First reporting fiscal year: Commencing on or after 1 January 2018
Consolidated group revenue threshold: XOF 492 billion
Filing deadline: 12 months following the end of the reporting fiscal year
Local filing required: Yes
Surrogate parent entity filing permitted: Yes
First review of the domestic legal framework: 2018/2019
|
Area of implementation |
Recommendations for improvement |
|---|---|
|
Domestic legal and administrative framework |
It is recommended that Senegal complete the definition of an “Ultimate Parent Entity” in a manner that is consistent with the terms of reference. It is recommended that Senegal amend or otherwise clarify the annual consolidated revenue threshold calculation rule in respect of MNE Groups whose Ultimate Parent Entity is located in a jurisdiction other than Senegal which may deviate from the guidance issued by the OECD. It is recommended that Senegal amend the conditions for local filing or otherwise take steps to ensure that local filing can only be required in the circumstances contained in the terms of reference. |
|
Exchange of information framework |
It is recommended that Senegal take steps to have qualifying competent authority agreements in effect with jurisdictions of the Inclusive Framework which meet the confidentiality, consistency and appropriate use conditions and with which Senegal has an international exchange of information agreement in effect that allows for the automatic exchange of tax information. It is recommended that Senegal have in place the necessary processes or written procedures to ensure that the exchange of information is conducted in a manner consistent with the terms of reference relating to the exchange of information framework. |
|
Appropriate use |
It is recommended that Senegal take steps to ensure that the appropriate use condition is met ahead of the first exchanges of information. |
Senegal’s legislation does not include a complete definition of “Ultimate Parent Entity”. It is recommended that Senegal amend the definition of UPE or otherwise clarify the definition to be in line with the standard.
Senegal’s 2018/2019 peer review report included a recommendation that Senegal amend its legislation to include a definition of “Group” that is in line with the standard. Senegal has amended its legislation and this recommendation is removed.
Senegal’s 2018/2019 peer review report included a recommendation that Senegal amend its legislation to include a definition of “MNE Group” that is in line with the standard. Senegal has amended its legislation and this recommendation is removed.
Senegal’s 2018/2019 peer review report included a recommendation that Senegal amend its legislation to include a definition of “Constituent Entity” that is in line with the standard. Senegal has amended its legislation and this recommendation is removed.
Senegal’s 2018/2019 peer review report included a recommendation that Senegal publish the full content and format requirements of the CbC Report. Senegal has published the full content and format requirements of the CbC Report and this recommendation is removed.
Senegal has a legislative requirement which is in effect despite Senegal not yet meeting all of the consistency, confidentiality and appropriate use conditions. It is therefore recommended that Senegal take steps to ensure that local filing only occurs in the circumstances permitted under the minimum standard.
It is recommended that Senegal clarify that the annual consolidated group revenue threshold calculation rule applies in line with the OECD guidance on currency fluctuations in respect of an MNE Group whose Ultimate Parent Entity is located in a jurisdiction other than Senegal.
Senegal’s 2017/2018 peer review report included a recommendation to take steps to have enforcement measures in place in case of incomplete or erroneous filing. Senegal has amended its legislation and this recommendation is removed.3
Senegal has no bilateral relationships in place for the exchange of CbC reports nor processes to ensure that the exchange of information is conducted in a manner consistent with the terms of reference relating to the exchange of information framework.
It is recommended that Senegal take steps to have qualifying competent authority agreements in effect with jurisdictions of the Inclusive Framework which meet the confidentiality, consistency and appropriate use conditions and with which Senegal has an international exchange of information agreement in effect that allows for the automatic exchange of tax information. This recommendation remains in place since the 2017/2018 peer review.
It is recommended that Senegal have in place the necessary processes or written procedures to ensure that the exchange of information is conducted in a manner consistent with the terms of reference relating to the exchange of information framework. This recommendation remains in place since the 2018/2019 peer review.
Senegal does not yet have controls in place to ensure the appropriate use of CbC reports. It is recommended that Senegal take steps to ensure that the appropriate use condition is met ahead of the first exchanges of information. This recommendation remains in place since the 2017/2018 peer review.
← 1. Senegal’s local filing requirements will not apply if there is surrogate filing in another jurisdiction which is listed in a list of states or territories which have adopted regulations imposing the filing of a CbC report similar to that required in Senegal, which have concluded an agreement with Senegal for the automatic exchange of CbC reports and which comply with the obligations arising from such agreement. It is unclear whether local filing would be “deactivated” in respect of jurisdictions which allow voluntary parent surrogate filing, being noted that the list mentioned above has not yet been published at this point in time. A monitoring point on this remains in place since the 2018/2019 peer review.
← 2. There are no specific processes in place that would allow Senegal to take appropriate measures in case it is notified by another jurisdiction that such other jurisdiction has reason to believe that an error may have led to incorrect or incomplete information reporting by a Reporting Entity or that there is non-compliance of a Reporting Entity with respect to its obligation to file a CbC report. As no exchange of CbC reports has yet occurred, this aspect is being monitored. This monitoring point remains in place since the 2018/2019 peer review.