Harmful Tax Practices – 2018 Peer Review Reports on the Exchange of Information on
Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 5
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 135 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 annual peer review of the implementation of
the Action 5 minimum standard and covers 112 jurisdictions. It assesses implementation
for the 1 January - 31 December 2018 period.
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.
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.