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

Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 5

Report

OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project

16 December 2024

Available in:

English
français

Download PDF

Abstract

Under the BEPS Action 5 minimum standard, members of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) have committed to counter harmful tax practices with a focus on improving transparency. One part of the Action 5 minimum standard is the transparency framework for compulsory spontaneous exchange of information on certain tax rulings. The exchange on tax rulings is a critical tool in improving access of tax administrations to information relevant to assess the corporate tax affairs of their taxpayers and to efficiently tackle tax avoidance and other BEPS risks. Over 140 countries and jurisdictions participate in the Inclusive Framework on BEPS and take part in the peer review process to assess their compliance with the transparency framework. Specific terms of reference and a methodology have been agreed for the peer reviews, focusing the assessment on five key elements: information gathering process, exchange of information, confidentiality of the information received, statistics on the exchanges on rulings, and transparency on certain aspects of intellectual property regimes. This report reflects the outcome of the eighth annual peer review of the implementation of the Action 5 minimum standard.

Executive Summary

Context for the exchange of information on tax rulings (the “transparency framework”)

Copy link to Context for the exchange of information on tax rulings (the “transparency framework”)

The BEPS Action 5 minimum standard on the compulsory spontaneous exchange of information on tax rulings (the “transparency framework”) provides tax administrations with timely information on rulings that have been granted to a foreign related party of their resident taxpayer or a permanent establishment, which can be used in conducting risk assessments and which, in the absence of exchange, could give rise to BEPS concerns.

The transparency framework requires spontaneous exchange of information on five categories of taxpayer-specific rulings: (i) rulings related to certain preferential regimes, (ii) unilateral advance pricing arrangements (APAs) or other cross-border unilateral rulings in respect of transfer pricing, (iii) rulings providing for a downward adjustment of taxable profits, (iv) permanent establishment (PE) rulings; and (v) related party conduit rulings.1 The requirement to exchange information on the rulings in the above categories includes certain past rulings as well as future rulings, pursuant to pre-defined periods which are outlined in each jurisdiction’s report and that varies according to the time when a certain jurisdiction has joined the Inclusive Framework or has been identified as a Jurisdiction of Relevance. The exchanges occur pursuant to international exchange of information agreements, which provide the legal conditions under which exchanges take place, including the need to ensure taxpayer confidentiality.

The inclusion of the above categories of rulings in the scope of the transparency framework is not intended to suggest that the issuance of such rulings constitutes a preferential regime or a harmful tax practice. In practice, tax rulings can be an effective way to provide certainty to taxpayers and reduce the risk of disputes. Rather, the need for transparency on rulings is that a tax administration's lack of knowledge or information on the tax treatment of a taxpayer in another jurisdiction can impact the treatment of transactions or arrangements undertaken with a related taxpayer resident in their own jurisdiction and thus lead to BEPS concerns. The availability of timely and targeted information about such rulings, as agreed in the template in Annex C of the Action 5 Report, Countering Harmful Tax Practices More Effectively, Taking Into Account Transparency and Substance (OECD, 2015[1]), is intended to better equip tax authorities to quickly identify risk areas.

This framework was designed with a view to finding a balance between ensuring that the information exchanged is relevant to other tax administrations and that it does not impose an unnecessary administrative burden on either the country exchanging the information or the country receiving it.

Scope of this review

Copy link to Scope of this review

This is the eighth annual peer review of the transparency framework and covers 136 Inclusive Framework member jurisdictions and Jurisdictions of Relevance. This comprises all Inclusive Framework members that joined prior to 30 June 2023 and Jurisdictions of Relevance identified by the Inclusive Framework prior to 30 June 2023. Of these 136 jurisdictions, there were 29 jurisdictions which are not able to legally, or in practice, issue rulings in scope of the transparency framework, and therefore no separate peer review report is included for these jurisdictions.2

Seven other members of the Inclusive Framework have not been assessed under the transparency framework, namely Anguilla, the Bahamas, Bahrain, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, and the Turks and Caicos Islands. These jurisdictions do not impose any corporate income tax, during the year in review, and therefore cannot legally issue rulings within scope of the transparency framework and nor do Inclusive Framework members exchange information on rulings with them. Therefore, these jurisdictions are considered to be outside the scope of the transparency framework.

