This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page . (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
Predecessor | 1996 G7 Lyon Summit: tackling harmful tax practices and tax havens |
---|---|
Formation | 2000 |
Type | International Economic Treaty Organization |
Purpose | Multilateral framework within which work in the area transparency and exchange of information has been carried out by both OECD and non-OECD economies |
Membership | 157 member jurisdictions and the European Union, with 19 observers |
Chair [1] | Maria-José Garde |
Chair of PEER Review group | Huey Min Chia-Tern |
Head of the Global Forum Secretariat | Manatta Zayda |
Key people | François d'Aubert (past Chair) |
Parent organization | OECD |
Budget | €3.9 million (2013) |
Revenue | fixed annual fee of €15,300 per member and a progressive fee determined by scale in accordance with jurisdictions’ Gross National Product. [1] |
Staff | 27 [1] |
Website | www |
The Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes was founded in 2000 and restructured in September 2009. It consists of OECD member countries as well as other jurisdictions that have agreed to implement tax related transparency and information exchange. [2] The forum works under the auspices of the OECD and G20. Its mission is to "implement the international standard through two phases of peer review process". [1] It addresses tax evasion, tax havens, offshore financial centres, tax information exchange agreements, double taxation and money laundering.
In 2000, the Forum published a blacklist of 35 tax havens, which by 2009 had shrunk to zero. It has since focused on increasing the standard for exchange of information. As of December 2021 [update] , the Forum had 163 member tax jurisdictions and the European Union, all on equal footing. [3]
The Forum promotes the implementation of two internationally agreed standards on exchange of information for tax purposes: the standard on Exchange of Information on Request (EOIR) and the standard on Automatic Exchange of Information (AEOI). Members commit to at least implement EOIR. [4]
The Forum ensures compliance with EOIR through an intense peer review process, the forum's main activity since 2009, which is carried out by its Peer Review Group composed of 30 members representative of the diversity of the Forum, and is currently chaired by Singapore. [5]
The review focuses on three main parts, divided into ten elements: Ownership and identity information (A.1); Accounting records (A.2); Banking Information (A.3); Access to Information (B.1); Compatibility of Rights and Safeguards (B.2); Effective mechanisms for EOIR (C.1); Network of EOIR partners (C.2); Confidentiality (C.3); Respect of Rights and Safeguards (C.4); Quality and Timeliness (C.5). Every element is evaluated with regards to the legal and regulatory framework (Phase 1) but also its effective implementation (Phase 2). The output of the peer review is a report in which a rating (Compliant; Largely Compliant; Partially Compliant; Non-compliant) is attributed to each element, alongside an overall rating. The draft report is discussed and approved by the Peer Review Group, and adopted by all Forum members. Where areas of weakness are identified during the review, reports include recommendations setting out improvements jurisdictions need to make in order to reach the international standard. The peer review reports are published and made publicly available.
A first round of reviews was conducted for all member jurisdictions and jurisdictions relevant to the work of the Forum, and ended in 2016. Then, the 2010 Terms of Reference used to conduct the reviews were strengthened to integrate new principles, such as the availability of beneficial ownership information, and became the 2016 Terms of Reference. The Forum is currently in the middle of its second round of reviews.
Since 2009 it has classified tax havens into a "blacklist" of non-committers and a "graylist" (or "greylist") of non-implementers of the request-based "internationally agreed tax standard". The terms blacklist and graylist are not used by the Forum but by news services like Reuters, [6] the BBC [7] and the Congressional Research Service. [8] : 6
In 2014, the Global Forum adopted the Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information in Tax Matters (the AEOI Standard), developed by the OECD working with G20 countries. The AEOI Standard requires financial institutions to automatically disclose information on financial accounts they maintain for non-residents to their tax authorities under the globally-agreed Common Reporting Standard (CRS), who in turn exchange this information with the tax authorities of the account holders’ country of residence.
