BEPS Action 5 is one of the four BEPS minimum standards which all Inclusive Framework
members have committed to implement. One part of the Action 5 minimum standard is
the transparency framework for compulsory spontaneous exchange of information on certain
tax rulings which, in the absence of transparency, could give rise to BEPS concerns.
Over 120 jurisdictions have joined the Inclusive Framework and take part in the peer
review to assess their compliance with the transparency framework.Specific terms of
reference and a methodology have been agreed for the peer reviews to assess a jurisdiction’s
implementation of the minimum standard. The review of the transparency framework assesses
jurisdictions against the terms of reference which focus on five key elements: i)
information gathering process, ii) exchange of information, iii) confidentiality of
the information received; iv) statistics on the exchanges on rulings; and v) transparency
on certain aspects of intellectual property regimes. Recommendations are issued where
improvements are needed to meet the minimum standard.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.
Le présent recueil inclut les versions en français des rapports d'examen du Belgique, du Bénin, du Burkina Faso, du Cameroun, du Canada, du Congo, de la Côte d'Ivoire, du Djibouti, de la France, d'Haïti, du Luxembourg, de la Principauté de Monaco (Monaco), de la République démocratique du Congo et de la Suisse.
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.