The reviews contained in this annual report cover the steps jurisdictions have taken to implement the transparency framework during the calendar year 2023. The reviews have been prepared using information from each reviewed jurisdiction, input from peers who received exchanges of information under the transparency framework, and input from the delegates of the Forum on Harmful Tax Practices (“FHTP”).

Key findings

Copy link to Key findings

Key findings from this eighth annual peer review include:

As at 31 December 2023, over 26,000 tax rulings in scope of the transparency framework had been issued by the jurisdictions being reviewed. This is the cumulative figure, including certain past rulings issued since 2010. Over 1,900 tax rulings in scope of the transparency framework were issued in 2023 by the 136 jurisdictions reviewed.
Over 58,000 exchanges of information took place by 31 December 2023, with approximately 4,000 exchanges undertaken in 2023, 6,000 exchanges undertaken in 2022, 6,000 exchanges undertaken in 2021, 5,000 exchanges undertaken during 2020, 7,000 exchanges undertaken during 2019, 9,000 exchanges undertaken during 2018, 14,000 exchanges undertaken during 2017 and 7,000 exchanges during 2016.
104 jurisdictions did not receive any recommendations, as they have met all the terms of reference. A further nine jurisdictions received only one recommendation.
56 recommendations for improvement have been made for the year in review.
83 peer input questionnaires were submitted providing feedback on the conduct of the exchanges by Inclusive Framework members. Peer input is not mandatory, but in cases where it was provided it has in a number of cases allowed jurisdictions to revise their processes and improve the clarity and quality of information exchanged.
In a number of cases, the peer review process has assisted jurisdictions in identifying areas where improvement is required, and jurisdictions have been able to take action to implement changes over 2024 while the peer review was ongoing. Where these changes were implemented in 2024, they are generally not taken into account in the recommendations for the year 2023. However, these changes would be reviewed in a subsequent peer review.

