THE GLOBAL FORUM ON TRANSPARENCY AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION FOR TAX

PURPOSES








THE GLOBAL FORUM ON TRANSPARENCY AND EXCHANGE OF
INFORMATION FOR TAX PURPOSES



INFORMATION BRIEF

16 April 2012










For more information please contact:
Pascal Saint-Amans, OECD Centre for Tax Policy and Administration Director (HHUUpascal.saint-
[email protected])
2



THE GLOBAL FORUM ON TRANSPARENCY AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION FOR
TAX PURPOSES
The Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes (the Global
Forum) met in Paris on 25-26 October 2011 and adopted a report to the G20 on the progress it has made in
ensuring the implementation of the international standard in tax cooperation. The integral text of the report
is available as part of the Global Forums annual report, Tax Transparency 2011: Report on Progress (the
full text of annual report can be found at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/52/35/48981620.pdf).
Who
The Global Forum comprises 108 member jurisdictions plus the European Union and 9 international
organisations as observers. (See Annex I for a list of members and observers).
What
The Global Forum is mandated to ensure that all jurisdictions adhere to the same high standard of
international cooperation in tax matters. The transparency and exchange of information standard is set
down in the Terms of Reference, agreed by the Global Forum in 2009. (See Annex II for a summary of the
Terms of Reference).
Why
International cooperation in tax matters is crucial to ensuring the administration and enforcement of
countries tax laws as cross border tax evasion becomes easier with the liberalization of financial markets.
The G20 has long been a strong proponent of the Global Forums work. In 2008 and 2009, in the wake of
the global financial crisis, the G20 Leaders called on the Global Forum to help secure the integrity of the
financial system through the uniform implementation of high standards of transparency. (See Annex III for
the latest statements by the G20 Leaders).
When
The Global Forum was fundamentally restructured at its meeting in Mexico in September 2009 to
create an inclusive, truly global organisation where all of its members participate on an equal footing.
Since then the Global Forum has met in Singapore (September 2010), Bermuda (May 2011) and Paris
(October 2011). The Global Forums next meeting will be in South Africa in October 2012. (See Annex IV
for the Statement of Outcomes of the latest meeting in Paris).
How
The Global Forum ensures that high standards are met through a comprehensive, rigorous and robust
peer review process conducted by teams of expert, independent assessors and overseen by a 30 member
Peer Review Group chaired by Mr. Franois DAubert (France). (See Annex V for a description of the peer
review process.) The work of the Global Forum is guided by an 18 member Steering Group chaired by Mr.
Mike Rawstron (Australia).
3

Achievements to Date
Since the Global Forum was restructured in 2009:
More than 700 agreements that provide for the exchange of information in tax matters to the
standard have been signed
91 peer reviews launched
70 peer review reports have been completed and published (See Annex IV peer review reports
adopted and published for a list of the peer review reports adopted so far.)
446 recommendations have been made for jurisdictions to improve their ability to cooperate in tax
matters (See Annex VI for a breakdown of what areas the recommendations relate to and how
jurisdictions have fared so far.)
37(+) jurisdictions have already introduced or proposed changes to their laws to implement the
standard
Continuous support by the G20, with 4 progress reports sent, including 2 provided for the G20
Leaders Summit in Cannes, France in November 2011 one report on the progress made in the
peer reviews and one on how the Global Forum can help developing countries combat the erosion
of their tax bases.
2 pilot projects launched with developing countries Ghana and Kenya, and a platform to
coordinate technical assistance to developing countries.

FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE VISIT THE GLOBAL FORUM WEBSITE:
WWW.OECD.ORG/TAX/TRANSPARENCY AND EOI PORTAL: WWW.EOI-TAX.ORG.
4

ANNEX I:
MEMBERS AND OBSERVERS OF THE GLOBAL FORUM



Andorra Jersey (4)


Anguilla (1) Kenya


Antigua and Barbuda Korea

Latvia


Argentina Liberia


Aruba (2) Liechtenstein

Lithuania


Australia Luxembourg


Austria Macau, China


The Bahamas Malaysia


Bahrain Malta


Barbados Marshall Islands


Belgium Mauritania


Belize Mauritius


Bermuda (1) Mexico


Botswana Monaco


Brazil Montserrat (1)


British Virgin Islands (1) Morocco


Brunei Darussalam Nauru


Canada Netherlands


Cayman Islands (1) New Zealand


Chile Nigeria


China Niue (3)


Colombia Norway

5


Cook Islands (3) Panama


Costa Rica Philippines


Curaao (2) Poland


Cyprus (6) Portugal


Czech Republic Qatar


Denmark Russian Federation


Dominica St. Kitts and Nevis


El Salvador St. Lucia


Estonia Sint Maarten (2)


Finland
St. Vincent and the
Grenadines

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
(FYROM)
Samoa


France San Marino


Georgia Saudi Arabia


Germany Seychelles


Ghana Singapore


Gibraltar (1) Slovak Republic


Greece Slovenia


Grenada South Africa


Guatemala Spain


Guernsey (4) Sweden


Hong Kong, China Switzerland


Hungary Trinidad and Tobago

Tunisia


Iceland Turkey


India Turks and Caicos Islands (1)


Indonesia United Arab Emirates

6


Ireland United Kingdom


Isle of Man (4) United States


Israel
United States Virgin Islands
(5)


Italy Uruguay


Jamaica Vanuatu


Japan European Union


Footnotes

1. Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom.
2. Aruba, Curaao and Sint Maarten are constituent countries of the Kingdom of the
Netherlands.
3. Fully self-governing country in free association with New Zealand.
4. Dependency of the British Crown.
5. External Territory of the United States.
6. - Note by Turkey:
The information on this web page with reference to Cyprus relates to the southern part of
the Island. There is no single authority representing both Turkish and
Greek Cypriot people on the Island. Turkey recognises the Turkish Republic of Northern
Cyprus (TRNC). Until a lasting and equitable solution is found within the context of United
Nations, Turkey shall preserve its position concerning the Cyprus issue.
- Note by all the European Union member states of the OECD and the European Commission:
The Republic of Cyprus is recognised by all members of the United Nations with the exception
of Turkey. The information on this web page relates to the area under the effective control of
the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.

OBSERVERS OF THE GLOBAL FORUM
ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION
COMMONWEALTH SECRETARIAT INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
EUROPEAN BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION
AND DEVELOPMENT
UNITED NATIONS
EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK WORLD BANK
INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK


7

ANNEX II: THE TERMS OF REFERENCE
The Terms of Reference is available in full in the Key Documents section of the Global Forum
website: www.oecd.org/tax/transparency and EOI portal: www.eoi-tax.org. Below is a summary of the
key points.
The Terms of Reference
The standard of transparency and exchange of information that have been developed by the OECD are
primarily contained in the Article 26 of the OECD Model Tax Convention and the 2002 Model Agreement
on Exchange of Information on Tax Matters. The standard strikes a balance between privacy and the need
for jurisdictions to enforce their tax laws. They require:
Exchange of information on request where it is foreseeably relevant to the administration and
enforcement of the domestic laws of the treaty partner.
No restrictions on exchange caused by bank secrecy or domestic tax interest requirements.
Availability of reliable information and powers to obtain it.
Respect for taxpayers rights.
Strict confidentiality of information exchanged.
The Terms of Reference developed by the Peer Review Group and agreed by the Global Forum break
these standards down into 10 essential elements against which jurisdictions are reviewed.
THE 10 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF TRANSPARENCY AND
EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION FOR TAX PURPOSES
A AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION
A.1. Jurisdictions should ensure that ownership and identity information for all relevant
entities and arrangements is available to their competent authorities.
A.2. Jurisdictions should ensure that reliable accounting records are kept for all relevant
entities and arrangements.
A.3. Banking information should be available for all account-holders.
B ACCESS TO INFORMATION
B.1. Competent authorities should have the power to obtain and provide information that is
the subject of a request under an EOI agreement from any person within their territorial
jurisdiction who is in possession or control of such information.
B.2. The rights and safeguards that apply to persons in the requested jurisdiction should
be compatible with effective exchange of information.
C EXCHANGING INFORMATION
C.1. EOI mechanisms should provide for effective exchange of information.
C.2. The jurisdictions network of information exchange mechanisms should cover all
relevant partners.
8












