OECD最新发布的《2020年度税收裁定信息交换同行评审报告》显示，36个辖区在税收透明度方面有待改进

编译整理：思迈特财税国际税收服务团队

TPGUIDER按：BEPS行动计划是OECD受G20委托实施的一项一揽子国际税收改革项目。2015年10月5日，OECD官网发布了BEPS行动计划的“最终一揽子措施（Final Package of Measures）”的行动计划。在BEPS的15项行动计划中，“更有效地打击有害实施税收实践”与“防止协定滥用”、“国别报告”和“完善争端解决”被确定为“四项最低标准”，具有最强约束性。包容性框架内成员（截至目前BEPS包容性框架下共有141个成员）共同承诺实施此四项“最低标准”。

“有害税收实践”是指各国通过降低税率、增加税收优惠等方式，减轻纳税人负担，从而吸引具有高度流动性的生产要素和经济活动，以促进本国经济发展的行为。在经济全球化的趋势下，各国对于资本市场的监管力度放小，从而加快了资本在各国之间的流动。与此同时，现代科技的发展也为国家间资本的流动提供了很大的便利。在这样的背景下，国际税收竞争越来越激烈。

有害税收实践的判断因素包括四项关键因素和八项其他因素，四项关键因素为：（1）该制度使得对具有地域间流动性的金融及服务活动所得不征税或虽征税但实际税率极低；（2）该制度与其所在国的国内经济之间存在“环形篱笆”；（3）该制度缺乏透明度；（4）没有针对该制度的有效情报交换。八项其他因素为：（1）人为随意确定（扩大或缩小）税基；（2）违背国际转让定价原则；（3）对来源于境外所得在居民国免税；（4）税率或税基具有可协商性；（5）存在保密条款；（6）具有广泛的税收协定网络；（7）被用作使税收最小化的有效工具；（8）鼓励在并无实质活动的情况下那些仅仅为了税收利益而进行的运营或安排。 

 “有害税收实践”最低标准的一部分是税收透明度框架，用于强制自发交换有关某些税收裁决的信息，这些裁决在缺乏透明度的情况下可能会引起BEPS的担忧。目前141个辖区加入了包容性框架，并参与同行评审，以评估其对税收透明度框架的遵守情况。

2021年12月14日，OECD发布了《2020年度税收裁定信息交换同行评审报告》。该报告涵盖131个辖区，评估了2020年1月1日至12月31日期间131个辖区对BEPS第5项行动计划的执行情况。该报告显示，在2020年度进行同行评审的131个辖区中，95个辖区完全符合BEPS第5项行动计划的最低标准，其余36个辖区存在着1项以上的改善建议(其中10个辖区收到了1项改善建议；大多数辖区收到了2项改善建议；而匈牙利、约旦、菲律宾和泰国等辖区收到了3项改善建议)。详情可见以下相关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.