Aspect of the implementation of the transparency framework that should be improved	Recommendation for improvement
Albania
Albania does not yet have the necessary information gathering process in place.		Albania is recommended to put in place an effective information gathering process to identify all potential exchange jurisdictions for future rulings on preferential regimes and to implement a review and supervision mechanism, as soon as possible. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Albania does not yet have 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.		Albania is recommended to continue to develop a process to complete the templates for all relevant rulings and to ensure that the exchanges of information on rulings occur in accordance with the form and timelines under the transparency framework. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Andorra
		No recommendations are made.
Angola
Angola has not yet finalised the steps to have in place its necessary information and gathering process.		Angola is recommended to finalise its information gathering process for identifying future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions as soon as possible. During the last years in review, Angola built an internal database that keeps track of all issued rulings and confirmed there were no past rulings issued. In addition, Angola implemented a review and supervision mechanism for future rulings. This recommendation has been partly addressed but remains in place for the other part since the 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Angola has not yet finalised the steps to have effective compulsory spontaneous exchange of information on the tax rulings within the scope of the transparency framework.		Angola is recommended to continue 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. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Antigua and Barbuda
	No recommendations are made.
Argentina
		No recommendations are made.
Armenia
Armenia is in the process of finalising the information gathering process and to put in place a process for the identification and registration of issued tax rulings	Armenia is recommended to continue its efforts to finalise and have in place the necessary information gathering process for identifying all relevant rulings and potential exchange jurisdictions, as soon as possible. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Armenia does currently not have 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.	Armenia is recommended to continue its efforts to develop a process to complete the templates for all relevant rulings and to ensure that the exchanges of information on rulings occur in accordance with the form and timelines under the transparency framework as soon as possible. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Aruba
		No recommendations are made.
Australia
	No recommendations are made.
Austria
	No recommendations are made.
Azerbaijan
	No recommendations are made.
Barbados
	No recommendations are made.
Belgium
	No recommendations are made.
Belize
		No recommendations are made.
Benin
It is not known whether Benin has finalised its information gathering process, and whether Benin has put in place a review and supervision mechanism under the transparency framework for the year in review.		Benin 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. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
It is not known whether Benin has already put in place the necessary domestic legal basis to exchange information spontaneously for the year in review, and whether Benin has put in place 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.		Benin 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. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina does not have specific mechanisms in place for identifying relevant rulings and potential exchange jurisdictions within the scope of the transparency framework as well as for reviewing and supervising that all relevant information is captured adequately.		Bosnia and Herzegovina is recommended to put in place its information gathering process for identifying all past and future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions, with a review and supervision mechanism, as soon as possible. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review report.
Bosnia and Herzegovina does not yet have the necessary domestic legal basis to exchange information spontaneously and a process for completing the templates in a timely way.		Bosnia and Herzegovina is recommended to put in place a domestic legal framework allowing spontaneous exchange of information on rulings and to ensure the timely exchange of information on rulings in the form required by the transparency framework, as soon as possible. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review report.
Botswana
Botswana does not have a review and supervision mechanism in place.		Botswana is recommended to put in place a review and supervision mechanism, as soon as possible. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Botswana does not yet have the necessary legal framework in place for exchanging information on rulings and a process in place to ensure the timely exchange of information on rulings in the form required by the transparency framework.		Botswana is recommended to continue its efforts to put in place a domestic legal framework allowing spontaneous exchange of information on rulings and to complete the templates for all relevant rulings and to ensure that the exchanges of information on rulings occur as soon as possible. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Brazil
	No recommendations are made.
Brunei Darussalam
	No recommendations are made.
Bulgaria
		No recommendations are made
Burkina Faso
It is not known whether Burkina Faso has finalised its information gathering process, and whether Burkina Faso has put in place a review and supervision mechanism under the transparency framework for the year in review.		Burkina Faso 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. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
It is not known whether Burkina Faso has put in place 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.		Burkina Faso is recommended to establish a process to develop templates on relevant rulings and ensure that information on these rulings is exchanged in a timely manner and in the format required by the transparency framework. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Cabo Verde
Cabo Verde does not have a process to complete the templates on relevant rulings and to make them available to the Competent Authority for exchange of information.	Cabo Verde is recommended to continue its efforts to develop a process to complete the templates for all relevant rulings and to ensure that the exchanges of information on rulings occur in accordance with the form and timelines under the transparency framework as soon as possible. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Cameroon
