Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes

Summary

(Learn how and when to remove this template message)

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.

Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes
Predecessor1996 G7 Lyon Summit: tackling harmful tax practices and tax havens
Formation2000
TypeInternational Economic Treaty Organization
PurposeMultilateral 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]
Websitewww.oecd.org/tax/transparency/

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, the Forum had 163 member tax jurisdictions and the European Union, all on equal footing.[3]

Activities edit

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]

Exchange of Information on Request edit

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 

Automatic Exchange of Information edit

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:

  • Introduce domestic rules requiring their financial institutions to collect and report the data to be exchanges
  • Put in place international agreements with each if their partners to deliver the widespread networks necessary for automatic exchange
  • Put in place the technical solutions to link into the Common Transmission System (CTS) that was put in place by the OECD’s Forum on Tax Administration and managed by the Global Forum

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.

Budget edit

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]

History edit

Precursors edit

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]

Creation (2000) and first years edit

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 

Stepping-up of efforts after the financial crisis of 2007-08 edit

 
Leaders of the G-20 countries at the London Summit in 2009

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:

  1. 40 countries and territories substantially implemented the standard
  2. 38 countries and territories committed to but had not yet substantially implemented the standard
  3. 4 countries had not committed to the standard.

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:

  • Agree on restructuring the OECD Global Forum to expand its membership and ensure its members participate on an equal footing;
  • Agree on how to establish an in-depth peer review process to monitor and review progress made towards full and effective exchange of information; and
  • Identify mechanisms to speed-up the negotiation and conclusion of agreements to exchange information and to enable developing countries to benefit from the new more cooperative tax environment.[9]

Expansion of exchange of information edit

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.

 
  Member tax jurisdictions as of 2011
  Interest in membership as of 2011

Members and observers edit

Members edit

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

Observers edit

As of November 2019 there are 19 observers [1]

Compliance by country edit

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.

Exchange of Information on Request edit

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.

2013 Ratings edit

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

2015 Ratings edit

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:

Country/Region
  Albania
  Azerbaijan
  Botswana
  Brunei
  Burkina Faso
  Cameroon
  Dominica
  Dominican Republic
  El Salvador
  Gabon
  Georgia
  Kenya
  Lesotho
  Marshall Islands
  Mauritania
  Morocco
  Nigeria
  Niue
  Pakistan
  Panama
  Saudi Arabia
  Senegal
   Switzerland
  Uganda
  United Arab Emirates

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

2016 Ratings edit

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

2017 Ratings edit

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

2018 Ratings edit

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

Automated Exchange of Information edit

As of September 2023, 120 countries have committed to adopting the Common Reporting Standard:[28]

Jurisdiction Commitment to first exchanges Primary legislation Secondary legislation
  Albania 2021
  Andorra 2018
  Anguilla 2017
  Antigua and Barbuda 2018
  Argentina 2017
  Armenia 2025
  Aruba 2018
  Australia 2018
  Austria 2018
  Azerbaijan 2018
  Bahamas 2018
  Bahrain 2018
  Barbados 2018
  Belgium 2017
  Belize 2018
  Bermuda 2017
  Brazil 2018
  British Virgin Islands 2017
  Brunei Darussalam 2018
  Bulgaria 2017
  Canada 2018
  Cayman Islands 2017
  Chile 2018
  China (People's Republic of) 2018
  Colombia 2017
  Cook Islands 2018
  Costa Rica 2018
  Croatia 2017
  Curaçao 2018
  Cyprus 2017
  Czech Republic 2017
  Denmark 2017
  Dominica 2018
  Ecuador 2021
  Estonia 2017
  Faroe Islands 2017
  Finland 2017
  France 2017
  Georgia 2024
  Germany 2017
  Ghana 2019
  Gibraltar 2017
  Greece 2017
  Greenland 2018
  Grenada 2018
  Guernsey 2017
  Hong Kong (China) 2018
  Hungary 2017
  Iceland 2017
  India 2017
  Indonesia 2018
  Ireland 2017
  Isle of Man 2017
  Israel 2018
  Italy 2017
  Jamaica 2022
  Japan 2018
  Jersey 2017
  Jordan 2023
  Kazakhstan 2021
  Kenya 2024
  Korea 2017
  Kuwait 2019
  Latvia 2017
  Lebanon 2018
  Liechtenstein 2017
  Lithuania 2017
  Luxembourg 2017
  Macau (China) 2018
  Malaysia 2018
  Maldives 2022
  Malta 2017
  Marshall Islands 2018
  Mauritius 2018
  Mexico 2017
  Moldova 2024 ✔ and ✔
  Monaco 2018
  Mongolia 2026
  Montenegro 2023
  Montserrat 2017
  Morocco 2025
  Nauru 2018
  Netherlands 2017
  New Zealand 2018
  Nigeria 2020
  Niue 2018
  Norway 2017
  Oman 2020
  Pakistan 2018 ✔ and ✔
  Panama 2018
  Peru 2020
  Poland 2017
  Portugal 2017
  Qatar 2018
  Romania 2017
  Russian Federation 2018
  Rwanda 2025
  Saint Kitts and Nevis 2018
  Saint Lucia 2018
  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 2018
  Samoa 2018
  San Marino 2017
  Saudi Arabia 2018
  Seychelles 2017
  Singapore 2018
  Sint Maarten 2018
  Slovak Republic 2017
  Slovenia 2017
  South Africa 2017
  Spain 2017
  Sweden 2017
   Switzerland 2018
  Thailand 2023
  Trinidad and Tobago 2018
  Tunisia 2024
  Turkey 2018
  Turks and Caicos Islands 2017
  Uganda 2023
  Ukraine 2024
  United Arab Emirates 2018
  United Kingdom 2017
  Uruguay 2018
  Vanuatu 2018

