France has met all aspects of the terms of reference (OECD, 2021[1]) (ToR) for the calendar year 2023 (year in review), and no recommendations are made.
France can legally issue three types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework.
In practice, France issued rulings within the scope of the transparency framework as follows:
|
Type of ruling |
Number of rulings |
|---|---|
|
Past rulings |
46 |
|
Future rulings in the period 1 April 2016 – 31 December 2016 |
4 |
|
Future rulings in the calendar year 2017 |
6 |
|
Future rulings in the calendar year 2018 |
6 |
|
Future rulings in the calendar year 2019 |
16 |
|
Future rulings in the calendar year 2020 |
8 |
|
Future rulings in the calendar year 2021 |
16 |
|
Future rulings in the calendar year 2022 |
34 |
|
Future rulings in the year in review |
1001 |
No peer input was received in respect of the exchanges of information on rulings received from France.
421. France can legally issue the following three types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework: (i) preferential regimes;2 (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; and (iii) permanent establishment rulings.
422. For France, past rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued either: (i) on or after 1 January 2014 but before 1 April 2016; or (ii) on or after 1 January 2010 but before 1 January 2014, provided they were still in effect as at 1 January 2014. Future rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued on or after 1 April 2016.
423. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that France’s undertakings to identify past and future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. In addition, it was determined that France’s review and supervision mechanism was sufficient to meet the minimum standard. France’s implementation remains unchanged, and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.
424. France has met all of the ToR for the information gathering process and no recommendations are made.
425. France has the necessary domestic legal basis to exchange information spontaneously. France notes that there are no legal or practical impediments that prevent the spontaneous exchange of information on rulings as contemplated in the Action 5 minimum standard.
426. France 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”), (ii) the Directive 2011/16/EU with all other European Union Member States and (iii) bilateral agreements in force with 127 jurisdictions.3
427. For the year in review, the timeliness of exchanges is as follows:
|
Future rulings within the scope of the transparency framework |
Number of exchanges transmitted within three months of the information becoming available to the competent authority or immediately after legal impediments have been lifted |
Delayed exchanges |
||
|
Number of exchanges transmitted later than three months of the information on rulings becoming available to the competent authority |
Reasons for the delays |
Any other comments |
||
|
89 |
12 |
Internal reorganisation in the CA Office |
N/A |
|
|
Follow-up requests received for exchange of the ruling |
Number |
Average time to provide response |
Number of requests not answered |
|
1 |
2 months |
0 |
428. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that France’s process for the completion and exchange of templates were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. With respect to past rulings, no further action was required. France’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.
429. During the year in review, France experienced delays in the exchanges due to changes in internal processes and responsibilities within the Competent Authority office. France noted that exchanges should not be impacted by such internal reorganisation in the future, and therefore, no recommendation is made, but this issue will be further monitored in the next year’s peer review.
430. France has the necessary legal basis for spontaneous exchange of information, a process for completing the templates in a timely way and has completed all exchanges. France has met all of the ToR for the exchange of information process and no recommendations are made.
431. The statistics for the year in review are as follows:
|
Category of ruling |
Number of exchanges |
Jurisdictions exchanged with |
|---|---|---|
|
Ruling related to a preferential regime |
3 |
De minimis rule applies |
|
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 |
85 |
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China (People’s Republic of), Colombia, Egypt, Guatemala, Hong Kong (China), India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Korea, Lebanon, Malaysia, Montenegro, Morocco, New Zealand, Panama, Peru, Russia, Singapore, Slovakia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Viet Nam |
|
Permanent establishment rulings |
13 |
Italy, Switzerland, United Kingdom |
|
IP regimes: total exchanges on taxpayers benefitting from the third category of IP assets, new entrants benefitting from grandfathered IP regimes; and taxpayers making use of the option to treat the nexus ratio as a rebuttable presumption |
0 |
N/A |
|
Total |
101 |
432. In the prior year’s peer review report, it was determined that France offers an intellectual property regime4 for which no transparency requirements under the Action 5 Report (OECD, 2015[3]) were imposed.
|
Aspect of implementation of the transparency framework that should be improved |
Recommendation for improvement |
|
No recommendations are made. |
[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.
← 1. During the year in review, France also issued one ruling relating to “other types of rulings” that fall outside of the scope of the transparency framework and exchanged information on these rulings.
← 2. Shipping regime.
← 3. Participating jurisdictions to the Convention are available here: www.oecd.org/tax/exchange-of-tax-information/convention-on-mutual-administrative-assistance-in-tax-matters.htm. France also has bilateral agreements with: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, China (People’s Republic of), Colombia, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, French Polynesia, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Hong Kong (China), Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Korea, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sint Maarten, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Türkiye, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
← 4. Reduced corporation tax rate on IP income, formerly known as Reduced rate for long term capital gains and profits from the licensing of IP rights.