Reports

Citizenship and residency by investment (CBI/RBI) programmes are government-administered programmes that grant citizenship or residency to foreign investors by expediting or bypassing normal migration processes. These programmes can help spur economic growth through foreign direct investment, but they are also attractive to criminals and corrupt officials seeking to evade justice and launder the proceeds of crime reaching into the billions of dollars. This report highlights how CBI programmes can allow criminals more global mobility and help them hide their identity and criminal activities behind shell companies in other jurisdictions. It highlights the vulnerabilities of these complex and international investment migration programmes, including the frequent use of intermediaries, involvement of multiple government agencies, abuse by professional enablers and lack of proper governance of the CBI/RBI programmes. The report proposes measures and examples of good practice, that can help policy makers and those responsible for managing the investment migration programmes address these risks. These include an in-depth analysis and understanding of how criminals can exploit CBI or RBI programmes and incorporating risk mitigation measures, such as multi-layer due diligence, in the design of the investment migration programme.

The effective taxation of corporate profits is at the centre of an active public and academic debate. This debate is often focused on the extent of low-taxed profit of multinational enterprises (MNEs) in jurisdictions with low statutory tax rates or low average effective tax rates (ETRs). However, some affiliates in high tax jurisdictions may also be subject to low ETRs, due to tax incentives or other provisions. To date, a global accounting of the ETRs paid by MNEs that incorporates within-country heterogeneity has been missing. Using a new dataset on the global activities of large MNEs, this paper provides new estimates of the distribution of effective tax rates of large MNEs across and within jurisdictions. The results show that low tax profit is common, and that substantial low-taxed profit exists outside low tax jurisdictions. We estimate that high tax jurisdictions (jurisdictions with average ETRs of above 15%) account for more than half (53.2%) of global profits taxed below 15%, much more than very low tax jurisdictions (those with average ETRs below 5%) which only account for 18.7% of low-taxed profits. This suggests that an assessment of global low-taxed profit that focuses only on jurisdictions with low average ETRs could potentially miss out on more than half of global low-taxed profit.

This paper resents a measurement framework aiming to support the collection of comprehensive and internationally comparable quantitative and qualitative information on governmental innovation support programmes and instruments. It proposes a taxonomic system with definitions, classifications and reporting conventions aligned with OECD and other international standards. The framework is intended to support future OECD measurement efforts in this area and the analysis of innovation support portfolios within and across countries.

Members of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS have published more information concerning the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) than ever before, including MAP guidance, MAP Statistics, MAP profiles and Peer Review reports, all pursuant to the BEPS Action 14 Minimum Standard. However, this information is available in different places, so taxpayers and other competent authorities must seek out this information for each jurisdiction separately. Accordingly, the FTA MAP Forum has decided to summarise and consolidate published information concerning MAP for all member jurisdictions of the Inclusive Framework on BEPS in a single publication containing Consolidated Information on Mutual Agreement Procedures for 2023. This report provides stakeholders with an overview of each jurisdiction’s MAP policy and practices in a clear and simple manner. For each jurisdiction, the Consolidated Information on Mutual Agreement Procedures contains: recent developments relevant to MAP, a brief overview of the MAP provisions contained in its tax treaties, the contact details and organisation of the competent authority, links to published information on MAP, and an overview of the jurisdiction’s MAP statistics for the previous year.

This peer review report analyses the practical implementation of the standard of transparency and exchange of information on request in Poland, as part of the second round of reviews conducted by the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes since 2016.

This supplementary peer review report analyses the practical implementation of the standard of transparency and exchange of information on request in Dominica, as part of the second round of reviews conducted by the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes since 2016.

This supplementary peer review report analyses the practical implementation of the standard of transparency and exchange of information on request in Botswana, as part of the second round of reviews conducted by the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes since 2016.

This peer review report analyses the practical implementation of the standard of transparency and exchange of information on request in Pakistan, as part of the second round of reviews conducted by the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes since 2016.

Ce rapport d'évaluation par les pairs analyse la mise en œuvre de la norme de transparence et d'échange de renseignements sur demande en Mauritanie, dans le cadre du deuxième cycle d'examens menés par le Forum mondial sur la transparence et l'échange de renseignements à des fins fiscales depuis 2016. En raison de l'expérience pratique limitée de la Mauritanie en matière d'échange de renseignements sur demande, et conformément à la méthodologie des examens par les pairs et des examens des non-membres, le rapport évalue uniquement le cadre juridique de la juridiction. L'évaluation de la mise en œuvre pratique de ce cadre fera l'objet d'un futur examen de phase 2.