See also edit

References edit

  1. ^ a b c d "Tax Transparency 2013 Report on Progress" (PDF). Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes. 2013. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 21, 2014. Retrieved 19 August 2014.
  2. ^ "About the Global Forum". GFTEITP. n.d. Retrieved 21 November 2015.
  3. ^ a b "Global Forum Members". Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information on Tax Purposes.
  4. ^ "Exchange of Information on Request". OECD Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes. n.d. Retrieved 7 May 2016.
  5. ^ Peer Review Group
  6. ^ "Four countries on OECD tax haven blacklist". Reuters. 2 April 2009. Retrieved 7 May 2016.
  7. ^ "OECD names and shames tax havens". BBC. 3 April 2009. Retrieved 7 May 2016.
  8. ^ Jane G. Gravelle (15 January 2015). "Tax Havens: International Tax Avoidance and Evasion" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. p. 60. Retrieved 7 May 2016.
  9. ^ a b "Summary of Outcomes of the Meeting of the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes Held in Mexico on 1 - 2 September 2009" (PDF). The Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes. p. 6. Retrieved 19 August 2014.
  10. ^ Harmful Tax Competition: An Emerging Global Issue (PDF). OECD. 1998. p. 82.
  11. ^ a b Shaxson, Nicholas (2011). Treasure Islands - Uncovering the Damage of Offshore Banking and Tax Havens. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-34172-2.
  12. ^ Watt, Nicholas; Elliott, Larry; Borger, Julian; Black, Ian (April 2, 2009). "G20 declares door shut on tax havens". The Guardian.
  13. ^ "A Progress Report on The Jurisdictions Surveyed by The OECD Global Forum in Implementing The Internationally Agreed Tax Standard" (PDF). OECD. 2 April 2009.
  14. ^ BBC (2009-04-07). "OECD removes tax havens from list". BBC News. Retrieved 2009-04-07.
  15. ^ Crispian Balmer (14 August 2009). "British Virgin Islands, Cayman on tax "white list"". Reuters. Retrieved 8 May 2016.
  16. ^ Clark, Andrew (2009-04-10). "Welcome to tax-dodge city, USA". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 2009-04-14.
  17. ^ Alexander Neubacher (11 April 2009). "The World's Shortest Blacklist: Why the Fight against Tax Havens Is a Sham". Der Spiegel. Retrieved 7 May 2016.
  18. ^ "Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters". OECD. n.d. Retrieved 21 November 2015.
  19. ^ Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information in Tax Matters. OECD. 21 July 2014. doi:10.1787/9789264216525-en. ISBN 9789264216518. Retrieved 7 May 2016.
  20. ^ "Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement (MCAA)". GFTEITP. Retrieved 21 November 2015.
  21. ^ "CRS status by jurisdiction".
  22. ^ "Model Mandatory Disclosure Rules for CRS Avoidance Arrangements and Opaque Offshore Structures".
  23. ^ "SIGNATORIES OF THE MULTILATERAL COMPETENT AUTHORITY AGREEMENT ON THE AUTOMATIC EXCHANGE REGARDING CRS AVOIDANCE ARRANGEMENTS AND OPAQUE OFFSHORE STRUCTURES" (PDF).
  24. ^ "Commitments to adoption of Digital Platforms Information" (PDF).
  25. ^ "Crypto-Assets Reporting Framework".
  26. ^ a b Global Forum: 2013 Annual Report Archived 2013-11-26 at the Wayback Machine
  27. ^ "Summary of Compliance Ratings". GFTEITP. Retrieved 20 November 2015.
  28. ^ "CRS status by juridiction".

External links edit

  • Official website
  • Exchange of Tax Information Portal