of the substantial activities requirement for no or only nominal tax jurisdictions. Originally a criteria set out in the harmful tax framework from 1998, it had not been applied to date. However, with the elevation of the substantial activities requirements in preferential regimes, and the broad-based membership of the Inclusive Framework working together on an equal footing, it was considered the right time to ensure that equivalent substance requirements apply in no or only nominal tax jurisdictions. This global standard means that mobile business income cannot be parked in a zero tax jurisdiction without the core business functions having been undertaken by the same business entity, or in the same location. In doing so, the Inclusive Framework will ensure that substantial activities must be performed in respect of the same types of mobile business activities, regardless of whether they take place in a preferential regime or in a no or only nominal tax jurisdiction.

The FHTP will continue its work, including to monitor and review preferential tax regimes and to review the substantial activities factor for no or only nominal tax jurisdictions.


transparency framework

On 1 February 2017, the OECD released the Terms of Reference and Methodology for peer reviews on the Action 5 standard for the exchange of information on tax rulings (the "transparency framework"), approved by the Inclusive Framework on BEPS. The peer review and monitoring process will be conducted by the Forum on Harmful Tax Practices (FHTP) in accordance with the Terms of Reference and Methodology, with all members participating on an equal footing.

The Terms of Reference are broken down into four aspects, which capture the key elements of the transparency framework:

  1. Information gathering process;
  2. Exchange of information;
  3. Confidentiality of information received;
  4. Statistics.

The methodology sets out the procedural mechanisms by which jurisdictions will complete the peer review, including the process for collecting the relevant data, the preparation and approval of reports, the outputs of the review and the follow up process. The methodology contemplates collecting the data points relevant to the peer review by using standardised questionnaires, sent to the reviewed jurisdiction as well as the peers (i.e. the other members of the Inclusive Framework on BEPS). 


Harmful Tax Practices - 2017 Progress Report on Preferential Regimes

Peer Review Reports on the Exchange of Information on Tax Rulings

  • 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 2016 – 31 December 2016 period.


Latest news


Further information

Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) refers to tax planning strategies that exploit gaps and mismatches in tax rules to artificially shift profits to low or no-tax locations where there is little or no economic activity, resulting in little or no overall corporate tax being paid.


Related Documents