		No recommendations are made.
Canada
	No recommendations are made.
Chile
	No recommendations are made.
China (People’s Republic of)
		No recommendations are made.
Colombia
	No recommendations are made.
Congo
It is not known whether Congo has finalised its information gathering process, and whether Congo has put in place a review and supervision mechanism under the transparency framework for the year in review.		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. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
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, and whether Congo has put in place 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.		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. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Cook Islands
		No recommendations are made.
Costa Rica
	No recommendations are made.
Côte d’Ivoire
		No recommendations are made.
Croatia
	No recommendations are made.
Curaçao
The information gathering process is still underway in Curaçao with respect to past and future rulings within the scope of the transparency framework and the classification of these rulings under each category.	Curaçao is recommended to finalise its information gathering process for identifying all past and future rulings within the scope of the transparency framework as soon as possible. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Curaçao experienced delays in exchanging information on past and future rulings.	Curaçao is recommended to continue its efforts to ensure that all information on past and future rulings is exchanged as soon as possible. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Czechia
	No recommendations are made.
Democratic Republic of the Congo
It is not known whether the Democratic Republic of the Congo has put in place the necessary information and gathering process.		The Democratic Republic of the Congo is recommended to finalise its information gathering process, with a review and supervision mechanism, as soon as possible. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
It is not known whether the Democratic Republic of the Congo has put in place an effective compulsory spontaneous exchange of information on the tax rulings within the scope of the transparency framework.		The Democratic Republic of the Congo is recommended to continue 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. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Denmark
	No recommendations are made.
Djibouti
		No recommendations are made.
Dominica
		No recommendations are made.
Dominican Republic
	No recommendations are made.
Egypt
Egypt has not yet identified all potential exchange jurisdictions for both past and future rulings and does not have a review and supervision mechanism in place to ensure that all relevant information on the identification of rulings and potential exchange jurisdictions is captured adequately.		Egypt is recommended to continue its efforts to identify all potential exchange jurisdictions for both past and future rulings and to implement a review and supervision mechanism, as soon as possible. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 review reports.
Egypt does not have in place a process to ensure the timely exchange of information on rulings in the form required by the transparency framework.		Egypt is recommended to swiftly implement its process to complete the templates on relevant rulings and to ensure that the exchanges of information on rulings occur as soon as possible. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Estonia
		No recommendations are made.
Eswatini
Eswatini is currently taking steps to ensure the identification of all relevant rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions as well as to have a review and supervision mechanism under the transparency framework.		Eswatini is recommended to put in place its information gathering process for identifying all relevant rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions, with a review and supervision mechanism, as soon as possible. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Eswatini is currently taking steps to put a process in place for the completion and exchange of information on rulings in accordance with the form and timelines required by the transparency framework.		Eswatini is recommended to develop a process to complete the templates on relevant rulings and to ensure that the exchanges of information on rulings occur in accordance with the form and timelines under the transparency framework. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Faroe Islands
The Faroe Islands does not yet have a process for the timely exchange of information on rulings with relevant jurisdictions.		The Faroe Islands is recommended to put in place a process to ensure that the exchanges of information on rulings occur in accordance with the timelines under the transparency framework going forward This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Finland
	No recommendations are made.
France
	No recommendations are made.
Gabon
It is not known whether Gabon has finalised the steps to have in place its necessary information gathering process, with a review and supervision mechanism.		Gabon 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. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
It is not known whether Gabon has already put in place a process to exchange information on rulings in accordance with the form and timelines required by the transparency framework.		Gabon is recommended to develop a process to complete the templates on relevant rulings and to ensure that the exchanges of information on rulings occur in accordance with the form and timelines under the transparency framework. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Georgia
.	No recommendations are made.
Germany
	No recommendations are made.
Gibraltar
	No recommendations are made.
Greece
	No recommendations are made.
Greenland
		No recommendations are made.
Grenada
Grenada has not put in place the necessary information gathering process.		Grenada is recommended to finalise its information gathering process for identifying all future rulings and potential exchange jurisdictions, with a review and supervision mechanism, as soon as possible. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Grenada does not have 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.		Grenada is recommended to develop a process to complete the templates on relevant rulings and to ensure that the exchanges of information on rulings occur in accordance with the form and timelines under the transparency framework. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Guernsey
	No recommendations are made.
Haiti
		No recommendations are made.
Honduras
		No recommendations are made.
Hong Kong (China)
	No recommendations are made.
Hungary
Hungary did not yet apply the “best efforts approach” to identify potential exchange jurisdictions for all past rulings.	Hungary is recommended to apply the “best efforts approach” to identify potential exchange jurisdictions for all past rulings. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Iceland