To be able to exchange information under the AEOI Standard, jurisdictions are asked to:
To deliver a level playing field, the Global Forum launched a commitment process under which 100 jurisdictions committed to implement the AEOI Standard and exchanges commenced accordingly in 2017. In 2018, a total of 93 jurisdictions exchanged information under the AEOI Standard. For 2019, a total of 102 jurisdictions are committed to undertake exchanges under the AEOI Standard.
The 2009 estimate of a budget was 2.9 million. It was raised by a flat fee of 15000 euros for each of the members plus a fee based on the overall GNP with an abatement of 450 USD/inhabitant. [9]
In April 1998 an OECD report acknowledged that tax havens erode the tax base of other countries and undermine the fairness of tax systems, diminishing global welfare. [10] It noted that tax havens were expanding at an exponential rate. The report focused on tax havens in the Caribbean who were not OECD members, and the OECD was thus criticized for not addressing tax havens who were its members. A second report in 2000 included a blacklist of 35 secrecy jurisdictions - all outside the OECD - and a threat of defensive measures against them, with backing from the United States under the Clinton administration.[ citation needed ]
In 2000, the Global Forum was created with 32 members. Efforts to move against tax evasion in tax havens were quickly "bogged down in arcane haggling", including by a working group between tax havens and the OECD set up at the suggestion of the Commonwealth. In the United States, The Heritage Foundation criticized the move as a European effort to limit competition among tax jurisdictions. The new U.S. administration of George Bush and his first treasury secretary Paul O'Neill stated in May 2001 that the OECD's efforts were "not in line with the administration's priorities". The OECD gave in and announced it had no intention to pursue "defensive measures" against tax havens. [11] : 149–150, 160–162
After the September 11, 2001, attacks the United States wanted better cooperation from tax havens on terrorist financing, but was reluctant to tackle tax evasion forcefully. Since the two practices are very similar, the United States only asked the OECD to require tax havens to provide information on request under very narrow conditions, which became the OECD's model for information on tax exchange. As a result, for example Jersey, an important tax haven, provided information to the United States in only five or six cases over a period of seven years. [11] : 167–168
The activities against tax havens were only expanded after the financial crisis of 2007-08. At the April 2009 G-20 London summit tax havens were divided into a "blacklist" of non-committers and a "graylist" of non-implementers, based on compliance with the request-based "internationally agreed tax standard". [12] The actual list included three categories:
The list of non-implementers initially included, among others, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg and Switzerland. The list of non-committed included Costa Rica, Malaysia, the Philippines and Uruguay. [13] Within five days Costa Rica, Malaysia, the Philippines and Uruguay made "a full commitment to exchange information to the OECD standards" and were removed from the "blacklist" which was thus empty. [14] Panama was ‘white listed’ because it signed a tax information exchange agreement (TIEA) with France. The British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands were white listed by August 2009. [15] No G-20 country was on the greylist of non-implementers, prompting Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker to criticise it for failing to include various states of the USA which provide incorporation infrastructure indistinguishable from the tax havens on the G-20 blacklist. [16] Der Spiegel called the list "The World's Shortest Blacklist" and "the Fight against Tax Havens Is a Sham". [17]
At a meeting in Mexico in September 2009, the Global Forum was restructured and received its own Secretariat. The main decisions were:
In March 2010, international efforts were stepped up when the U.S. Congress passed the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) which forces foreign financial firms to disclose their American clients.[ citation needed ] Also in 2010, the 1988 Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters was amended to include automated exchange of tax information, a key instrument in fighting tax evasion, and expanding it to developing countries. [18] In 2013, a working group was formed to promote the automated exchange of tax information.[ citation needed ]
In July 2014, the Forum published standards for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information, commonly known as the Common Reporting Standard (CRS). [19]
By November 2015, more than 90 members have committed to go beyond Exchange of Information on Request and to implement Automatic Exchange of Information. An international framework agreement, the Common Reporting Standard Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement (CRS MCAA), specifies the details of what information will be exchanged and when. Since the agreement is a framework agreement, it only comes into effect for each signatory after it has confirmed that it has undertaken certain steps such as passing national legislation. [20] By 2023, more than 120 countries had made commitments to adopt the rules. [21]
In 2018, the OECD has published Model Mandatory Disclosure Rules for CRS Avoidance Arrangements and Opaque Offshore Structures. [22] These rules require intermediaries, like tax advisors, law firms and others to report to their domestic tax authority if they advise on ways to circumvent reporting under the CRS. As of January 2023, 17 jurisdictions have committed to implementing these rules, [23] although all 27 EU Member States and the UK have already implemented these rules as part of an amendment to the Directive on Administrative Co-Operation.
