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

669. Kazakhstan can legally issue the following two types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework: (i) 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.

670. For Kazakhstan, past rulings are any tax rulings issued either (i) on or after 1 January 2016 but before 1 April 2018; and (ii) on or after 1 January 2014 but before 1 January 2016, provided still in effect as at 1 January 2016.

671. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was noted that Kazakhstan issued one past ruling and that the responsible team is continuing to put in place guidelines and practices to collect and record the relevant information for the purposes of the transparency framework. As Kazakhstan has not finalised this process for the year in review, the recommendation remains in place.

672. For Kazakhstan, future rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued on or after 1 April 2018.

673. In the prior years’ peer review reports, Kazakhstan noted that when requesting an APA, the taxpayer must identify all transactions that will be covered by the agreement and provide all necessary information about these related parties. However, for the year in review, it is still not clear whether information on the immediate parent and ultimate parent is being collected. Kazakhstan notes that guidelines and practices are being implemented to make sure that the relevant information is adequately processed for the purposes of the transparency framework. However, as this process has not yet been completed, the recommendation remains in place.

674. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Kazakhstan was in the process of implementing a review and supervision mechanism. Once issued by the transfer pricing division, rulings should be reviewed by the non-residents taxation division, which will be responsible to collect the relevant information and to make sure that all relevant information is captured adequately and submitted to all relevant jurisdictions without delay. Kazakhstan is still implementing the process and therefore, the recommendation remains in place.

675. Kazakhstan is recommended to finalise its information gathering process, with a review and supervision mechanism, as soon as possible (ToR I.A).

676. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Kazakhstan did not have the necessary domestic legal basis to exchange information spontaneously. Kazakhstan intends to draft regulations that will allow for the spontaneous exchange of information on tax rulings in future. However, for the year in review, Kazakhstan has not yet put in place the necessary domestic legal basis to exchange information spontaneously.

677. Kazakhstan has international agreements permitting spontaneous exchange of information, including being a party to (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) and bilateral agreements in force with 59 jurisdictions.1

678. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Kazakhstan was 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. Kazakhstan has not yet put in place such a process for the year in review.

679. During the year in review, no exchanges took place and no data on the timeliness of exchanges is reported.

680. Kazakhstan 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).

681. As there was no information on rulings exchanged by Kazakhstan for the year in review, no statistics can be reported.

682. Kazakhstan 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.