On 23 May 2024, the OECD issued guidance on common errors made by multinational enterprise (MNE) groups when preparing their country-by-country (CbC) reports. These reports contain valuable information on the global allocation of income, taxes paid, and the location of economic activity among the tax jurisdictions in which an MNE group operates. This information can be used for a high-level transfer pricing risk assessment, the assessment of other BEPS-related risks, and economic and statistical analysis, if appropriate. However, this information can only be used effectively for these purposes if the data in CbC reports is robust and accurate. Tax administrations have encountered a number of errors in the data contained in CbC reports filed to date, and the new guidance describes the most common of these ...

Check Point Software Technologies was assessed administrative penalties by the tax authorities (FIRS) for failure to file a country-by-country report, and a complaint was filed with the Tax Appeal Tribunal by the company. Decision of the Tribunal The Tax Appeal Tribunal held that the administrative penalties issued by the FIRS in enforcement of the CbCR Regulations were unconstitutional and void because the Board of the Federal Inland Revenue Service, which was legally empowered to make the regulations, did not exist between 2012 and 2020. Since the FIRS Board did not exist during the said period, the exercise of the delegated powers under the provisions of the Nigerian CbCR regulations was not possible – any step, process or action taken in the name of the Board would be null and void. Excerpts “A careful consideration of the provisions of Section 61 as exposed above shows that the National Assembly has delegated its powers specifically to the Board of the Federal Inland Revenue Service to make these rules, guideline and regulations and to no any other person or authority. By necessary implications therefore, it is only the Board of FIRS and legally constituted and properly composed that can exercise the said powers donated by the National Assembly in Section 61. In the course of prosecuting this Appeal, the Appellant had presented concrete evidence before this Honourable Tribunal that during the period under consideration the Boards of all federal parastatals and agencies (including that of the Federal Inland Revenue Service) were dissolved and had not been reconstituted. This fact was not disproved or contradicted by the Respondent before this Honourable Tribunal. The non-existence of a Board during the said period under consideration would mean that a legal and legitimate exercise of the delegated powers under the provisions of Section 61 was not possible meaning that any step, process or action done in the name of the Board will be null and void. … It is therefore the decision of this Honorable Tribunal that the purported Regulation on CBC of 2018 was not made by the Board of the Federal Inland Revenue Service that was legally constituted and properly composed, since it was dissolved and had not been reconstituted by the government at the time when the said regulation was made.” “In line with the above position, it is the decision of this Honourable Tribunal that the Notices of the Administrative Penalties served on the Appellants by the Respondent in the enforcement of the CBC Regulation 2018 are unconstitutional and void. It is therefore, hereby quashed by this Honourable Tribunal and the Respondent is hereby directed to raise fresh Notices of the Penalties based on the relevant provisions of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (Establishment) Act, 2007 and relevant laws.” Click here for translation ...

On 14 October 2022 OECD published updated guidance on CbC reporting. The guidance contains definitions of items in the CbC reporting template – revenue, related parties, tax accrued and paid, fair value accounting, positive and negative figures etc. Issued related to particular reporting entities is also addressed (investment funds, major shareholding, deemed listing provisions and permanent establishment information. Guidance is provided on common issues such as currency fluctuations, definition of consolidated revenue, long and short accounting periods, mergers – demergers and acquisitions, and errors made by MNE groups in preparing CbC reports. And finally the updated guidance addresses issues related to the mechanism for sharing CbCR between tax authorities ...

Jurisdictions endeavour to introduce as necessary domestic legislation in a timely manner. They are also encouraged to expand the coverage of their international agreements for exchange of information. The implementation of the package will be monitored on an ongoing basis. The outcomes of this monitoring will be taken into consideration in the 2020 review ...

Annex IV to Chapter V of these Guidelines contains an implementation package for government-to-government exchange of Country-by-Country Reports, which includes: • Model legislation requiring the ultimate parent entity of an MNE group to file the Country-by-Country Report in its jurisdiction of residence. Jurisdictions will be able to adapt this model legislation to their own legal systems, where changes to current legislation are required. Key elements of secondary mechanisms have also been developed. • Implementing arrangements for the automatic exchange of the Country- by-Country Reports under international agreements, incorporating the conditions set out in Section E.2.3. Such implementing arrangements include competent authority agreements (CAAs) based on existing international agreements (the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters, bilateral tax treaties and TIEAs) and inspired by the existing models developed by the OECD working with G20 countries for the automatic exchange of financial account information ...