In 2021, the OECD agreed an International Exchange Framework for information held by Digital Platforms. This requires digital platforms who are connect buyers and sellers involved in the rental of accommodation, rental of transportation, provision of personal services and (optionally) the sale of goods, to report information on sellers for exchange. 25 jurisdictions have committed to the adoption of these rules globally. [24]
In 2022, the OECD agreed the Crypto-Assets Reporting Framework for the exchange of information on transactions in cryptocurrencies and other digital assets. [25] No formal date for adoption has been agreed as at September 2023, although the EU has committed to a 2026 start date for its members.
At its founding in 2000, the Forum had 32 member tax jurisdictions, and it had 90 members in September 2009. In November 2015, the Forum had 128 member tax jurisdictions and the European Union, and in November 2019 it had 158 members: [3]
Tax jurisdictions
As of November 2019 there are 19 observers
The forum reviews compliance of its member tax jurisdictions separately for the two standards, the more limited exchange of information on request and the more comprehensive automated exchange of information.
More than 80 countries and territories were not (yet) members of the Global Forum as of November 2015 and are thus not included in the lists below. Notable non-members include Belarus and Serbia in Europe; Colombia and Venezuela in Latin America; Ethiopia, Algeria and many smaller countries in Africa; as well as Iran, Myanmar, North Korea and Vietnam in Asia. All important tax havens, however, are members of the Global Forum - the 30 countries topping the Financial Secrecy Index in 2013 were all members as of 2015.
The Global Forum's peer review process examines both the legal and regulatory aspects of exchange (Phase 1 reviews) and the exchange of information in practice (Phase 2). The peer reviews cover only the limited exchange of information on request.
At its meeting in Jakarta in November 2013, the Global Forum assigned the ratings for the first 50 jurisdictions that had completed their Phase 1 and Phase 2 reviews. The Phase 1 review found that 14 countries and territories had gaps in their legal framework and were not allowed to move to Phase 2 unless they improved their legal framework. [26]
The ten countries and territories that were at the top of the Financial Secrecy Index 2013, an index established by the NGO Tax Justice Network and that also takes into account the size of the transactions in a tax haven, were categorized as follows: Lebanons and Switzerland had not completed Phase 1. Luxembourg was listed as Category D, Jersey as Category C, and the Cayman Islands, Germany, Hong Kong, Singapore as well as the United States were listed as Category B. Japan was the only country classified as one of the ten major tax havens by the Tax Justice Network that was listed in Category A.