C.3. The jurisdictions mechanisms for exchange of information should have adequate
provisions to ensure the confidentiality of information received.
C.4. The exchange of information mechanisms should respect the rights and safeguards of
taxpayers and third parties.
C.5. The jurisdiction should provide information under its network of agreements in a timely
manner.
9

ANNEX III:
CHRONOLOGY OF G7/G8/G20 SUPPORT FOR THE GLOBAL FORUMS WORK ON
TRANSPARENCY AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION
G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors Declaration
Mexico City, Mexico 25-26 February 2012

We look forward to a report to our Leaders by the Global Forum on Transparency and
Exchange of Information on progress made and on a new set of reviews. We call upon all
countries to join the Global Forum on transparency and to sign on the Multilateral Convention
on Mutual Assistance. We call for an interim report and update by the OECD on necessary
steps to improve comprehensive information exchange, including automatic exchange of
information and, together with the FATF, on steps taken to prevent the misuse of corporate
vehicles and improve interagency cooperation in the fight against illicit activities.


G20 Leaders Declaration
Cannes, France Summit 3-4 November 2011

In the tax area, we welcome the progress made and we urge all the jurisdictions to take the
necessary actions to tackle the deficiencies identified in the course of the reviews by the
Global Forum, in particular the 11 jurisdictions identified by the Global Forum whose
framework has failed to qualify. We underline the importance of comprehensive tax
information exchange and encourage work in the Global Forum to define the means to
improve it.

G 20 Leaders Declaration
Seoul, Summit 11-12 November 2010

The Global Forum to swiftly progress its Phase 1 and 2 reviews to achieve the objective
agreed by Leaders in Toronto and report progress by November 2011. Reviewed jurisdictions
identified as not having the elements in place to achieve an effective exchange of information
should promptly address the weaknesses. We urge all jurisdictions to stand ready to conclude
Tax Information Exchange Agreements where requested by a relevant partner.

G 20 Leaders Statement
Toronto, Canada 26-27 June 2010

We fully support the work of the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of
Information for Tax Purposes, and welcomed progress on their peer review process, and the
development of a multilateral mechanism for information exchange which will be open to all
interested countries. Since our meeting in London in April 2009, the number of signed tax
information agreements has increased by almost 500. We encourage the Global Forum to
report to Leaders by November 2011 on progress countries have made in addressing the legal
framework required to achieve an effective exchange of information. ..We stand ready to use
countermeasures against tax havens.

G20 Leaders Communiqu: The Global Plan for Recovery and Reform
10

London, U.K. 2 April 2009

[W]e agreeto take action against non-cooperative jurisdictions, including tax
havensWe note that the OECD has today published a list of countries assessed by the
Global Forum against the international standard for exchange of tax information

G20 Declaration: Strengthening the Financial System
London, U.K. 2 April 2009

We stand ready to take agreed action against those jurisdictions which do not meet
international standards in relation to tax transparency.

We are committed to developing proposals, by end 2009, to make it easier for
developing countries to secure the benefits of a new cooperative tax environment.
11