	No recommendations are made.
India
India experienced delays in the exchange of information on future APAs.		India is recommended to continue its efforts to ensure that all information on future APAs is exchanged as soon as possible. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Indonesia
	No recommendations are made.
Ireland
	No recommendations are made.
Isle of Man
	No recommendations are made.
Israel
	No recommendations are made.
Italy
	No recommendations are made.
Jamaica
		No recommendations are made.
Japan
	No recommendations are made.
Jersey
	No recommendations are made.
Jordan
Jordan does not have specific mechanisms in place for identifying relevant rulings and potential exchange jurisdictions within the scope of the transparency framework as well as for reviewing and supervising that all relevant information is captured adequately.		Jordan is recommended to ensure that it has put in place an effective information gathering process to identify all relevant rulings and potential exchange jurisdictions, with a review and supervision mechanism, as soon as possible. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Jordan does not yet have the necessary domestic legal basis to exchange information spontaneously and a process to exchange information on rulings in the required format and timelines.		Jordan is recommended to put in place a domestic legal framework allowing spontaneous exchange of information on the relevant tax rulings and to ensure the timely exchange of information on rulings in the form required by the transparency framework, as soon as possible. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Jordan has not identified information on new entrants to the Development zone IP regime during the relevant period and has not exchanged information on these taxpayers.		Jordan is recommended to identify information and to put in place a domestic legal framework allowing spontaneous exchange of information on all new entrants to the IP regime, as soon as possible. This recommendation remains unchanged since the prior year’s peer review report. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan has not yet finalised the steps to have in place its necessary information and gathering process.		Kazakhstan is recommended to finalise its information gathering process, with a review and supervision mechanism, as soon as possible. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Kazakhstan has not yet finalised the steps to have effective compulsory spontaneous exchange of information on the tax rulings within the scope of the transparency framework.		Kazakhstan is recommended to continue 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. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Kenya
	No recommendations are made.
Korea
	No recommendations are made.
Latvia
	No recommendations are made.
Liberia
It is not known whether Liberia has the necessary information gathering process in place.		Liberia is recommended to ensure that it has put in place an information gathering process to identify all relevant past and future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions and to implement a review and supervision mechanism, as soon as possible. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
It is not known whether Liberia has already put in place a process to exchange information on rulings in accordance with the form and timelines required by the transparency framework.		Liberia is recommended to develop a process to complete the templates for all relevant rulings and to ensure that the exchanges of information on rulings occur in accordance with the form and timelines under the transparency framework going forward. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Liechtenstein
	No recommendations are made.
Lithuania
	No recommendations are made.
Luxembourg
	No recommendations are made.
Macau (China)
		No recommendations are made.
Malaysia
Malaysia experienced delays in the exchange of information on rulings and did not undertake spontaneous exchange of information on the issued tax rulings within the scope of the transparency framework during the year in review.		Malaysia is recommended to continue its efforts to reduce the timeliness for providing the information on rulings to the Competent Authority and to complete the templates for all relevant future rulings and to ensure that the exchanges of information on future rulings occur as soon as possible. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Maldives
		No recommendations are made.
Malta
	No recommendations are made.
Mauritania
It is not known whether Mauritania has implemented the transparency framework during the year in review.		Mauritania is recommended to ensure that it has put in place an information gathering process to identify all relevant past and future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions and to implement a review and supervision mechanism, as soon as possible.
It is not known whether Mauritania has put in place a process to exchange information on rulings in accordance with the form and timelines required by the transparency framework. Mauritania is recommended to ensure the timely exchange of information on rulings in the form required by the transparency framework.		Mauritania is recommended to put in place a domestic legal framework allowing spontaneous exchange of information on rulings and develop a process to complete the templates on relevant rulings and to ensure that the exchanges of information on rulings occur in accordance with the form and timelines under the transparency framework.
Mauritius
	No recommendations are made.
Mexico
	No recommendations are made.
Monaco
		No recommendations are made.
Mongolia
		No recommendations are made.
Montenegro
		No recommendations are made.
Montserrat
		No recommendations are made.
Morocco
		No recommendations are made.
Namibia
Namibia does not yet have the necessary information gathering process in place.		Namibia is recommended to ensure that it has put in place an effective information gathering process to identify all relevant past and future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions and to implement a review and supervision mechanism, as soon as possible. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer reviews.
Namibia does not yet have 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.		Namibia is recommended to develop a process to complete the templates for all relevant rulings and to ensure that the exchanges of information on rulings occur in accordance with the form and timelines under the transparency framework going forward. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer reviews.
Netherlands
	No recommendations are made.
New Zealand
	No recommendations are made.
Nigeria