The following jurisdictions are not eligible to move to Phase 2 review until they act on recommendations to improve their legal and regulatory framework:
Country/Region |
---|
Botswana |
Brunei |
Dominica |
Guatemala |
Lebanon |
Liberia |
Marshall Islands |
Nauru |
Niue |
Panama |
Switzerland |
Trinidad and Tobago |
United Arab Emirates |
Vanuatu |
Among those countries that had created an adequate legal framework and thus had moved to Phase 2, four countries - including Luxembourg - were found to be non-compliant with their own legal framework (grade D). Two countries - Austria and Turkey - were only partially compliant (grade C). [26]
Country/Region | Overall Rating |
---|---|
Australia | A - Compliant |
Belgium | A - Compliant |
Canada | A - Compliant |
China | A - Compliant |
Denmark | A - Compliant |
Finland | A - Compliant |
France | A - Compliant |
Iceland | A - Compliant |
India | A - Compliant |
Ireland | A - Compliant |
Isle of Man | A - Compliant |
Japan | A - Compliant |
Korea | A - Compliant |
New Zealand | A - Compliant |
Norway | A - Compliant |
South Africa | A - Compliant |
Spain | A - Compliant |
Sweden | A - Compliant |
Argentina | B - Largely Compliant |
Bahamas | B - Largely Compliant |
Bahrain | B - Largely Compliant |
Bermuda | B - Largely Compliant |
Brazil | B - Largely Compliant |
Cayman Islands | B - Largely Compliant |
Estonia | B - Largely Compliant |
Germany | B - Largely Compliant |
Greece | B - Largely Compliant |
Guernsey | B - Largely Compliant |
Hong Kong | B - Largely Compliant |
Italy | B - Largely Compliant |
Jamaica | B - Largely Compliant |
Jersey | B - Largely Compliant |
Macau | B - Largely Compliant |
Malta | B - Largely Compliant |
Mauritius | B - Largely Compliant |
Monaco | B - Largely Compliant |
Netherlands | B - Largely Compliant |
Philippines | B - Largely Compliant |
Qatar | B - Largely Compliant |
San Marino | B - Largely Compliant |
Singapore | B - Largely Compliant |
Turks and Caicos Islands | B - Largely Compliant |
United Kingdom | B - Largely Compliant |
United States | B - Largely Compliant |
Austria | C - Partially Compliant |
Turkey | C - Partially Compliant |
Cyprus | D - Non Compliant |
Luxembourg | D - Non Compliant |
Seychelles | D - Non Compliant |
British Virgin Islands | D - Non Compliant |
As of October 31, 2015 the ratings were as follows: [27] 8 countries still had deficiencies in their legal framework. 25 countries, including Switzerland, had completed their legal framework (Phase 1 review), but had not yet had a Phase 2 review. Among the countries and territories that had passed a Phase 2 review, none was rated non-compliant (Grade D) any more. Nine countries were rated as only partially compliant (Grade C), still including Austria and Turkey.
The ten countries and territories that were at the top of the Financial Secrecy Index 2015, an index established by the NGO Tax Justice Network and that also takes into account the size of the transactions in a tax haven, were categorized as follows: Lebanon had not completed Phase 1. Switzerland and the UAE had completed Phase 1 and were awaiting Phase 2. Luxembourg and Jersey had moved up to Category B, along with the Cayman Islands, Germany, Hong Kong, Singapore as well as the United States. Bahrain, which had not been among the top ten tax havens in 2013, was also in Category B. Japan and Jersey had improved their transparency and were not any more among the ten most important tax havens, moving to number 12 and 16 respectively.
The following jurisdictions are not eligible to move to Phase 2 review until they act on recommendations to improve their legal and regulatory framework:
Country/Region |
---|
Micronesia |
Guatemala |
Kazakhstan |
Lebanon |
Liberia |
Nauru |
Trinidad and Tobago |
Vanuatu |
The following jurisdictions have completed the Phase 1 review, i.e. their legal framework had been reviewed and they were eligible to move to Phase 2:
The following countries and territories had passed a Phase 2 review:
Country/Region | Overall Rating |
---|---|
Australia | A - Compliant |
Belgium | A - Compliant |
Canada | A - Compliant |
China | A - Compliant |
Colombia | A - Compliant |
Denmark | A - Compliant |
Finland | A - Compliant |
France | A - Compliant |
Iceland | A - Compliant |
India | A - Compliant |
Ireland | A - Compliant |
Isle of Man | A - Compliant |
