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

146. Benin can legally issue the following one type of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework: permanent establishment rulings.

147. For Benin, 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.

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

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

150. The prior years’ reports indicated that there were no processes in place to keep track of rulings for the purposes of the transparency framework. Benin 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. Benin was recommended to finalise its information gathering process as soon as possible.

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

152. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Benin did not yet have a review and supervision mechanism under the transparency framework. Therefore, Benin was recommended to put in place a review and supervision mechanism as soon as possible. Benin was in the process of considering the implementation of a review and supervision mechanism to ensure implementation of the transparency framework. As it is not known whether Benin has put in place a review and supervision mechanism under the transparency framework for the year in review, the recommendation remains in place.

153. Benin is recommended to finalise its information gathering process for identifying all relevant rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions and to implement a review and supervision mechanism, as soon as possible (ToR I.A).

154. In prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Benin was in the process of putting in place the necessary domestic legal basis to exchange information spontaneously. 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.

155. Benin has international agreements permitting spontaneous exchange of information, including: (i) the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol (OECD/Council of Europe, 2011[2]) (“the Convention”) and (ii) bilateral agreements in force with 9 jurisdictions1.

156. In prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Benin 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 Benin 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.

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

158. 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 (ToR II.B).

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

160. Benin 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.