Hong Kong (China)

Hong Kong (China) (“Hong Kong”) has met all aspects of the terms of reference (OECD, 2021[3]) (ToR) for the calendar year 2021 (year in review), and no recommendations are made.

Hong Kong can legally issue four types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework.

In practice, Hong Kong issued rulings within the scope of the transparency framework as follows:

Type of ruling	Number of rulings
Past rulings	1
Future rulings in the period 1 April 2017 – 31 December 2017	0
Future rulings in the calendar year 2018	0
Future rulings in the calendar year 2019	2
Future rulings in the calendar year 2020	1
Future rulings in the year in review	0

As no exchanges were required to take place, no peer input was received in respect of the exchanges of information on rulings received from Hong Kong.

Information gathering process (ToR I.A)

554. Hong Kong can legally issue the following four types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework: (i) preferential regimes;1 (ii) cross-border unilateral APAs and any other cross-border unilateral tax rulings (such as an advance tax ruling) covering transfer pricing or the application of transfer pricing principles; (iii) permanent establishment rulings; and (iv) related party conduit rulings.

555. For Hong Kong, past rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued either: (i) on or after 1 January 2015 but before 1 April 2017; or (ii) on or after 1 January 2012 but before 1 January 2015, provided they were still in effect as at 1 January 2015. Future rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued on or after 1 April 2017.

556. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Hong Kong’s undertakings to identify past and future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. In addition, it was determined that Hong Kong’s review and supervision mechanism was sufficient to meet the minimum standard. Hong Kong’s implementation remains unchanged, and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.

557. Hong Kong has met all of the ToR for the information gathering process and no recommendations are made.

Exchange of information (ToR II.B)

558. Hong Kong has the necessary domestic legal basis to exchange information spontaneously. Hong Kong notes that there are no legal or practical impediments that prevent the spontaneous exchange of information on rulings as contemplated in the Action 5 minimum standard.

559. Hong Kong has international agreements permitting spontaneous exchange of information, including being a jurisdiction participating in (i) the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol (OECD/Council of Europe, 2011[1]) (“the Convention”) and (ii) bilateral agreements in force with 39 jurisdictions.2

560. During the year in review, no exchanges were required to take place and no data on the timeliness of exchanges is reported.

561. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Hong Kong’s process for the completion and exchange of templates were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. With respect to past rulings, no further action was required. Hong Kong’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.

562. Hong Kong has the necessary legal basis for spontaneous exchange of information, a process for completing the templates in a timely way and has completed all exchanges. Hong Kong has met all of the ToR for the exchange of information process and no recommendations are made.

Statistics (ToR IV.D)

563. As no rulings were issued, no statistics can be reported.

Matters related to intellectual property regimes (ToR I.A.1.3)

564. Hong Kong does not offer an intellectual property regime for which transparency requirements under the Action 5 Report (OECD, 2015[2]) were imposed.

Summary of recommendations on implementation of the transparency framework

Aspect of implementation of the transparency framework that should be improved	Recommendation for improvement
	No recommendations are made.

References

[3] OECD (2021), BEPS Action 5 on Harmful Tax Practices - Terms of Reference and Methodology for the Conduct of the Peer Reviews of the Action 5 Transparency Framework, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/beps-action-5-harmful-tax-practices-peer-review-transparency-framework.pdf.

[2] OECD (2015), Countering Harmful Tax Practices More Effectively, Taking into Account Transparency and Substance, Action 5 - 2015 Final Report, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264241190-en.

[1] OECD/Council of Europe (2011), The Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264115606-en.

Notes

← 1. 1) Profits tax concession for corporate treasury centres; 2) profits tax concession for professional reinsurers; 3) profits tax concession for captive insurers; 4) profits tax exemptions for ship operators; 5) profits tax concessions for aircraft lessors and aircraft leasing managers; 6) profits tax concession for ship lessors and ship leasing managers, 7) profits tax concession for specified insurers and licensed insurance broker companies; and 8) profits tax concessions for carried interest.

← 2. Participating jurisdictions to the Convention are available here: www.oecd.org/tax/exchange-of-tax-information/convention-on-mutual-administrative-assistance-in-tax-matters.htm. Hong Kong also has bilateral agreements with Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Cambodia, Canada, China (People’s Republic of), Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Guernsey, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jersey, Korea, Latvia, Macau (China), Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom and Viet Nam.