Jurisdictions should require in a timely manner Country-by-Country Reporting from ultimate parent entities of MNE groups resident in their jurisdiction and referred to in Section E.2.2 and exchange this information on an automatic basis with the jurisdictions in which the MNE group operates and which fulfil the conditions listed in Section E.2.3. Only in cases where a jurisdiction fails to provide information to a jurisdiction fulfilling the conditions listed in Section E.2.3, because (a) it has not required Country- by-Country Reporting from the ultimate parent entity of such MNE groups, (b) no competent authority agreement has been agreed in a timely manner under the current international agreements of the jurisdiction for the exchange of the Country-by-Country Reports or (c) it has been established that there is a failure to exchange the information in practice with a jurisdiction after agreeing with that jurisdiction to do so, a secondary mechanism would be accepted as appropriate, through local filing or through filing of the Country- by-Country Reports by a designated member of the MNE group acting in place of the ultimate parent entity and automatic exchange of these reports by its jurisdiction of tax residence ...

Jurisdictions should use appropriately the information in the Country- by-Country Report template in accordance with paragraph 5.25. In particular, jurisdictions will commit to use the Country-by-Country Report for assessing high-level transfer pricing risk. Jurisdictions may also use the Country-by- Country Report for assessing other BEPS-related risks. Jurisdictions should not propose adjustments to the income of any taxpayer on the basis of an income allocation formula based on the data from the Country-by-Country Report. They will further commit that if such adjustments based on Country- by-Country Report data are made by the local tax administration of the jurisdiction, the jurisdiction’s competent authority will promptly concede the adjustment in any relevant competent authority proceeding. This does not imply, however, that jurisdictions would be prevented from using the Country-by-Country Report data as a basis for making further enquiries into the MNE group’s transfer pricing arrangements or into other tax matters in the course of a tax audit. (Access to a mutual agreement procedure (MAP) will be available when the government-to-government exchange of the Country-by-Country Reports is based on bilateral treaties. In cases where the international agreements on which the government-to-government exchanges of the Country-by-Country Reports are based do not contain provisions providing access to MAP, jurisdictions commit to introducing in the competent authority agreement to be developed a mechanism for competent authority procedures to discuss with the aim of resolving cases of undesirable economic outcomes, including if such cases arise for individual businesses.) ...

Jurisdictions should use their best efforts to adopt a legal requirement that MNE groups’ ultimate parent entities resident in their jurisdiction prepare and file the Country-by-Country Report, unless exempted as set out in paragraph 5.52. Jurisdictions should utilise the standard template contained in Annex III of Chapter V of these Guidelines. Stated otherwise, under this condition no jurisdiction will require that the Country-by-Country Report contain either additional information not contained in Annex III, nor will it fail to require reporting of information included in Annex III ...

Jurisdictions should have in place and enforce legal protections of the confidentiality of the reported information. Such protections would preserve the confidentiality of the Country-by-Country Report to an extent at least equivalent to the protections that would apply if such information were delivered to the country under the provisions of the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters, a Tax Information Exchange Agreement (TIEA) or a tax treaty that meets the internationally agreed standard of information upon request as reviewed by the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes. Such protections include limitation of the use of information, rules on the persons to whom the information may be disclosed, ordre public, etc ...

The following conditions underpin the obtaining and the use of the Country-by-Country Report ...

It is considered that no exemptions from filing the Country-by- Country Report should be adopted apart from the exemptions outlined in this section. In particular, no special industry exemptions should be provided, no general exemption for investment funds should be provided, and no exemption for non-corporate entities or non-public corporate entities should be provided. Notwithstanding this conclusion, MNE groups with income derived from international transportation or transportation in inland waterways that is covered by treaty provisions that are specific to such income and under which the taxing rights on such income are allocated exclusively to one jurisdiction, should include the information required by the Country-by-Country Report template with respect to such income only against the name of the jurisdiction to which the relevant treaty provisions allocate these taxing rights ...

