OECD最新發(fā)布的《2020年度稅收裁定信息交換同行評審報告》顯示，36個轄區(qū)在稅收透明度方面有待改進

編譯整理：思邁特財稅國際稅收服務(wù)團隊

TPGUIDER按：BEPS行動計劃是OECD受G20委托實施的一項一攬子國際稅收改革項目。2015年10月5日，OECD官網(wǎng)發(fā)布了BEPS行動計劃的“最終一攬子措施（Final Package of Measures）”的行動計劃。在BEPS的15項行動計劃中，“更有效地打擊有害實施稅收實踐”與“防止協(xié)定濫用”、“國別報告”和“完善爭端解決”被確定為“四項最低標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”，具有最強約束性。包容性框架內(nèi)成員（截至目前BEPS包容性框架下共有141個成員）共同承諾實施此四項“最低標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”。

“有害稅收實踐”是指各國通過降低稅率、增加稅收優(yōu)惠等方式，減輕納稅人負(fù)擔(dān)，從而吸引具有高度流動性的生產(chǎn)要素和經(jīng)濟活動，以促進本國經(jīng)濟發(fā)展的行為。在經(jīng)濟全球化的趨勢下，各國對于資本市場的監(jiān)管力度放小，從而加快了資本在各國之間的流動。與此同時，現(xiàn)代科技的發(fā)展也為國家間資本的流動提供了很大的便利。在這樣的背景下，國際稅收競爭越來越激烈。

有害稅收實踐的判斷因素包括四項關(guān)鍵因素和八項其他因素，四項關(guān)鍵因素為：（1）該制度使得對具有地域間流動性的金融及服務(wù)活動所得不征稅或雖征稅但實際稅率極低；（2）該制度與其所在國的國內(nèi)經(jīng)濟之間存在“環(huán)形籬笆”；（3）該制度缺乏透明度；（4）沒有針對該制度的有效情報交換。八項其他因素為：（1）人為隨意確定（擴大或縮小）稅基；（2）違背國際轉(zhuǎn)讓定價原則；（3）對來源于境外所得在居民國免稅；（4）稅率或稅基具有可協(xié)商性；（5）存在保密條款；（6）具有廣泛的稅收協(xié)定網(wǎng)絡(luò)；（7）被用作使稅收最小化的有效工具；（8）鼓勵在并無實質(zhì)活動的情況下那些僅僅為了稅收利益而進行的運營或安排。 

 “有害稅收實踐”最低標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的一部分是稅收透明度框架，用于強制自發(fā)交換有關(guān)某些稅收裁決的信息，這些裁決在缺乏透明度的情況下可能會引起B(yǎng)EPS的擔(dān)憂。目前141個轄區(qū)加入了包容性框架，并參與同行評審，以評估其對稅收透明度框架的遵守情況。

2021年12月14日，OECD發(fā)布了《2020年度稅收裁定信息交換同行評審報告》。該報告涵蓋131個轄區(qū)，評估了2020年1月1日至12月31日期間131個轄區(qū)對BEPS第5項行動計劃的執(zhí)行情況。該報告顯示，在2020年度進行同行評審的131個轄區(qū)中，95個轄區(qū)完全符合BEPS第5項行動計劃的最低標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，其余36個轄區(qū)存在著1項以上的改善建議(其中10個轄區(qū)收到了1項改善建議；大多數(shù)轄區(qū)收到了2項改善建議；而匈牙利、約旦、菲律賓和泰國等轄區(qū)收到了3項改善建議)。詳情可見以下相關(guān)NEWS：

NEWS 1:Over 130 jurisdictions comprehensively reviewed in the latestBEPS Action 5 peer review on tax rulings

SOURCE：OECD 14/12/2021

Today, the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS is releasing the 2020 peer revie was sessments of 131 jurisdictions in relation to the spontaneous exchanges of information on tax rulings. The conclusions show that the global reach of the BEPS Action 5 minimum standard on tax rulings continues to increase, with 22000 tax rulings having been identified and 41000 exchanges between jurisdictions having taken place. The exchange on tax rulings is a critical tool in improving access of tax administrations to information relevant to assess the corporatetax affairs of their taxpayers and to efficiently tackle tax avoidance andother BEPS risks.

