The Global Tax Information Age
International exchange of info growing—but still room for development

print this article

For years, governments around the world have called for changes to tax administration to prevent abusive tax avoidance and tax evasion. The need for change has been driven in part by the increasingly globalized economy, where cross-border activities and transactions are the norm rather than the exception.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), whose thirty-seven member countries work to establish international standards and solutions to economic, social, and environmental challenges, has been key to these efforts. Since at least 2013, the OECD and its members have pushed for greater access to and sharing of taxpayer information as an important tool to prevent abusive tax avoidance and tax evasion.

Efforts to reform the international exchange of taxpayer information are fairly mature but still have significant room for development. Taxpayers can likely expect greater scrutiny of their international operations at both the domestic and overseas levels. The outlook is not wholly dire, because new tools, such as the OECD’s International Compliance Assurance Programme (ICAP), have recently debuted to provide taxpayers with greater certainty that multiple tax administrations will accept both their global transfer pricing model and their treatment of particular transactions. This article will describe and provide updates on the OECD’s country-by-country (CbC) reporting program, the United States’ own CbC reporting program, international agreements that allow countries to exchange taxpayer information, and developments such as the OECD’s request for comments to improve CbC reporting, published CbC reporting statistics, and the ICAP program.

OECD BEPS Action Item 13


In 2013, the OECD and the G20 countries adopted a fifteen-point action plan to end perceived abusive tax avoidance practices by multinational entities (MNEs) involving base erosion and profit-shifting (BEPS).1 Since then, over 135 countries have joined the BEPS Inclusive Framework.2 BEPS Action Item 13 identifies a “lack of quality data” as a major limitation in assessing transfer pricing transactions between affiliated companies, one that has contributed to the alleged abusive practices.3 As a remedy, the OECD BEPS Action 13 Final Report called for greater international tax transparency and standardized transfer pricing documentation and—most important—for members to adopt an aggregate information-sharing standard referred to as CbC reporting.4 As of October 2020, over ninety countries, including the United States, have introduced or passed legislation requiring CbC reporting.5 As discussed below, at least seventy-six countries have international agreements in place to share CbC reports.6

Action Item 13 Report

Action Item 13 called for a three-tiered structure to improve transfer pricing documentation and transparency. The three tiers consisted of a master file containing standardized information relevant for all MNE group members, a local file referring specifically to the local taxpayer’s material transactions, and a CbC report containing certain information relating to the global allocation of the MNE’s income and taxes along with indicators of economic activity location within an MNE group.7

The master file requirement sought to provide a high-level “blueprint” of the MNE group’s overall business operations, transfer pricing policies, and global allocation of income and economic activity to assist tax administrations in evaluating transfer pricing risk.8 The information requested in the master file requirement fell into five categories: 1) the MNE group’s organizational structure, 2) a description of the MNE’s business or businesses, 3) the MNE’s intangible property, 4) the MNE’s intercompany financial activities, and 5) the MNE’s financial and tax positions.9 Unlike this master file requirement, the local file requirement was about providing detailed information on specific intercompany transactions, including relevant financial information, a comparability analysis, and selection and application of the best transfer pricing method.10

The CbC reporting requirement requested countries to provide aggregate tax-jurisdiction-wide information relating to the global allocation of income, taxes paid, and indicators of economic activity among tax jurisdictions. The CbC report also requested that lists of entities, including their incorporation and residence jurisdictions and the nature of the business activity each entity carried out, be reported.11 These reports aimed to allow tax administrations to perform economic and statistical analysis to identify instances of potentially abusive transfer pricing practices.12 Action Item 13 sought to exclude MNE groups with consolidated revenue less than €750 million from the CbC reporting requirement and to have its members first require CbC reports beginning in 2016.13 Because more than ninety countries have introduced or passed legislation implementing some variation of the Action Item 13 CbC reporting requirement, substantially all MNE groups above the revenue threshold are now subject to CbC reporting or will be shortly.14