Japan | A - Compliant |
Korea | A - Compliant |
Lithuania | A - Compliant |
Mexico | A - Compliant |
New Zealand | A - Compliant |
Norway | A - Compliant |
Slovenia | A - Compliant |
South Africa | A - Compliant |
Spain | A - Compliant |
Sweden | A - Compliant |
Argentina | B - Largely Compliant |
Bahamas | B - Largely Compliant |
Bahrain | B - Largely Compliant |
Belize | B - Largely Compliant |
Bermuda | B - Largely Compliant |
Brazil | B - Largely Compliant |
British Virgin Islands | D - Largely Compliant |
Cayman Islands | B - Largely Compliant |
Chile | B - Largely Compliant |
Cook Islands | B - Largely Compliant |
Cyprus | D - Largely Compliant |
Czech Republic | D - Largely Compliant |
Estonia | B - Largely Compliant |
Germany | B - Largely Compliant |
Greece | B - Largely Compliant |
Grenada | B - Largely Compliant |
Guernsey | B - Largely Compliant |
Hong Kong | B - Largely Compliant |
Hungary | B - Largely Compliant |
Italy | B - Largely Compliant |
Jamaica | B - Largely Compliant |
Jersey | B - Largely Compliant |
Latvia | B - Largely Compliant |
Liechtenstein | B - Largely Compliant |
Luxembourg | B - Largely Compliant |
Macau | B - Largely Compliant |
Malta | B - Largely Compliant |
Mauritius | B - Largely Compliant |
Monaco | B - Largely Compliant |
Netherlands | B - Largely Compliant |
Philippines | B - Largely Compliant |
Poland | B - Largely Compliant |
Portugal | B - Largely Compliant |
Qatar | B - Largely Compliant |
Russia | B - Largely Compliant |
Saint Kitts and Nevis | B - Largely Compliant |
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines | B - Largely Compliant |
San Marino | B - Largely Compliant |
Seychelles | B - Largely Compliant |
Singapore | B - Largely Compliant |
Slovak Republic | B - Largely Compliant |
Turks and Caicos Islands | B - Largely Compliant |
United Kingdom | B - Largely Compliant |
United States | B - Largely Compliant |
Uruguay | B - Largely Compliant |
Austria | C - Partially Compliant |
Costa Rica | C - Partially Compliant |
Curacao | C - Partially Compliant |
Indonesia | C - Partially Compliant |
Israel | C - Partially Compliant |
Saint Lucia | C -Partially Compliant |
Samoa | C - Partially Compliant |
Sint Maarten | C - Partially Compliant |
Turkey | C - Partially Compliant |
The following jurisdictions have completed the Phase 1 review, i.e. their legal framework had been reviewed and they were eligible to move to Phase 2:
Country/Region |
---|
Croatia |
Lebanon |
Liberia |
Nauru |
Peru |
Tunisia |
Ukraine |
Vanuatu |
The following countries and territories had passed a Phase 2 review:
Country/Region | Overall Rating |
---|---|
Albania | B - Largely Compliant |
Azerbaijan | B - Largely Compliant |
Barbados | B - Largely Compliant |
Botswana | B - Largely Compliant |
Brunei Darussalam | B - Largely Compliant |
Burkina Faso | B - Largely Compliant |
Cameroon | B - Largely Compliant |
Dominica | C - Partially Compliant |
Dominican Republic | C - Partially Compliant |
El Salvador | B - Largely Compliant |
Gabon | B - Largely Compliant |
Georgia | B - Largely Compliant |
Israel | B - Largely Compliant |
Kenya | B - Largely Compliant |
Lesotho | B - Largely Compliant |
Marshall Islands | D - Non-Compliant |
Mauritania | B - Largely Compliant |
Morocco | B - Largely Compliant |
Nigeria | B - Largely Compliant |
Niue | B - Largely Compliant |
Pakistan | B - Largely Compliant |
Panama | D - Not-Compliant |
Romania | B - Largely Compliant |
Saint Lucia | B - Largely Compliant |
Saudi Arabia | B - Largely Compliant |
Senegal | B - Largely Compliant |
Switzerland | B - Largely Compliant |
Uganda | B - Largely Compliant |
United Arab Emirates | C - Partially Compliant |
For the first time, a Combined review of both Phase 1 and Phase 2 was introduced as part of the review process :
Country/Region | Overall Rating |
---|---|
Bulgaria | B - Largely Compliant |
Starting 2017, the Global Forum started its second round of Reviews, assessing new members for the first time as well as the progress made by the jurisdictions that underwent a review in the first Round. The following jurisdictions have completed a Combined review of both Phase 1 (legal and regulatory framework) and Phase 2 (implementation)
Country/Region | Overall Rating |
---|---|
Australia | B - Largely Compliant |
Bermuda | B - Largely Compliant |
Canada | B - Largely Compliant |
