Harmful Tax Practices – 2023 Peer Review Reports on the Exchange of Information on Tax Rulings

268. Congo can legally issue the following two types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework: (i) 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; (ii) permanent establishment rulings.

269. For Congo, 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.

270. Congo issued no past rulings within the scope of the transparency framework. As such, there was no need to identify potential exchange jurisdictions.

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

272. The prior years’ reports indicated that there were no processes in place to keep track of rulings for the purposes of the transparency framework. Congo intended to implement guidelines and practices to make sure the necessary information to meet the requirements of the transparency framework is required in all cases. Congo was recommended to finalise its information gathering process as soon as possible.

273. During the year in review, as it is not known whether Congo has finalised its information gathering process, the recommendation remains in place.

274. In prior years’ reports, it was determined that Congo did not yet have a review and supervision mechanism under the transparency framework. Congo was in the process of considering the implementation of a revision and supervision mechanism for ensuring the implementation of the transparency framework. As it is not known whether Congo has put in place a review and supervision mechanism under the transparency framework for the year in review, the recommendation remains in place.

275. Congo is recommended to finalise its information gathering process to identify all relevant future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions and to implement a review and supervision mechanism, as soon as possible (ToR I.A).

276. In prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Congo was in the process of putting in place the necessary domestic legal basis to exchange information spontaneously. It is not known whether Congo has already put in place the necessary domestic legal basis to exchange information spontaneously for the year in review.

277. Congo has international agreements permitting spontaneous exchange of information, including bilateral agreements in force with six jurisdictions.1 Congo is not a party to the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol (OECD/Council of Europe, 2011[2]) (“the Convention”). Congo is encouraged to continue its efforts to expand its international exchange of information instruments to be able to exchange information on rulings. It is noted, however, that jurisdictions are assessed on their compliance with the transparency framework in respect of the exchange of information network in effect for the year of the relevant annual review.

278. In prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Congo was developing a process to complete the templates on relevant rulings, to make them available to the Competent Authority for exchange of information, and to exchange them with relevant jurisdictions. It is not known whether Congo has already put in place a process for exchanging information on decisions in accordance with the form and timelines required by the Transparency Framework. Therefore, this recommendation remains in force.

279. As it is not known whether exchanges took place in the year of review, no data on the timeliness of exchanges can be reported.

280. Congo is recommended to put in place a domestic legal framework allowing spontaneous exchange of information on rulings and to continue its efforts to complete the templates for all relevant rulings and to ensure that the exchanges of information on rulings occur as soon as possible (ToR II.B).

281. As it is not known whether information on rulings was exchanged by Congo for the year in review, no statistics can be reported.

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

[1] OECD (2021), BEPS Action 5 on Harmful Tax Practices - Terms of Reference and Methodology for the Conduct of the Peer Reviews of the Action 5 Transparency Framework, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/beps-action-5-harmful-tax-practices-peer-review-transparency-framework.pdf.

[3] OECD (2015), Countering Harmful Tax Practices More Effectively, Taking into Account Transparency and Substance, Action 5 - 2015 Final Report, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264241190-en.

[2] OECD/Council of Europe (2011), The Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264115606-en.