United States CbC Reporting


On June 30, 2016, the US Treasury issued final regulations that implement its interpretation of Action Item 13 guidelines. In particular, these regulations require annual CbC reporting by certain US entities that are the ultimate parent entity of an MNE group.15 Although some countries adopted CbC reporting for earlier periods, the US CbC reporting began to apply to reporting periods of the ultimate parent on or after the first day of the ultimate parent entity’s taxable year beginning on or after June 30, 2016,16 but reporting is required only for MNE groups with annual revenue of $850 million or more for the previous accounting period.17

Type of Information Reported

The ultimate parent entity of an MNE group must file the CbC report on Form 8975, Country-by-Country Report, with the entity’s timely filed US federal income tax return.18 The ultimate US parent of the MNE group must report required information about the “constituent entities” of the MNE group. A “constituent entity” is any separate business entity of the US MNE group, except a foreign corporation or foreign partnership or any permanent establishment of such foreign corporation or foreign partnership.

Form 8975 must present general information about each constituent entity—the complete legal entity name, the jurisdiction of tax residence, the jurisdiction where the entity is organized, the tax identification number assigned by the tax jurisdiction of residence, and the entity’s main business activity. With respect to each tax jurisdiction in which one or more constituent entities resides, Form 8975 also requires the ultimate US parent to report, on an aggregate basis, the following information for the constituent entities resident in each jurisdiction:

  • revenues generated from transactions with other constituent entities;
  • revenues not generated from transactions with other constituent entities;
  • profit or loss before income tax;
  • total income tax paid on a cash basis to all jurisdictions, and any taxes withheld on payments received by the constituent entities;
  • total accrued tax expense recorded on taxable profits or losses, reflecting only operations in the relevant annual period and excluding deferred taxes or provisions of uncertain tax liabilities;
  • stated capital, with special rules applying to stated capital of permanent establishments;
  • total accumulated earnings, with special rules applying to accumulated earnings of permanent establishments;
  • total number of employees on a full-time equivalent basis;19 and
  • net book value of tangible assets, not including cash, cash equivalents, intangibles, or financial assets.

The United States has not followed the Action Item 13 recommendation to adopt a master file and local file recordkeeping requirement in conjunction with a CbC report. However, a US MNE group may still have to prepare the master file and local files if it operates in countries that do follow the Action Item 13 recommendations. The master and local files recordkeeping requirements are particular to local country regulations and may not necessarily have to be filed annually with the local tax administration, unlike the US CbC report, which is filed with the IRS and shared with all relevant tax authorities via an exchange-of-information (EOI) mechanism. It is likely that the United States did not adopt the master file recordkeeping requirement because US MNE groups and foreign-based MNE groups operating in the United States are already subject to robust US tax compliance requirements calling for the annual filing with the IRS of a multitude of forms.20 Moreover, Section 6662 and Treasury Regulations Section 1.6662-6 already require US taxpayers to maintain a significant set of principal and background documents to avoid Section 6662(e) penalties for substantial valuation misstatement.21 Notwithstanding the United States’ avoidance of the master file and local files requirements for now, to the extent that a US MNE group has prepared a master file for another tax jurisdiction, the IRS will likely request a copy of that master file during an examination.

How Will the CbC Report Be Used?

As discussed below, it is clear that the IRS will automatically share information in the CbC reports with most other countries that are income tax treaty partners and parties to information exchange agreements where competent authority agreements have been entered. Shortly before the final CbC regulations were published, the OECD announced that it would create a common transmission system (CTS), an electronic file transfer system that allows participating countries to access CbC reports and other taxpayer financial information. The IRS announced that the information contained in the CbC reports is considered return information and that any taxpayer information received and sent via the CTS is covered by the confidentiality protections of Sections 6103 and 6105 and by the treaty and information exchange agreements.

