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

19. Angola can legally issue the following five types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework: (i) preferential regimes;1 (ii) 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; (iii) rulings providing for unilateral downward adjustments; (iv) permanent establishment rulings; and (v) related party conduit rulings.

20. For Angola, 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.

21. In the prior year’s peer review report, Angola built an internal database that keeps track of all issued rulings. It was determined that Angola’s undertakings to identify past rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. Angola’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged, and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard. Angola confirms that there were no past rulings issued and therefore, no potential exchange jurisdictions needed to be identified.

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

23. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Angola was following guidelines covering which rulings would fall within the scope of the transparency framework and what information should be kept in order to meet the level of detail required by the transparency framework.

24. In the prior years’ peer review report, Angola started to identify all rulings that have been issued by the Angola Revenue Administration (AGT) and developed an internal database where all issued rulings are recorded. When issuing a ruling, the AGT requests the taxpayer for information, but not in all cases on the immediate parent, ultimate parent and related parties with which the taxpayer entered into a transaction with. It is unclear, in the year of review, whether Angola has implemented any processes to identify the jurisdictions of the immediate parent, ultimate parent and related parties with which the taxpayer entered into a transaction with. Therefore, Angola is recommended to put in place a process of identifying potential exchange jurisdictions.

25. In the prior year’s peer review report, it was determined that Angola’s review and supervision mechanism was sufficient to meet the minimum standard. Angola’s implementation remains unchanged, and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.

26. Angola is recommended to finalise its information gathering process for identifying future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions as soon as possible (ToR I.A).

27. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Angola did not have the necessary domestic legal basis to exchange information spontaneously. Angola is still in the process of putting in place the necessary domestic legal basis to exchange information spontaneously.

28. Angola has international agreements permitting spontaneous exchange of information, including bilateral agreements in force with three jurisdictions.2 Angola 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”). Angola 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 prior year and the year under review.

29. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Angola is still 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.

30. An information exchange unit was created to assume the role of the Competent Authority and Angola’s tax offices are henceforth required to send reports to this unit. In the prior year’s peer review report, it was noted that a process was put in place to require that the list of issued rulings is send on a monthly basis to the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority is responsible for completing the template in Annex C of the BEPS Action 5 report (OECD, 2015[3]). The summary section will be competed in line with the FHTP internal guidance. The information is sent to jurisdictions within three months after the Competent Authority received the list of issued rulings.

31. Angola is still in the process negotiating to obtain an electronic tool for the exchange of information. Angola confirms that until then, information is sent either hard copy or via an official encrypted channel agreed between the parties.

32. As Angola did not have the necessary legal basis to conduct exchanges, no data on the timeliness of exchanges can be reported.

33. Angola 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 (ToR II.B)

34. As no rulings were issued, no statistics can be reported.

35. Angola 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.