It is the intention of the countries participating in the OECD/G20 BEPS Project to reconsider the appropriateness of the applicable revenue threshold described in the preceding paragraph in connection with their 2020 review of implementation of the new standard, including whether additional or different data should be reported ...

It is believed that the exemption described in paragraph 52, which provides a threshold of EUR 750 million, will exclude approximately 85 to 90% of MNE groups from the requirement to file the Country-by-Country Report, but that the Country-by-Country Report will nevertheless be filed by MNE groups controlling approximately 90% of corporate revenues. The prescribed exemption threshold therefore represents an appropriate balancing of reporting burden and benefit to tax administrations ...

There would be an exemption from the general filing requirement for MNE groups with annual consolidated group revenue in the immediately preceding fiscal year of less than EUR 750 million or a near equivalent amount in domestic currency as of January 2015. Thus, for example, if an MNE that keeps its financial accounts on a calendar year basis has EUR 625 million in consolidated group revenue for its 2015 calendar year, it would not be required to file the Country-by-Country Report in any country with respect to its fiscal year ending 31 December 2016 ...

It is recommended that all MNE groups be required to file the Country-by-Country Report each year except as follows ...

It is recommended that the first Country-by-Country Reports be required to be filed for MNE fiscal years beginning on or after 1 January 2016. However, it is acknowledged that some jurisdictions may need time to follow their particular domestic legislative process in order to make necessary adjustments to the law. In order to assist jurisdictions in preparing timely legislation, model legislation requiring ultimate parent entities of MNE groups to file the Country-by-Country Report in their jurisdiction of residence has been developed (see Annex IV to Chapter V of these Guidelines). Jurisdictions will be able to adapt this model legislation to their own legal systems. Given the recommendation in paragraph 5.31 that MNEs be allowed one year from the close of the fiscal year to which the Country-by-Country Report relates to prepare and file the Country-by-Country Report, this recommendation means that the first Country-by-Country Reports would be filed by 31 December 2017. For MNEs with a fiscal year ending on a date other than 31 December, the first Country-by-Country Reports would be required to be filed later in 2018, twelve months after the close of the relevant MNE fiscal year, and would report on the MNE group’s first fiscal year beginning after 1 January 2016. It follows from this recommendation that the jurisdictions participating in the OECD/G20 BEPS Project agree that they will not require filing of a Country- by-Country Report based on the new template for MNE fiscal years beginning prior to 1 January 2016. The MNE fiscal year relates to the consolidated reporting period for financial statement purposes and not to taxable years or to the financial reporting periods of individual subsidiaries ...

It is recommended that the master file and local file elements of the transfer pricing documentation standard be implemented in each jurisdiction through local legislation or administrative procedures and that the master file and local file be filed directly with the tax administrations in each relevant jurisdiction as required by those administrations. With regard to the local file and the master file, confidentiality and the consistent use of the standards contained in Annex I and Annex II to Chapter V of these Guidelines should be taken into account by jurisdictions when introducing these elements in local legislation or administrative procedures ...

It is not recommended, particularly at the stage of transfer pricing risk assessment, to require that the transfer pricing documentation should be certified by an outside auditor or other third party. Similarly, mandatory use of consulting firms to prepare transfer pricing documentation is not recommended ...

In this case a group of taxpayers filed a lawsuit for the nullity of the new Mexican transfer pricing documentation obligations introduced in 2017 by rules 3.9.11, 3.9.14, 3.9.15, 3.9.16 and 3.9.17 of the First Resolution of Amendments to the Tax Miscellaneous published in the Official Gazette of the Federation, issued by the Head of the Tax Administration Service. Article 76-A of the Mexican Income Tax Law states that the taxpayers referred to in Article 32-H, Sections I, II, III and IV of the Federal Tax Code who enter into transactions with related parties must provide the tax authorities with annual related party information returns: 1) master file; 2) local file and 3) a country-by-country report. This three tiered documentation package provides the tax authorities with information related to transactions between related parties on transfer pricing, in order to identify conduct that could imply a risk of tax avoidance or evasion, improve the exchange of information with authorities of the same nature at the international level and carry out economic and statistical analyses. Supreme Court Judgement The Supreme Court predominantly dismissed the claim of unlawfulness of the Mexican documentation obligations. Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

Participating jurisdictions endeavour to introduce as necessary domestic legislation in a timely manner. They are also encouraged to expand the coverage of their international agreements for exchange of information. The implementation of the package will be monitored on an ongoing basis. The outcomes of this monitoring will be taken into consideration in the 2020 review ...

Countries participating in the OECD/G20 BEPS Project have therefore developed an implementation package for government-to¬government exchange of Country-by-Country Reports contained in Annex IV to Chapter V of these Guidelines. More specifically: Model legislation requiring the ultimate parent entity of an MNE group to file the Country-by-Country Report in its jurisdiction of residence has been developed. Jurisdictions will be able to adapt this model legislation to their own legal systems, where changes to current legislation are required. Key elements of secondary mechanisms have also been developed. Implementing arrangements for the automatic exchange of the Country-by-Country Reports under international agreements have been developed, incorporating the conditions set out in Section E.2.3. Such implementing arrangements include competent authority agreements (CAAs) based on existing international agreements (the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters, bilateral tax treaties and TIEAs) and inspired by the existing models developed by the OECD working with G20 countries for the automatic exchange of financial account information ...

Jurisdictions should require in a timely manner Country-by-Country Reporting from ultimate parent entities of MNE groups resident in their country and referred to in Section E.2.2 and exchange this information on an automatic basis with the jurisdictions in which the MNE group operates and which fulfil the conditions listed in Section E.2.3. In case a jurisdiction fails to provide information to a jurisdiction fulfilling the conditions listed in Section E.2.3, because (a) it has not required Country¬by-Country Reporting from the ultimate parent entity of such MNE groups, (b) no competent authority agreement has been agreed in a timely manner under the current international agreements of the jurisdiction for the exchange of the Country-by-Country Reports or (c) it has been established that there is a failure to exchange the information in practice with a jurisdiction after agreeing with that jurisdiction to do so, a secondary mechanism would be accepted as appropriate, through local filing or through filing of the Country-by-Country Reports by a designated member of the MNE group acting in place of the ultimate parent entity and automatic exchange of these reports by its country of tax residence ...

Jurisdictions should use appropriately the information in the Country-by-Country Report template in accordance with paragraph 5.25. In particular, jurisdictions will commit to use the Country-by-Country Report for assessing high-level transfer pricing risk. Jurisdictions may also use the Country-by-Country Report for assessing other BEPS-related risks. Jurisdictions should not propose adjustments to the income of any taxpayer on the basis of an income allocation formula based on the data from the Country-by-Country Report. They will further commit that if such adjustments based on Country-by-Country Report data are made by the local tax administration of the jurisdiction, the jurisdiction’s competent authority will promptly concede the adjustment in any relevant competent authority proceeding. This does not imply, however, that jurisdictions would be prevented from using the Country-by-Country Report data as a basis for making further enquiries into the MNE’s transfer pricing arrangements or into other tax matters in the course of a tax audit ...

Jurisdictions should use their best efforts to adopt a legal requirement that MNE groups’ ultimate parent entities resident in their jurisdiction prepare and file the Country-by-Country Report, unless exempted as set out in paragraph 5.52. Jurisdictions should utilise the standard template contained in Annex III of Chapter V of these Guidelines. Stated otherwise, under this condition no jurisdiction will require that the Country-by-Country Report contain either additional information not contained in Annex III, nor will it fail to require reporting of information included in Annex III ...

Jurisdictions should have in place and enforce legal protections of the confidentiality of the reported information. Such protections would preserve the confidentiality of the Country-by-Country Report to an extent at least equivalent to the protections that would apply if such information were delivered to the country under the provisions of the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters, a Tax Information Exchange Agreement (TIEA) or a tax treaty that meets the internationally agreed standard of information upon request as reviewed by the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes. Such protections include limitation of the use of information, rules on the persons to whom the information may be disclosed, ordre public, etc ...

Countries participating in the OECD/G20 BEPS Project agree to the following conditions underpinning the obtaining and the use of the Country-by-Country Report ...

It is considered that no exemptions from filing the Country-by-Country Report should be adopted apart from the exemptions outlined in this section. In particular, no special industry exemptions should be provided, no general exemption for investment funds should be provided, and no exemption for non-corporate entities or non-public corporate entities should be provided. Notwithstanding this conclusion, countries participating in the OECD/G20 BEPS Project agree that MNE groups with income derived from international transportation or transportation in inland waterways that is covered by treaty provisions that are specific to such income and under which the taxing rights on such income are allocated exclusively to one jurisdiction, should include the information required by the country-by-country template with respect to such income only against the name of the jurisdiction to which the relevant treaty provisions allocate these taxing rights ...

It is the intention of the countries participating in the OECD/G20 BEPS Project to reconsider the appropriateness of the applicable revenue threshold described in the preceding paragraph in connection with their 2020 review of implementation of the new standard, including whether additional or different data should be reported ...

It is believed that the exemption described in paragraph 52, which provides a threshold of EUR 750 million, will exclude approximately 85 to 90% of MNE groups from the requirement to file the Country-by-Country Report, but that the Country-by-Country Report will nevertheless be filed by MNE groups controlling approximately 90% of corporate revenues. The prescribed exemption threshold therefore represents an appropriate balancing of reporting burden and benefit to tax administrations ...

There would be an exemption from the general filing requirement for MNE groups with annual consolidated group revenue in the immediately preceding fiscal year of less than EUR 750 million or a near equivalent amount in domestic currency as of January 2015. Thus, for example, if an MNE that keeps its financial accounts on a calendar year basis has EUR 625 million in consolidated group revenue for its 2015 calendar year, it would not be required to file the Country-by-Country Report in any country with respect to its fiscal year ending 31 December 2016 ...

It is recommended that all MNE groups be required to file the Country-by-Country Report each year except as follows ...

It is recommended that the first Country-by-Country Reports be required to be filed for MNE fiscal years beginning on or after 1 January 2016. However, it is acknowledged that some jurisdictions may need time to follow their particular domestic legislative process in order to make necessary adjustments to the law. In order to assist countries in preparing timely legislation, model legislation requiring ultimate parent entities of MNE groups to file the Country-by-Country Report in their jurisdiction of residence has been developed (see Annex IV to Chapter V of these Guidelines). Jurisdictions will be able to adapt this model legislation to their own legal systems. Given the recommendation in paragraph 31 that MNEs be allowed one year from the close of the fiscal year to which the Country-by-Country Report relates to prepare and file the Country-by-Country Report, this recommendation means that the first Country-by-Country Reports would be filed by 31 December 2017. For MNEs with a fiscal year ending on a date other than 31 December, the first Country-by-Country Reports would be required to be filed later in 2018, twelve months after the close of the relevant MNE fiscal year, and would report on the MNE group’s first fiscal year beginning after 1 January 2016. It follows from this recommendation that the countries participating in the OECD/G20 BEPS Project agree that they will not require filing of a Country-by-Country Report based on the new template for MNE fiscal years beginning prior to 1 January 2016. The MNE fiscal year relates to the consolidated reporting period for financial statement purposes and not to taxable years or to the financial reporting periods of individual subsidiaries ...

It is recommended that the master file and local file elements of the transfer pricing documentation standard be implemented through local country legislation or administrative procedures and that the master file and local file be filed directly with the tax administrations in each relevant jurisdiction as required by those administrations. Countries participating in the OECD/G20 BEPS Project agree that with regard to the local file and the master file confidentiality and consistent use of the standards contained in Annex I and Annex II to Chapter V of these Guidelines should be taken into account when introducing these elements in local country legislation or administrative procedures ...

It is not recommended, particularly at the stage of transfer pricing risk assessment, to require that the transfer pricing documentation should be certified by an outside auditor or other third party. Similarly, mandatory use of consulting firms to prepare transfer pricing documentation is not recommended ...