The IRS’ Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) Section (revised December 2018) provides guidance to Large Business & International Division (LB&I) employees on how the information contained in the CbC reports should be used when developing transfer pricing cases. The IRM sets forth general guidelines for how IRS examiners can use the CbC report information to understand the location of revenues and profits along with transfer pricing documentation to identify potential transfer pricing risk. According to the IRM, the CbC report should be used as a tool to provide useful information for assessing high-level transfer pricing risks and BEPS-related risks and, where appropriate, for economic and statistical analysis.

The IRM permits IRS examiners to use the CbC report information to plan examinations and to make further inquiries into an MNE’s transfer pricing arrangements or into other BEPS-related risks during an examination. However, the IRM prohibits examiners from using the information as a substitute for a detailed transfer pricing analysis of transactions and prices based on functional and comparability analyses. The IRM notes that information in a CbC report on its own does not constitute conclusive evidence that transfer prices are or are not appropriate and, consequently, examiners must not base transfer pricing adjustments solely on the CbC report.

International Tax Information-Sharing Agreements

Countries generally exchange tax information under the provisions of international tax-information-sharing agreements, which include bilateral or multilateral income tax treaties, tax information exchange agreements (TIEAs), and competent authority arrangements (CAA).22 The following section briefly explains these instruments and some recent developments concerning them.


The United States currently has fifty-eight income tax treaties in effect.23 All such US treaties, except for the former US–Union of Soviet Socialist Republics treaty, contain an article addressing EOI between contracting states.24 The timing and type of information to be exchanged under an income tax treaty depends on the particular terms the contracting states have agreed upon. For example, the type of information to be exchanged under several US treaties includes information related to “taxes of every kind imposed by a Contracting State.”25 But several others limit the type of information to be exchanged to that which is necessary to carry out the provisions of the income tax treaty or to administer domestic laws concerning taxes covered by the treaty, such as income or capital gains tax, among others.26

The US model and OECD model income tax treaties serve as a starting point in the negotiation of future treaties. Thus, although EOI under a treaty is governed by specific treaty terms, the model treaties reflect recent and projected trends in income tax treaty EOI policy. Further, changes to the model treaties are frequently followed by the enactment of new treaty protocols to align existing income tax treaties with the most recent statement of US and international policy. Thus, the model treaties are important indicators of a shifting policy regarding international EOI.

For example, the 2016 US model treaty significantly revised the EOI standard contained in the 2006 one. The 2006 model treaty provided that contracting states would exchange information that “may be relevant,”27 whereas the 2016 US model treaty seemingly raised the threshold and provided that states shall exchange information that is “foreseeably relevant.” This change adopts the standard first introduced in Article 26(1) of the 2005 OECD model treaty (and that recurred in the 2010, 2014, and 2017 OECD model treaties).28 Although the US Treasury has not yet published the technical explanation for the 2016 US model treaty, but the commentary to the 2017 OECD model treaty (hereinafter the 2017 Commentary) explains that the standard of “foreseeable relevance” aims to provide for the exchange of tax information to the “widest possible extent” but also aims to clarify that contracting states should not take advantage of EOI procedures to conduct “fishing expeditions, that is, speculative requests that have no apparent nexus to an open inquiry or investigation.”29 So, even though many recent policy changes have trended toward increased transparency, this change to the US model treaty EOI article shows a renewed desire to prevent foreign governments from abusing the procedures.

Tax Information Exchange Agreements

US and foreign tax authorities may also exchange or disclose information under TIEAs, which are considerably newer than treaties.30 In 2002, the OECD released a Model Agreement on Exchange of Information in Tax Matters, later updated by a 2011 protocol (the 2011 model TIEA protocol). Since then, various countries have entered into more than 500 TIEAs.31 Generally, the United States enters TIEAs with countries that are not currently its treaty partners; Treasury reports that nine TIEAs are in effect as of April 2021.32

Competent Authority Arrangements (CAAs)

Article 26(9) of the 2006 US model income tax treaty, as repeated in the 2016 US model treaty, provides that competent authorities may develop further agreements in order to apply the EOI article. Under this article, the 2006 US Model Technical Explanation provides that competent authorities may exchange information: routinely, in relation to a specific case, or spontaneously.33 The 2017 Commentary also states that the OECD model treaty provides for information to be exchanged automatically,34 and the OECD’s 2011 model TIEA protocol was introduced to allow the automatic exchange of information under a TIEA.35