Cayman Islands | B - Largely Compliant |
Curacao | C - Partially Compliant |
Germany | B - Largely Compliant |
India | B - Largely Compliant |
Ireland | B - Largely Compliant |
Isle of Man | A - Compliant |
Italy | A - Compliant |
Jamaica | C - Partially Compliant |
Jersey | A - Compliant |
Mauritius | A - Compliant |
Norway | A - Compliant |
Qatar | B - Largely Compliant |
The following jurisdictions have completed a Combined review of both Phase 1 (legal and regulatory framework) and Phase 2 (implementation)
Country/Region | Overall Rating |
---|---|
Aruba | B - Largely Compliant |
Austria | B - Largely Compliant |
Bahamas | B - Largely Compliant |
Bahrain | A - Compliant |
Belgium | B - Largely Compliant |
Brazil | B - Largely Compliant |
Estonia | A - Compliant |
France | A - Compliant |
Ghana | C - Partially Compliant |
Guernsey | A - Compliant |
Hungary | B - Largely Compliant |
Indonesia | B - Largely Compliant |
Jamaica | B - Largely Compliant |
Japan | |
Kazakhstan | C - Partially Compliant |
Monaco | A - Compliant |
New Zealand | A - Compliant |
Philippines | B - Largely Compliant |
Saint Kitts and Nevis | B - Largely Compliant |
San Marino | A - Compliant |
Singapore | A - Compliant |
United Kingdom | B - Largely Compliant |
United States | B - Largely Compliant |
As of September 2023, 120 countries have committed to adopting the Common Reporting Standard: [28]
The economy of Gibraltar consists largely of the services sector. While part of the European Union until Brexit, the British overseas territory of Gibraltar has a separate legal jurisdiction from the United Kingdom and a different tax system. The role of the UK Ministry of Defence, which at one time was Gibraltar's main source of income, has declined, with today's economy mainly based on shipping, tourism, financial services, and the Internet.
The Financial Action Task Force (on Money Laundering) (FATF), also known by its French name, Groupe d'action financière (GAFI), is an intergovernmental organisation founded in 1989 on the initiative of the G7 to develop policies to combat money laundering and to maintain certain interest. In 2001, its mandate was expanded to include terrorism financing.
Offshore investment is the keeping of money in a jurisdiction other than one's country of residence. Offshore jurisdictions are used to pay less tax in many countries by large and small-scale investors. Poorly regulated offshore domiciles have served historically as havens for tax evasion, money laundering, or to conceal or protect illegally acquired money from law enforcement in the investor's country. However, the modern, well-regulated offshore centres allow legitimate investors to take advantage of higher rates of return or lower rates of tax on that return offered by operating via such domiciles. The advantage to offshore investment is that such operations are both legal and less costly than those offered in the investor's country—or "onshore".
In domestic and international commercial law, a beneficial owner is a natural person or persons who ultimately owns or controls an interest in a legal entity or arrangement, such as a company, a trust, or a foundation. Legal owners, commonly described as the "registered owners", may hold those interests as beneficial owners or for the benefit of someone else, in which case they may be described as a "nominee".
The Financial Action Task Force blacklist, is a blacklist maintained by the Financial Action Task Force.
Exchange of Information is an umbrella term which refers to international co-operation in the field of taxation through the exchange of information on taxpayers between tax authorities.
A tax haven is a term, sometimes used negatively and for political reasons, to describe a place with very low tax rates for non-domiciled investors, even if the official rates may be higher.
An offshore financial centre (OFC) is defined as a "country or jurisdiction that provides financial services to nonresidents on a scale that is incommensurate with the size and the financing of its domestic economy."
The Mauritius route is a channel used by foreign investors to invest in India. Mauritius is the main provider of foreign direct investment (FDI) to India and also the preferred jurisdiction for Indian outward investments into Africa. In fact 39.6% of FDI to India came from Mauritius between 2001 and 2011.
