By Date

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

Fiscal equalisation and regional development policies have often been perceived as separate policy fields. As a result, little is known about their potential interactions and implications for economic growth and welfare. This working paper reviews the two policies, explores the potential for enhanced synergies between the two, and proposes a theoretical framework linking them. The latter, which has not been empirically tested yet, posits that if regional development policies are correctly designed and implemented, their success should result in a drop of income disparities. Coupled with good governance practices and a framework that clearly allocates responsibilities among levels of government, more equal jurisdictions would find it easier to provide similar levels of services with comparable tax rates across the country. Therefore, whilst correctly designed and implemented fiscal equalisation policies remain a tool to patch gaps that may occur due to the shifting variety of revenue potential and spending needs of subnational entities, the need and the size of fiscal equalisation transfers could be significantly reduced if regional development policies in place are effective. This working paper concludes with a discussion on the benefits and challenges of enhancing synergies between the two policies, opening the door for future in-depth research.

In the mining sector, government revenue is typically generated by levying royalties and income taxes on the value of the mineral extracted. However, due to the frequency and scale of related party transactions, the potential risk to tax revenues posed by transfer pricing non-compliance can be high, particularly around the value of the extracted minerals. This toolkit provides practical and meaningful guidance for developing countries to determine the price of minerals sold to related parties using the arm’s length principle. It offers a framework on how to use transfer pricing principles to apply the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method, including identifying the primary economic factors that influence the price of minerals ('mineral pricing framework') to ensure that developing countries are able to tax mineral exports appropriately. It also includes simplified administrative approaches to pricing mineral sales that could reduce the administrative burden for developing countries.

In the mining sector, government revenue depends on mineral products being priced and measured accurately. This can be especially complex for semi-processed minerals such as bauxite, which is ultimately used in the aluminum value chain. The schedule presented in this report applies the mineral pricing framework – as documented in the joint OECD/IGF work Determining the Price of Minerals: A Transfer Pricing Framework – to identify the primary economic factors that influence the price of bauxite in applying the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method and ensure that developing countries are able to tax mineral exports appropriately. It also provides worked examples on how to accurately apply the mineral pricing framework to bauxite.

This annual publication compiles comparable tax revenue and non-tax revenue statistics for 33 countries in Africa: Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cameroon, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eswatini, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Togo, Tunisia and Uganda. The report extends the well-established methodology on the classification of public revenues set out in the OECD Interpretative Guide to African countries, thereby enabling comparison of tax levels and tax structures not only across the continent but also with the OECD, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Asia and the Pacific. Data on African countries presented in this publication are also included in the OECD’s Global Revenue Statistics database, which is a fundamental reference for analysis of domestic resource mobilisation. This edition includes a special feature on the VAT Digital Toolkit for Africa. The publication is jointly undertaken by the OECD Centre for Tax Policy and Administration, the OECD Development Centre, the African Union Commission (AUC) and the African Tax Administration Forum (ATAF), with the financial support of the European Union. SPECIAL FEATURE: VAT DIGITAL TOOLKIT FOR AFRICA

This report addresses housing inequities through a series of analytical chapters and case studies. The cross-country chapters examine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on housing demand, develop a proposal for a green land value tax, evaluate the dynamics between fiscal autonomy and housing supply responsiveness, as well as explore the drivers of inter-regional migration. The case studies unravel the changes of Korea's progressive national property tax and a programme to address regional imbalances, assess the impact of the US property tax system on housing, dive into Norway's property taxation in relation to inequality, as well as survey Belgium's approaches to housing policy. With a blend of empirical data and critical analysis, the report underscores the pressing need for comprehensive strategies in addressing housing inequities. It also offers insights for policymakers and scholars, highlighting the complex balance between national and local housing policies.