According to the 2020 Peer Review Reports on the Exchange of Information on Tax Rulings, 95 jurisdictions are now fully in line with the BEPS Action 5 minimum standard,with the remaining 36 jurisdictions receiving one or more recommendations to improve their legal or operational framework to identify and exchange the tax rulings. This is the first review taking place under the renewed peer reviewprocess, agreed by the Inclusive Framework last year, with a view to further enhancing and consolidating transparency in relation to the issuance of taxrulings.

The full detailsof the 2020 peer reviews and outcomes can be accessed via www.oecd.org/tax/beps/harmful-tax-practices-2020-peer-review-reports-on-the-exchange-of-information-on-tax-rulings-f376127b-en.htm.

NEWS 2: OECD review of tax rulingexchange standard finds 36 countries could improve

SOURCE：MNE Tax 14/12/2021

Out of 131 reviewed countries, 95 received no flags for improvement with respect to implementing the OECD minimum standard on exchange of information on tax rulings. However, 36 countries fell short, including France and India,according to the 2020 peer review assessment report released by the OECD on December 14.

Informationexchange of taxpayer rulings

The OECD base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) project’s Action 5 on harmful tax practices comprises one of the four minimum standards that the 141 member countries of the Inclusive Framework have committed to implementing. The transparency framework under BEPS Action 5 requires spontaneous exchange of information with respect to certain taxpayer-specific rulings.

With an aim toprevent tax avoidance, the exchange of information is intended to ensure that tax administrations are informed about how taxpayers are taxed in other jurisdictions in which they operate.

The information required to be exchanged relates to rulings with respect to certain preferentialregimes, unilateral advance pricing agreements (APAs), downward adjustments oftaxable profits, permanent establishments, and related party conduits.

Implementation ofthe standard is monitored partly through a peer review process that evaluatescountries’ exchange of information on these taxpayer-specific rulings thatcould potentially give rise to BEPS tax avoidance concerns.

Latest peerreview

The latest Action5 peer review report covers implementation of the standard during calendar year2020. It reviews 131 jurisdictions out of the 141 in the Inclusive Framework,omitting those that either joined too late to be reviewed or that do not imposea corporate income tax.

During 2020, thecountries reviewed issued 1,700 rulings in scope of the transparency framework– bringing the cumulative total, including past years, to almost 22,000in-scope tax rulings. In connection with these rulings, the jurisdictionsundertook approximately 5,000 exchanges in 2020. This is less than in otherreviewed years: 7,000 in 2019, 9,000 in 2018, 14,000 in 2017, and 6,000 in2016.

Of the reviewedjurisdictions, 95 met all the “terms of reference” and thus received norecommendations for improvement. The terms of reference, under an agreement onthe peer review process, look at four key elements of the transparencyframework: the information gathering process, the exchange of information,confidentiality of information received, and statistics.

France was amongthe countries whose implementation of the transparency framework was flagged for improvement. Specifically, the review flagged France – for the fifth consecutive year – for not identifying or exchanging information on newentrants to the intellectual property regime or on taxpayers benefitting underthe former intellectual property regime from the third category of intellectualproperty asset.

India also had anaspect of its implementation flagged. For the fourth consecutive year, thereport flagged India for delays in the exchange of information on future APAs,and it recommended that India continue efforts to ensure such information isexchanged as soon as possible.

France and Indiawere the only counties among the G20 that received recommendations forimprovement. Some other EU countries beyond France received recommendations,including Spain and Switzerland.

Of the 36countries flagged, 10 received just one recommendation for improvement. Most ofthe remaining jurisdictions that did not meet the “terms of reference” wereflagged for two aspects of implementation. Several countries – including Hungary, Jordan, the Philippines, and Thailand – were flagged for three aspects of implementation needing improvement.