With regard to CbC reporting, the United States has signed CAAs to provide for the automatic exchange of information with fifty-two countries as of April 2021, with five more currently in negotiation.36 In addition, the United States has committed itself to enter CAAs to exchange CbC reports with all members of the OECD BEPS Inclusive Framework—currently 139 countries—so long as there is: 1) a “legal instrument” that provides for the automatic exchange of information and 2) the United States has determined that “appropriate safeguards” exist to ensure the information remains confidential.37 The relevant legal instruments include income tax treaties and TIEAs; thus, fifty-seven treaty partners with EOI articles and nine TIEA partners are potentially eligible.38 Moreover, outside the United States, eighty-nine BEPS Inclusive Framework countries have signed a multilateral CAA as of January 2021 to automatically exchange CbC reports.39

The United States could dramatically increase the number of its potential partners in the automatic exchange of CbC reports if it ratified the OECD’s 2010 Protocol to the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters (hereinafter the 2010 Multilateral Protocol), which the United States signed in May 2010.40 Like most bilateral income tax treaties, the 2010 Multilateral Protocol is a legal instrument that grants tax authorities the right to enter agreements to automatically exchange tax information. But unlike a bilateral income tax treaty, which involves two contracting states, the 2010 Multilateral Protocol has been ratified by more than 120 countries. As a result, if the United States were to finally ratify, it could potentially exchange CbC reports with at least fifty more countries. And if it were to ratify the 2010 Multilateral Protocol, the United States would also be eligible to sign the multilateral CAA and automatically exchange CbC reports with the current eighty-nine signatories to the BEPS Inclusive Framework. Thus, although the United States’ automatic exchange of information program is already quite mature, with more than fifty-two participating countries, it still has room for significant expansion.

Recent Developments

Public Consultation Document

Although CbC reporting is widely adopted, the OECD continues to refine it. In February 2020, the OECD circulated a public consultation document, to request public comment on various items to further develop the effective use of CbC reports by tax administrations, and held an initial meeting in May 2020 with around 270 participants.41 In particular, the public consultation document requested comments on whether: 1) CbC reporting should include single entities with foreign permanent establishments, 2) separate MNE groups under common control should be aggregated for determining whether group consolidated revenue exceeds the reporting threshold, 3) the consolidated revenue reporting threshold should be reduced, 4) extraordinary income should be included in consolidated group revenue, and 5) consolidated group revenue should be averaged before an MNE group is excluded.42 The OECD has yet to issue any formal changes to its CbC reporting guidance based on this consultation, but currently excluded MNE groups should be aware that they may be subject to future CbC reporting requirements.

Aggregated CbC Report Statistics

In August 2020, the OECD released the second edition of its Corporate Tax Statistics publication based in part on aggregate data collected from the CbC reports.43 This publication reported data on anonymized and aggregated CbC report statistics submitted by twenty-six countries, including the United States.44 The report showed that as of 2016, the United States and Japan were the headquarters for more than half the MNEs in the sample.45 The report also concluded that the data collected reflected a “misalignment” between locations where profits are reported and those where economic activities occur and that revenues per employee tend to be greater where statutory corporate tax rates are zero and in “investment hubs.”46 Similarly, these investment hubs, defined as jurisdictions with incoming foreign direct investment above 150 percent,47 reported almost twenty-five percent of MNE profits but only four percent of employees and eleven percent of tangible assets.48 Although these results may not be surprising, this type of data could push governments and tax administrations alike to take further measures to reduce alleged abusive tax avoidance techniques.