The Financial Secrecy Index (FSI) is a report published by the advocacy organization Tax Justice Network (TJN) which ranks countries by financial secrecy indicators, weighted by the economic flows of each country.
Financial services in Gibraltar refers to the services provided in the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar by the finance industry: banks, investment banks, insurance companies, credit card companies, consumer finance companies, government-sponsored enterprises, and stock brokerages.
The Common Reporting Standard (CRS) is an information standard for the Automatic Exchange Of Information (AEOI) regarding financial accounts on a global level, between tax authorities, which the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) developed in 2014.
Base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) refers to corporate tax planning strategies used by multinationals to "shift" profits from higher-tax jurisdictions to lower-tax jurisdictions or no-tax locations where there is little or no economic activity, thus "eroding" the "tax-base" of the higher-tax jurisdictions using deductible payments such as interest or royalties. For the government, the tax base is a company's income or profit. Tax is levied as a percentage on this income/profit. When that income / profit is transferred to another country or tax haven, the tax base is eroded and the company does not pay taxes to the country that is generating the income. As a result, tax revenues are reduced and the government is detained. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) define BEPS strategies as "exploiting gaps and mismatches in tax rules". While some of the tactics are illegal, the majority are not. Because businesses that operate across borders can utilize BEPS to obtain a competitive edge over domestic businesses, it affects the righteousness and integrity of tax systems. Furthermore, it lessens deliberate compliance, when taxpayers notice multinationals legally avoiding corporate income taxes. Because developing nations rely more heavily on corporate income tax, they are disproportionately affected by BEPS.
The OECD G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project is an OECD/G20 project to set up an international framework to combat tax avoidance by multinational enterprises ("MNEs") using base erosion and profit shifting tools. The project, led by the OECD's Committee on Fiscal Affairs, began in 2013 with OECD and G20 countries, in a context of financial crisis and tax affairs. Currently, after the BEPS report has been delivered in 2015, the project is now in its implementation phase, 116 countries are involved including a majority of developing countries. During two years, the package was developed by participating members on an equal footing, as well as widespread consultations with jurisdictions and stakeholders, including business, academics and civil society. And since 2016, the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS provides for its 140 members a platform to work on an equal footing to tackle BEPS, including through peer review of the BEPS minimum standards, and monitoring of implementation of the BEPS package as a whole.
International tax planning also known as international tax structures or expanded worldwide planning (EWP), is an element of international taxation created to implement directives from several tax authorities following the 2008 worldwide recession.
The European Union tax haven blacklist, officially the EU list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions, is a tool of the European Union (EU) that lists tax havens. It is used by the Member States to tackle external risks of tax abuse and unfair tax competition. It was adopted for the first time in 2017 as a response to tax avoidance in the EU, screening 92 countries. It is managed by the Code of Conduct Group for Business Taxation and monitored by the European Commission (EC). The most recent revision was released on 6 October 2020. The list is updated twice a year.
The global minimum corporate tax rate, or simply the global minimum tax, is a minimum rate of tax on corporate income internationally agreed upon and accepted by individual jurisdictions. Each country would be eligible to a share of revenue generated by the tax. The aim is to reduce tax competition between countries and discourage multinational corporations (MNC) from profit shifting to achieve tax avoidance.
Country-by-Country Reporting is an international initiative pioneered by the OECD. It establishes a reporting standard for multinational enterprises (MNEs) with total consolidated group revenues > EUR 750 million, containing key tax related information, including financial information and information on employees and non-cash tangible assets. Under the OECD rules, the information is to be exchanged between tax authorities of different countries. However, the EU adopted legislation to make the Country-by-Country Reporting publicly available, starting the year after 2024.
The Directive on Administrative Co-operation in the field of taxation is a Directive which sets rules for the Automatic Exchange of Information (AEOI) which apply to members of the European Union (EU).
The Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework is a global initiative led by the OECD Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes which is intended to promoted the automatic exchange of information between countries to tackle emerging tax evasion risks related to cryptocurrency and digital assets.