ANNEX IV: STATEMENT OF OUTCOMES PARIS 26 OCTOBER 2011



1. On 25-26 October 2011, over 250 delegates from 84 jurisdictions and 9 international
organisations and regional groups came together at the fourth meeting of the Global Forum on
Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes (the Global Forum) in Paris (Annex 1
provides a list of participants). The Global Forum welcomed El Salvador, Mauritania, Morocco, and
Trinidad and Tobago as new members, increasing the membership of the Global Forum to 105
jurisdictions.
2. The Global Forum adopted and published 13 peer review reports and 5 supplementary reports
which are the latest results of its intensive peer review program. It also adopted a Progress Report which
will be submitted to the G20 for its Summit in Cannes on 3-4 November. The Report discloses
jurisdictions' quality of co-operation with the Forum, their level of compliance with the international
standard on tax transparency, and highlights deficiencies in respect of the implementation of the standard.
It shows unprecedented progress towards improving transparency and a high level of co-operation by
Global Forum members. It also recognises that further progress needs to be made with action to be taken to
address the recommendations made to the reviewed jurisdictions.
3. Responding to a call from the G20 Development Working Group, the Global Forum will serve as
a platform to facilitate co-ordination of assistance to support the effectiveness of information exchange
provided to its members, in particular to developing jurisdictions. It also adopted guidelines on the best
way to conduct technical assistance. Two pilot projects with Ghana and Kenya will test the usefulness
of the guidelines.
4. The main outcomes of the meeting which were agreed by delegates are set out below.
Membership and Governance
5. The Global Forum welcomed four new members: El Salvador, Mauritania, Morocco and Trinidad
and Tobago. With its 105 jurisdictions, the Global Forum is the largest tax group in the world, moving
forward as one to ensure a global level playing field for transparency and exchange of information for tax
purposes. The Global Forum took note of the commitments expressed by Latvia, Lithuania and Romania to
join it in 2012 and the fact that Lebanon has recently engaged with the Global Forum. It is expected that a
number of other countries from Asia and Africa will join in 2012. The Global Forums engagement with
relevant international and regional organisations has similarly deepened and it will now also engage with
the World Customs Organisation.
6. At its meeting in Bermuda in May, the Global Forum requested its Steering Group to formulate a
mechanism to ensure the governance of the Global Forum is both stable and representative of the
membership. As a result, three new members were elected to the Steering Group Kenya, Spain and the
United Arab Emirates - and the meeting endorsed a proposal for a system of rotation to be implemented in
2013.
12

Reporting to the G20 on Progress with the Peer Reviews
7. The Global Forum adopted and published an additional 13 peer review reports (i.e. the combined
reviews of Japan, Jersey, the Netherlands and Spain, and the Phase 1 reviews of Brunei, the Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Gibraltar, Hong Kong China, Indonesia, Macao China, Malaysia,
Uruguay and Vanuatu, bringing the total number of published reports to 59 (see Annex 2 for a complete
list of the jurisdictions whose reports have been published to date). A further 5 supplementary reports - for
Mauritius, Monaco, San Marino, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the Virgin Islands (British) - were
adopted and published as well. In addition, member jurisdictions reported on recent developments in their
jurisdictions regarding exchange of information for tax purposes and had a useful discussion on the peer
review process.
8. At their summit in Seoul in November 2010, the G20 Leaders invited the Global Forum to report
on progress made with respect to international tax transparency. This week the Global Forum adopted a
Progress Report that will be delivered to the G20 Leaders meeting at their Summit in Cannes on 3-4
November 2011. Based on the outcomes of the 59 peer reviews and 7 supplementary reviews completed so
far, the report identifies the quality of these jurisdictions' co-operation with the Global Forum, their level of
compliance with the international standard on tax transparency, and highlights deficiencies in
implementation of the standard. It shows a high level of co-operation by its members and unprecedented
progress made towards improving transparency.
Technical Assistance
9. The G20 Leaders Development Working Group (DWG) requested the Global Forum to
"enhance its work to counter the erosion of developing countries' tax bases and, in particular, to highlight
in its report the relationship between the work on non-cooperative jurisdictions and development". The
Global Forum submitted an outline of its report to the DWG for discussion at its meeting in Cape Town, on
2 July, and the final report Working with Developing Countries was provided to the DWG in early
September. The Global Forum heard an update on the G20 process related to developing countries and on
the positive way in which the report from the Global Forum was received by the DWG. This report will be
considered by the G20 at its Summit in Cannes on 3-4 November.
10. Representatives from DFID, the IMF, World Bank and the OECD Task Force on Tax and
Development provided an update on co-operation with the Global Forum and the demand for technical
assistance in relation to transparency and exchange of information. The Global Forum reaffirmed its
commitment to serve as a platform to facilitate the co-ordination of technical assistance and the Steering
Group will oversee a new mechanism to make sure that technical assistance requests are appropriately
responded to.
11. The Global Forum welcomed the commencement of two important pilot projects, funded by the
UK Department for International Development (DFID), under which it will facilitate the co-ordination of
assistance to Ghana and Kenya to help them build capacity and reinforce the legal infrastructure necessary
for tax transparency and international co-operation.
Global Forum Annual Report
12. The Global Forum adopted its 2011 Annual Report Tax Transparency, 2011: Report on
Progress in a new format. This report provides an overview of the progress made by countries, as
reflected in the peer review reports. It draws upon the extensive work undertaken to prepare detailed
reports to the G20 on the Global Forums progress and on issues of relevance for developing countries.
The Global Forums 2011 Annual Report will be published on 4 November, following the G20 Leaders
summit.
13