ICAP Program

In February 2021, the OECD issued a handbook on its ICAP program.49 ICAP is a voluntary program to provide MNE groups increased certainty as to the integrity of the MNE group’s transfer pricing model and its treatment of certain transactions.50 ICAP does not provide the legal certainty of an advanced pricing arrangement (APA), but it does provide some comfort and assurance where multiple tax administrations will assess an MNE group’s risk with respect to the group’s transfer pricing and other international tax issues.51 As a risk assessment tool, ICAP may provide an MNE group with assurances that multiple covered tax administrations do not anticipate dedicating compliance resources to further review certain covered transactions for a defined period.52 But it should be noted that ICAP risk assessment comes with the caveat that the comfort level it provides depends on how much documentation an MNE group is willing to provide and how much time it is prepared to spend.53 Selection for the ICAP program occurs on a case-by-case basis. To be eligible, an MNE group generally must be headquartered in one of the twenty participating countries, which include the United States.54

The ICAP program lays out three distinct stages: 1) selection, 2) risk assessment and issue resolution, and 3) outcomes.55 The selection stage has two functions: it allows the MNE group to determine which tax administrations are able and willing to take part in an ICAP risk assessment, and it provides an opportunity for tax administrations to review a high-level summary of the MNE group’s transactions relevant to the covered risks and determine whether any should be excluded from the scope of the review.56 The selection stage begins when the MNE group submits an initial documentation package that includes a CbC report or master file and a completed standard ICAP template information request that the lead tax administration will provide.57 The OECD expects the selection stage to take four to eight weeks.

The second stage, risk assessment and issue resolution, is the heart of the ICAP program. Participants submit a full documentation package at the start of this stage, including schedules providing details of the covered transactions, a CbC report self-assessment, local files, and audited financial statements, among other documents.58 During this stage, the taxpayer and tax administrations will conduct a series of multilateral calls or meetings to discuss the documents provided and initial findings of risk assessment.59 Further, during the issue resolution process, it is expected that the tax administrations will work together to agree on the correct treatment of a covered transaction.60 If the tax administrations determine that they will not come to a mutually agreed-upon conclusion, they are still permitted to provide their separate conclusions.61 But any tax administration may also cease its risk assessment at this stage if it determines it cannot comfortably reach such an assessment.62 The targeted timeframe for risk assessment is twenty weeks.63

Third, in the outcomes stage, the lead tax administration issues a completion letter that includes an outcome letter from each covered tax administration.64 Each tax administration’s outcome letter typically addresses 1) a risk rating, 2) any agreement reached as part of the resolution process, 3) confirmation of covered transactions determined to be low-risk and a statement, as appropriate, that the tax administration does not anticipate dedicating further compliance resources to the covered transactions, and 4) any caveats or limitations.65 The outcomes stage is expected to take four weeks.

Thus, an appropriately prepared ICAP participant could theoretically complete the program within twenty-eight weeks.66

Finally, in addition to the risk assessment itself, it is anticipated that ICAP will complement existing tools such as APAs and mutual agreement procedures (MAPs) wherein introducing issues at a risk assessment stage allows ICAP to facilitate further multilateral action where beneficial.67 This may include helping an MNE group identify covered transactions suitable for a bilateral or multilateral APA or to improve consistency between tax administrations and reduce the need for MAP relief.68 Given the increased scrutiny applied to many MNE groups’ transfer pricing now that tax administrations have increased access to worldwide tax information, ICAP could be a particularly useful new tool for many taxpayers.


After several years, the push for greater tax transparency across borders is likely past the tipping point. The routine and automatic exchange of transfer pricing information across borders, if not already the norm, will soon become it. To that end, the United States’ CbC reporting regime is in full effect, and the United States has agreed to share this information automatically with more than fifty countries—and this number could potentially double. As a result, taxpayers can likely expect increased scrutiny domestically and abroad. But taxpayers can plan for this new era of global tax administration using existing tools like APAs and MAPs. Finally, every eligible MNE group should familiarize itself with the recently debuted ICAP program and learn how ICAP can help to address transfer pricing issues on a global scale from multiple tax administrations using a single program.

Shawn O’Brien is a tax controversy and transfer pricing partner, and Tyler Johnson is a tax controversy and transfer pricing associate, both at Mayer Brown LLP.