Nigeria does not yet have the necessary information gathering process in place. Nigeria is currently in the process of putting in place the administrative framework which would enable identifying and keeping track on the relevant future rulings as well as ensuring efficient review and supervision mechanism. As the process has not yet been completed, the recommendation remains in place.	Nigeria is recommended to ensure that it has put in place an effective information gathering process to identify all relevant past and future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions and to implement a review and supervision mechanism, as soon as possible. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Nigeria does not yet have 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. Nigeria is currently in the process of putting in place the administrative framework which ensures a process for making the information on rulings available to the competent authority. As the process has not yet been completed, the recommendation remains in place.	Nigeria is recommended to develop a process to complete the templates for all relevant rulings and to ensure that the exchanges of information on rulings occur in accordance with the form and timelines under the transparency framework going forward. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
North Macedonia
		No recommendations are made.
Norway
	No recommendations are made.
Oman
		No recommendations are made.
Pakistan
Pakistan is taking steps to put the necessary information gathering process in place.		Pakistan is recommended to ensure that it has put in place an effective information gathering process to identify all relevant past and future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions and to implement a review and supervision mechanism, as soon as possible. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2021 and 2022 peer review report.
Pakistan is taking steps to put a process in place 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.		Pakistan is recommended to develop a process to complete the templates for all relevant rulings and to ensure that the exchanges of information on rulings occur in accordance with the form and timelines under the transparency framework going forward. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2021 and 2022 peer review report.
Panama
		No recommendations are made.
Papua New Guinea
		No recommendations are made.
Paraguay
		No recommendations are made.
Peru
	No recommendations are made.
Philippines
The Philippines has not yet put in place the timelines for exchange of information on rulings in line with the transparency framework.		The Philippines is recommended to continue its efforts to ensure that all information on past and future rulings is exchanged as soon as possible.
Poland
		No recommendations are made.
Portugal
	No recommendations are made.
Qatar
		No recommendations are made.
Romania
	No recommendations are made.
Saint Kitts and Nevis
	No recommendations are made.
Saint Lucia
Saint Lucia does not require taxpayers to provide all necessary information to identify all potential exchange jurisdictions for future rulings.	Saint Lucia is recommended to ensure that all potential exchange jurisdictions are identified swiftly for all future rulings. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines does not yet have an effective information gathering process in place to identify all relevant future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions.		Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is recommended to continue its work on its information gathering process for identifying all past and future rulings within the scope of the transparency framework as soon as possible.
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines does not yet have a process to complete the templates on all relevant rulings, to make them available to the Competent Authority for exchange of information, and to exchange them with relevant jurisdictions		Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is recommended to develop a process to complete the templates for all relevant rulings and to ensure that the exchanges of information on rulings occur in accordance with the form and timelines under the transparency framework going forward.
Samoa
		No recommendations are made.
San Marino
	No recommendations are made.
Saudi Arabia
		No recommendations are made.
Senegal
		No recommendations are made.
Serbia
		No recommendations are made.
Seychelles
	No recommendations are made.
Sierra Leone
		No recommendations are made.
Singapore
	No recommendations are made.
Sint Maarten
		No recommendations are made.
Slovak Republic
	No recommendations are made.
Slovenia
	No recommendations are made.
South Africa
	No recommendations are made.
Spain
	No recommendations are made.
Sri Lanka
	No recommendations are made.
Sweden
		No recommendations are made.
Switzerland
	No recommendations are made.
Thailand
	No recommendations are made.
Togo
Togo is in the process of finalising the information gathering process and to put in place a process for the identification and registration of issued tax rulings.		Togo is recommended to finalise its information gathering process for identifying all past and future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions, with a review and supervision mechanism, as soon as possible.
Togo is finalizing the 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.		Togo is recommended to complete the templates for all relevant rulings and to ensure that the exchanges of information on rulings occur as soon as possible.
Trinidad & Tobago
		No recommendations are made.
Tunisia
		No recommendations are made.
Türkiye
		No recommendations are made.
Ukraine
	No recommendations are made.
United Arab Emirates
	No recommendations are made.
United Kingdom
	No recommendations are made.
United States
	No recommendations are made.
Uruguay
	No recommendations are made.
Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan has not put in place the necessary information gathering process.	Uzbekistan is recommended to put in place its information gathering process for identifying all past and future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions, with a review and supervision mechanism, as soon as possible.
Uzbekistan does not have 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.	Uzbekistan is recommended to put in place a domestic legal framework allowing spontaneous exchange of information on rulings and to complete the templates for all relevant rulings and to ensure that the exchanges of information on rulings occur as soon as possible.
Viet Nam
Viet Nam is still developing a process for completion of templates and exchange of information on rulings.	Viet Nam is recommended to develop a process to complete the templates on relevant rulings and to ensure that the exchanges of information on rulings occur in accordance with the form and timelines under the transparency framework. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 peer review reports.
Zambia
	No recommendations are made.