Competent Authorities
13. Following the discussion at its previous meeting in Bermuda, Global Forum members decided to
organise a meeting of competent authorities in charge of international exchange of information to enhance
their co-operation through the Global Forum. It agreed that a meeting where competent authorities can
exchange views on issues they have encountered and best practices would assist in ensuring effective
exchange of information in practice. A meeting of competent authorities will be organised in conjunction
with a Peer Review Group meeting in May 2012 in Paris. This dialogue may address ways to improve
effectiveness of comprehensive exchange of information and include discussion of experiences in
obtaining past information and in using all forms of exchange of information.
Budget
14. An intermediate financial report for 2011 was considered and the Global Forum adopted a
revised budget for 2012 which maintains members contributions for 2012 at the same level as originally
anticipated. A number of Global Forum members and observers are making voluntary financial
contributions and assisting by seconding staff to the Global Forum Secretariat. India announced it will
make a 300 000 euro voluntary contribution to the Global Forum and the Cayman Islands and Germany
proposed to provide secondees to the Secretariat.
Next Steps
15. After hearing an update on the fulfilment of the current mandate and on work which remains to
be done, the Global Forum began its consideration of the future direction of the work of the Global Forum.
It was agreed that the focus now will be on successfully completing Phase 2 reviews to assess the
implementation of the standard in practice. It was also agreed to extend the Global Forums current
mandate until the end of 2015, in order to allow for commitments to the expenditure of funds to be made
beyond 2012 when the current mandate expires. A more substantive discussion and on the future direction
of the work will occur in 2012.
16. The Global Forum agreed that its next meeting will take place in October 2012 and thanked the
South African government for its kind offer to host that meeting.
14

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS AT GLOBAL FORUM MEETING
PARIS, 25-26 OCTOBER 2011
Andorra; Antigua and Barbuda; Argentina; Australia; Austria; The Bahamas; Bahrain; Barbados; Belgium;
Bermuda; Brazil; Brunei Darussalam; Canada; the Cayman Islands; Chile; Colombia; Cook Islands; Costa
Rica; Cyprus; the Czech Republic; Denmark; El Salvador; Estonia; Finland; France; Germany; Ghana;
Gibraltar; Greece; Guernsey; Hong Kong, China; Hungary; India; Indonesia; Ireland; Isle of Man; Israel;
Italy; Japan; Jersey; Kenya; the Republic of Korea; Liberia; Liechtenstein; Luxembourg; Macao, China;
Malaysia; Malta; Marshall Islands; Mauritius; Mexico; Monaco; Morocco; the Netherlands; Nigeria;
Norway; Panama; the People's Republic of China; the Philippines; Poland; Portugal; Qatar; the Russian
Federation; Saint Kitts and Nevis; Samoa; San Marino; the Seychelles; Singapore; Sint Maarten; the
Slovak Republic; Slovenia; South Africa; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; Trinidad and Tobago; Turkey; the
Turks and Caicos Islands; the United Arab Emirates; the United Kingdom; the United States; Uruguay;
Vanuatu; the Virgin Islands (British).

African Tax Administration Forum (ATAF); European Commission (EC); European Investment Bank
(EIB); Financial Action Task Force of South America (GAFISUD); Inter-American Center of Tax
Administrations (CIAT); International Monetary Fund (IMF); Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD); United Nations (UN); World Bank (together with the International Finance
Corporation).

15

PEER REVIEW REPORTS ADOPTED AND PUBLISHED
Jurisdiction Type of review Publication date
Andorra Phase 1 12 September 2011
Anguilla Phase 1 12 September 2011
Antigua and Barbuda Phase 1 12 September 2011
Aruba Phase 1 14 April 2011
Australia Combined (Phase 1 and Phase 2) 28 January 2011
Austria Phase 1 12 September 2011
The Bahamas Phase 1 14 April 2011
Bahrain Phase 1 12 September 2011
Barbados
Phase 1 28 January 2011
Supplementary 5 April 2012
Belgium
Phase 1 14 April 2011
Supplementary 12 September 2011
Bermuda
Phase 1 30 September 2010
Supplementary 5 April 2012
Botswana Phase 1 30 September 2010
Brazil Phase 1 5 April 2012
Brunei Darussalam Phase 1 26 October 2011
Canada Combined (Phase 1 and Phase 2) 14 April 2011
The Cayman Islands
Phase 1 30 September 2010
Supplementary 12 September 2011
Chile Phase 1 5 April 2012
Costa Rica Pha 1 5 April 2012
Curacao Phase 1 12 September 2011
Cyprus Phase 1 5 April 2012
Czech Republic Phase 1 5 April 2012
Denmark Combined (Phase 1 and Phase 2) 28 January 2011
Estonia Phase 1 14 April 2011
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Phase 1 26 October 2011
France Combined (Phase 1 and Phase 2) 1 June 2011
Germany Combined (Phase 1 and Phase 2) 14 April 2011
Ghana Phase 1 14 April 2011
Gibraltar Phase 1 26 October 2011
Guatemala Phase 1 5 April 2012
16

Jurisdiction Type of review Publication date
Guernsey Phase 1 28 January 2011
Hong Kong, China Phase 1 26 October 2011
Hungary Phase 1 1 June 2011
India Phase 1 30 September 2010
Indonesia Phase 1 26 October 2011
Ireland Combined (Phase 1 and Phase 2) 28 January 2011
The Isle of Man Combined (Phase 1 and Phase 2) 1 June 2011
Italy Combined (Phase 1 and Phase 2) 1 June 2011
Jamaica Phase 1 30 September 2010
Japan Combined (Phase 1 and Phase 2) 26 October 2011
Jersey Combined (Phase 1 and Phase 2) 26 October 2011
Korea Combined (Phase 1 and Phase 2) 5 April 2012
Liechtenstein Phase 1 12 September 2011
Luxembourg Phase 1 12 September 2011
Macao, China Phase 1 26 October 2011
Malaysia Phase 1 26 October 2011
Malta Phase 1 5 April 2012
Mauritius
Combined (Phase 1 and Phase 2) 28 January 2011
Supplementary 26 October 2011
Mexico Phase 1 5 April 2012
Monaco
Phase 1 30 September 2010
Supplementary 26 October 2011
The Netherlands Combined (Phase 1 and Phase 2) 26 October 2011
New Zealand Combined (Phase 1 and Phase 2) 1 June 2011
Norway Combined (Phase 1 and Phase 2) 28 January 2011
Panama Phase 1 30 September 2010
The Philippines Phase 1 1 June 2011
Qatar Phase 1 30 September 2010
Supplementary 5 April 2012
Saint Kitts and Nevis Phase 1 12 September 2011
San Marino
Phase 1 28 January 2011
Supplementary 26 October 2011
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Phase 1 5 April 2012
The Seychelles Phase 1 28 January 2011
Singapore Phase 1 1 June 2011
Slovak Republic Phase 1 5 April 2012
Spain Combined (Phase 1 and Phase 2) 26 October 2011
Switzerland Phase 1 1 June 2011
Trinidad and Tobago Phase 1 28 January 2011
17

Jurisdiction Type of review Publication date
The Turks and Caicos Islands
Phase 1
Supplementary
12 September 2011
26 October 2011
The United Kingdom Combined (Phase 1 and Phase 2) 12 September 2011
The United States Combined (Phase 1 and Phase 2) 1 June 2011
Uruguay Phase 1 26 October 2011
Vanuatu Phase 1 26 October 2011
The Virgin Islands (British)
Phase 1 12 September 2011
Supplementary 26 October 2011


18

ANNEX V:
PEER REVIEWS: THE PROCESS
All members of the Global Forum, as well as jurisdictions identified by the Global Forum as relevant
to its work, will undergo reviews of their systems for the exchange of information in tax matters. The peer
review process is overseen by the 30 member Peer Review Group, which is chaired by France, assisted by
four vice-chairs (India, Japan, Singapore and Jersey).
The members of the PRG are:
Composition of the Global Forum Peer Review Group
France (Chair) India (Vice-Chair) Japan (Vice-Chair) Singapore (Vice-Chair) Jersey (Vice-Chair)
Argentina Australia Brazil British Virgin Islands Cayman Islands
China Germany Ireland Isle of Man Italy
Denmark Korea Luxembourg Malaysia Malta
Mauritius Mexico St. Kitts and Nevis Samoa South Africa
Switzerland The Bahamas The Netherlands United Kingdom United States

The PRG has developed the key documents for the peer review process, which were adopted by the
Global Forum at the beginning of 2010. These are:
Methodology for Peer Reviews and Non-Member Reviews;
Terms of Reference to Monitor and Review Progress Towards Transparency and Exchange
of Information;
Note on Assessment Criteria; and
Schedule of Reviews.
These documents are included in the Global Forum publication implementing the Tax Transparency
Standards - A Handbook for Assessors and Jurisdictions and also available on the Global Forum web site
at www.oecd.org/tax/transparency and EOI portal: www.eoi-tax.org.
Assessment Criteria
Phase 1 reviews include a determination of whether each element is in place, in place, but certain
aspects of the legal implementation of the element need improvement, or not in place. Phase 2 and
combined reviews will include a rating as to whether the jurisdiction is compliant, largely compliant,
partially compliant, or not compliant with each of these elements in practice. In addition, an overall
rating will be assigned. It will be necessary to complete Phase 2 reviews for a subset of jurisdictions
representing a geographic and economic cross-section of the Global Forum before finalising ratings, in
order to ensure that application of the ratings system is consistent across jurisdictions. This is because the
ratings determination is likely to require some comparative perspective, without which early ratings may
not be consistent.
19

The Schedule of Reviews
The Schedule of Reviews sets out the timeline in accordance with which all members and non-
members considered to be relevant to the Global Forums work will be reviewed. By the end of 2011,
reviews will have been completed or be well underway for 80 of the Global Forums members. Most of
these reviews will be Phase 1 reviews of the legal and regulatory framework, and some will be combined
Phase 1 and 2 reviews that also cover the practical aspects of exchange of information.
Methodology
Reviews are undertaken by assessment teams which prepare a report on the reviewed jurisdiction.
Assessment teams normally consist of two expert assessors drawn from member jurisdictions who act in an
independent capacity. One member of the Global Forum Secretariat is also appointed to coordinate each
review.
Based on a two phase model, each of the Peer Reviews includes an assessment of the jurisdictions
legal and regulatory framework (Phase 1) as well as assessing the application of the standards in practice
(Phase 2), against the 10 elements. Most jurisdictions commence with a Phase 1 review which is followed
about 18-24 months later by a Phase 2 review. Combined Phase 1 and Phase 2 reviews are being
undertaken in a limited number of cases. A Phase 1 review includes an examination of the domestic laws
as well as the jurisdictions agreements for the exchange of information. A Phase 1 review takes 20 weeks
to complete, at which point the assessment teams report is provided to the PRG members for their
consideration.
A Phase 2 review focuses on the effectiveness of exchange of information. Even if satisfactory
international instruments are in place together with a sound domestic legal framework, the effectiveness of
exchange of information will depend on the practice of the competent authorities. To properly assess this
practical aspect, the assessment team conducts an on-site visit, to allow a meaningful review of the
treatment of requests, as well as the reliability of the information exchanged and the effectiveness of
internal processes. Each Phase 2 review takes about 26 weeks before the report is circulated to the PRG
members for their consideration. A combined Phase 1 and 2 review lasts about 30 weeks.
In addition to the information supplied to the assessment team by the jurisdiction itself, all Global
Forum members are invited to provide input into the review process. For a Phase 1 review, all Global
Forum members are invited to indicate any issue that they would like to see raised and discussed during the
evaluation. Prior to the commencement of the Phase 2 review, members with an EOI relationship with the
reviewed jurisdiction are again invited to provide comments, using a Peer Questionnaire. This takes a
standard format, requiring input on the quality of the exchange of information relationship with the
reviewed jurisdiction.
The aim of the Global Forum is to ensure that all jurisdictions fully implement the international
standards on transparency and exchange of information. The reports adopted so far by the Global Forum
have identified a number of deficiencies regarding the implementation of the standards and have made
recommendations for improvement. It is essential to ensuring the credibility and relevance of the Global
Forum, that it is able to take into account actions taken by jurisdictions to respond to the recommendations
made. Accordingly, the Global Forum adopted a Revised Methodology in May 2011. Jurisdictions are now
able to request that a supplemental report be conducted to evaluate changes they have made to their
systems for exchange of information. Seven such supplementary reports are already adopted by the Global
Forum. The assessed jurisdictions are required to provide intermediary/ yearly reports to Global Forum
which enables it to monitor the developments in these jurisdictions.
Reviews of Non-members
Review of non-members of the Global Forum will occur in a manner similar to reviews of members to
the greatest extent possible. The purpose of a review of a non-member jurisdiction is to prevent
jurisdictions from gaining a competitive advantage by refusing to implement the standards or participate in
the work of the Global Forum. When a non-member jurisdiction is to be reviewed, the jurisdiction will first
20

be invited to become a member of the Global Forum. Even if the jurisdiction declines to join the Global
Forum, it will generally be given the same opportunities to participate in its review as Global Forum
members. However, in all cases, the Peer Review report will be prepared using the best available
information even if the jurisdiction does not participate.
The Global Forum has to date identified seven such jurisdictions: Botswana, Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, Ghana, Jamaica, Lebanon, Qatar and Trinidad and Tobago. They all have now
committed to implementing the standard, have been reviewed and joined the Global Forum, except
Lebanon. Although Lebanon has refused to participate in the work of the Global forum, it peer review will
be launched shortly.
21


ANNEX VI:
OUTCOMES OF THE PEER REVIEWS

Jurisdictions compliance with the standard
The Global Forum has so far completed 59 peer reviews. The tables below provide a breakdown of the
recommendations and determinations that have been made in the peer reviews (see Annex V for a
description of how reviews are conducted). Table 1 shows the distribution of the recommendations among
the various elements. Table 2 shows the number of jurisdictions found to have elements not in place. This
table shows that for 36 jurisdictions out of the 59 jurisdictions reviewed so far none of the elements was
found not to be in place. Table 3 shows the number of elements that need improvement for these 36
jurisdictions (8 of which have all elements in place with none requiring improvement).

Figure 1: Phase 1 recommendations

22


Figure 2: Distribution of jurisdictions based on the number of elements not in place


Figure 3: Distribution of elements needing improvement for jurisdictions with all
elements in place or in place, but needing improvement

Recommendations per jurisdiction
The following table shows the number of recommendations made under Phase 1 for each of the reviewed
jurisdictions. In addition, it shows the distribution of the recommendations between the various
determinations, i.e., how many recommendations are made in respect of elements that are found to be in
23

place, how many where the element is in place, but needs improvement, and how many where the
element is not in place.
Figure 4: Distribution of recommendations between the various determinations