  1. Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, OECD, July 19, 2013,
  2. “What Is BEPS?” OECD, accessed April 27, 2021,
  3. Action 13 Country-by-Country Reporting: What Is the Issue?, OECD, accessed April 27, 2021, See also OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, Transfer Pricing Documentation and Country-by-Country Reporting, Action 13–2015 Final Report, OECD, October 5, 2015, (hereinafter “Action Item 13 Report”).
  4. Action Item 13 Report.
  5. OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, Country-by-Country Reporting—Compilation of Peer Review Reports (Phase 3): Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 13, OECD, October 17, 2020,, paragraph 10.
  6. Ibid
  7. Action Item 13 Report, paragraph 16.
  8. Action Item 13 Report, paragraph 18.
  9. Action Item 13 Report, paragraph 19.
  10. Action Item 13 Report, paragraph 20.
  11. Action Item 13 Report, paragraph 24.
  12. Action Item 13 Report, paragraph
  13. Action Item 13 Report, paragraphs 50, 52.
  14. Public Consultation Document: Review of Country-by-Country Reporting (BEPS Action 13) OECD, February 6, 2020, (hereinafter “Public Consultation Document”).
  15. Treasury Regulation Section 1.6038-4. See also Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, “Country-by-Country Reporting,” Federal Register 81, no. 126 (June 30, 2016): 42482,
  16. The date the final CbC regulations were published in the Federal Register.
  17. Each country sets its own revenue threshold for which an MNE group must file a CbC report. The United States determined its $850 million threshold as a US dollar equivalent of the €750 million threshold recommended by the Action Item 13 Report. See Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, “Country-by-Country Reporting,” Federal Register 81, no. 126 (June 30, 2016): 42482, 42487,
  18. See Revenue Procedure 2017-23.
  19. The regulations allow the number of employees on a full-time equivalent basis to be, as of the end of the accounting period, on the average employment levels for the annual accounting period, or any other reasonable basis consistently applied across jurisdictions from year to year.
  20. For example, US taxpayers may be required to file Form 926 (transfers to foreign corporations), Form 5471 (ownership of foreign corporation), Form 5472 (ownership by a foreign corporation), Form 8621 (shareholder of passive foreign investment company), Form 8858 (disregarded entity), Form 8865 (ownership interest in a foreign partnership), Form 8991 (base erosion and anti-abuse reporting), or Form 8992 (global low-taxed intangible income report).
  21. For example, Treasury Regulations Section 1.6662-6(d)(2)(iii)(B) requires that taxpayers maintain principal documents that include 1) a business overview,
    2) the organizational structure, 3) explicit documents required under Section 482, 4) a description of the selected methods, 5) a description of the alternative methods, 6) a description of the controlled transaction, 7) a description of the comparables used, 8) an economic analysis, 9) a description of any new relevant data obtained, and 10) an index of the principal and background documents.
  22. LB&I International Practice Service Concept Unit, Overview of Exchange of Information Programs, Internal Revenue Service, January 1, 2016, at 3.
  23. Table 3. List of Tax Treaties, Internal Revenue Service, June 30, 2020, 3.pdf.
  24. The US–USSR treaty remains in effect for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. See IRS Publication 901, US Tax Treaties, Internal Revenue Service, rev. September 2016,
  25. See, for example, the US–Japan Income Tax Treaty, Article 26(1).
  26. See, for example, the US–Netherlands Income Tax Treaty, Article 30.
  27. The 2006 US model treaty “may be relevant” standard is similar to the standard under Section 7602(a)(1), which authorizes the IRS to examine “any books, papers, records or other data which may be relevant or material” (emphasis added).
  28. Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital 2017 (full version), Article 26(1), OECD, accessed May 10, 2021,, p. 102.
  29. Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital 2017 (full version): Commentary on Article 26, paragraph 5 (internal quotations omitted), OECD, accessed May 10, 2021,, p. 1324.
  30. For example, the United States did not enter its first TIEA until 1984, but entered its first income tax treaty in 1932. See Richard E. Andersen, Analysis of United States Income Tax Treaties at paragraph 1.02 (September 2010), and David N. Bowen, Portfolio 6880-1st M., US Income Tax Treaties – US Competent Authority Functions and Procedures at VI.C.1.
  31. Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEAs), OECD, accessed April 26, 2021,
  32. See IRS Publication 1150 (4-81), Tax Havens and Their Use by United States Taxpayers—An Overview, at 212, January 12, 1981 (a Treasury report recommending that the United States enter TIEAs with nontax treaty partners); see also Bowen, Portfolio 6880-1st M., US Income Tax Treaties–US Competent Authority Functions and Procedures at VI.C.1. See also Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEAs), United States Treasury, accessed April 26, 2021,
  33. See 2006 US Model Technical Explanation, Article 26, paragraph 9.
  34. See 2017 Commentary at Article 26, paragraph 9.
  35. Model Protocol for the Purpose of Allowing the Automatic and Spontaneous Exchange of Information Under a TIEA (June 2015), OECD, accessed April 26, 2021,
  36. Country-by-Country Reporting Jurisdiction Status Table, Internal Revenue Service, accessed April 26, 2021,
  37. About the Inclusive Framework on BEPS, OECD, accessed April 26, 2021, See also Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) – Country-by-Country Reporting, Internal Revenue Service, accessed April 26, 2021,
  38. Although fifty-eight US treaties are in effect, the US–USSR Treaty does not contain an EOI article. See endnotes 23 and 24 and accompanying text.
  39. Signatories of the Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement on the Exchange of Country-by-Country Reports (CbC MCAA) and Signing Dates, OECD, January 13, 2021,
  40. The Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol, OECD, June 1, 2011, See also Jurisdictions Participating in the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matter Status – 16 March 2021, OECD, accessed April 26, 2021,
  41. See also “The OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS Shows Progress in Implementing Tax Transparency Through Action 13 Country-by-Country Reporting,” OECD, September 24, 2020,
  42. Public Consultation Document at p. 14.
  43. “New Corporate Tax Statistics Provide Fresh Insights Into the Activities of Multinational Enterprises,” OECD, August 7, 2020,
  44. Corporate Tax Statistics (2nd ed.), OECD, 2020,
  45. Corporate Tax Statistics (2nd ed.) at 39.
  46. Corporate Tax Statistics (2nd ed.) at 41.
  47. These include the Bahamas; Barbados; Bermuda; the British Virgin Islands; the Cayman Islands; Gibraltar; Guernsey; Hong Kong, China; Hungary; Ireland; the Isle of Man; Jersey; Liberia; Luxembourg; Malta; Marshall Islands; Mauritius; Mozambique; Netherlands; Singapore; and Switzerland.
  48. Corporate Tax Statistics at 41.
  49. International Compliance Assurance Programme – Handbook for Tax Administrations and MNE Groups, OECD, 2021, (hereinafter the ICAP Handbook).
  50. ICAP Handbook at 6.
  51. ICAP Handbook at 6.
  52. ICAP Handbook at 9.
  53. ICAP Handbook at 9.
  54. ICAP Handbook at 14–15. Also, see OECD International Compliance Assurance Program (ICAP), OECD, accessed April 29, 2021,
  55. ICAP Handbook at 11, 12, 13.
  56. ICAP Handbook at 11.
  57. ICAP Handbook at 11.
  58. ICAP Handbook at 37.
  59. ICAP Handbook at 24–25.
  60. ICAP Handbook at 26–27.
  61. ICAP Handbook at 26–27.
  62. ICAP Handbook at 26–27.
  63. ICAP Handbook at 26–27.
  64. ICAP Handbook at 28.
  65. ICAP Handbook at 28.
  66. ICAP Handbook at 29.
  67. ICAP Handbook at 10.
  68. ICAP Handbook at 10.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

XHTML: You can use these tags <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>