References

[1] 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.

Notes

Copy link to Notes

← 1. The Action 5 Report, Countering Harmful Tax Practices More Effectively, Taking Into Account Transparency and Substance (OECD, 2015) also provides that additional types of rulings could be added to the scope of the transparency framework in the future, where the FHTP and the Inclusive Framework agree that such a ruling could lead to BEPS concerns in the absence of spontaneous information exchange.

← 2. The relevant jurisdictions that do not issue rulings within the scope of the transparency framework are: Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Cook Islands, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Greenland, Haiti, Honduras, Macau (China), Maldives, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Montserrat, North Macedonia, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Trinidad & Tobago, Tunisia, and Zambia.

In the same series

See all publications

Report

Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – Simplified Peer Review, Saint Lucia (Stage 1)

4 March 2025
Report

Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – Simplified Peer Review, Grenada (Stage 1)

4 March 2025
Report

Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – Simplified Peer Review, Iceland (Stage 1)

4 March 2025
Report

Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – Simplified Peer Review, Burkina Faso (Stage 1)

4 March 2025
Report

Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – Simplified Peer Review, Peru (Stage 1)

4 March 2025
Report

Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – Simplified Peer Review, Dominica (Stage 1)

4 March 2025
Report

Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – Simplified Peer Review, Senegal (Stage 1)

4 March 2025
Report

Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – Simplified Peer Review, Montenegro (Stage 1)

4 March 2025

Related publications

See all publications

Report

Harmful Tax Practices – 2022 Peer Review Reports on the Exchange of Information on Tax Rulings

13 December 2023
Report

Harmful Tax Practices – 2021 Peer Review Reports on the Exchange of Information on Tax Rulings

14 December 2022
Report

Harmful Tax Practices – 2020 Peer Review Reports on the Exchange of Information on Tax Rulings

14 December 2021
Report

Harmful Tax Practices – 2019 Peer Review Reports on the Exchange of Information on Tax Rulings

15 December 2020
Report

Harmful Tax Practices – 2018 Peer Review Reports on the Exchange of Information on Tax Rulings

23 December 2019
Report

Harmful Tax Practices - 2018 Progress Report on Preferential Regimes

29 January 2019
Report

Harmful Tax Practices – 2017 Peer Review Reports on the Exchange of Information on Tax Rulings

13 December 2018
Report

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

4 December 2017

Publications

Featured publications

Data

Featured data

News & Events

Featured Events

About

Engage with us

Work with us

Publications

Featured publications

Data

Featured data

News & Events

Featured Events

About

Engage with us

Work with us

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

More info

Select a language

Cite this content as:

Abstract

Executive Summary

Context for the exchange of information on tax rulings (the “transparency framework”)

Scope of this review

Key findings

Table 1. Compilation of recommendations

References

Notes

In the same series

Related publications

Topics

Countries & regions

Data

Publications

News & Events

About

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Countries

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Publications

Publications

Featured publications

Data

Data

Featured data

News & Events

News & Events

Featured Events

About OECD

About

Engage with us

Work with us

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment