Misplaced Pages

Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Misplaced Pages's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Misplaced Pages's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. (January 2020)
This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources.
Find sources: "Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (May 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
(Learn how and when to remove this message)
International body focused on anti-tax evasion and exchange of information
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
Membership157 member jurisdictions and the European Union, with 19 observers
ChairMaria-José Garde
Chair of PEER Review groupHuey Min Chia-Tern
Head of the Global Forum SecretariatManatta Zayda
Key peopleFrançois d'Aubert (past Chair)
Parent organizationOECD
Budget€3.9 million (2013)
Revenuefixed annual fee of €15,300 per member and a progressive fee determined by scale in accordance with jurisdictions’ Gross National Product.
Staff27
Websitewww.oecd.org/tax/transparency/

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

Activities

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.

Exchange of Information on Request

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.

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, the BBC and the Congressional Research Service.

Automatic Exchange of Information

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

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.

History

Precursors

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. 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.

Creation (2000) and first years

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.

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.

Stepping-up of efforts after the 2007–2008 financial crisis

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

The activities against tax havens were only expanded after the 2007–2008 financial crisis. 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". 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. 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. 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. 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. Der Spiegel called the list "The World's Shortest Blacklist" and "the Fight against Tax Havens Is a Sham".

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.

Expansion of exchange of information

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. 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. In 2013, a working group was formed to promote the automated exchange of tax information.

In July 2014, the Forum published standards for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information, commonly known as the Common Reporting Standard (CRS).

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. By 2023, more than 120 countries had made commitments to adopt the rules.

In 2018, the OECD has published Model Mandatory Disclosure Rules for CRS Avoidance Arrangements and Opaque Offshore Structures. 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, 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.

In 2022, the OECD agreed the Crypto-Assets Reporting Framework for the exchange of information on transactions in cryptocurrencies and other digital assets. 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

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:

Tax jurisdictions

Observers

As of November 2019 there are 19 observers

Compliance by country

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

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

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.

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).

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

As of October 31, 2015 the ratings were as follows: 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

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

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

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

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

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

References

  1. ^ "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. ^ "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. ^ "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. ^ 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. ^ 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

Categories: