Singapore
1. Singapore was reviewed as part of the 2017/2018 and the 2018/2019 peer reviews. This report is supplementary to those previous reports (OECD, 2019[1]) (OECD, 2018[2]).
2. The first filing obligation for a CbC report in Singapore applies in respect of financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2017. Singapore also allows its MNE groups to file a CbC report on a voluntary basis, for reporting fiscal years beginning between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2016.
Summary of key findings
3. Singapore’s implementation of the Action 13 minimum standard meets all applicable terms of reference (OECD, 2017[3]).
Part A: The domestic legal and administrative framework
4. Singapore has legislation in place to implement the BEPS Action 13 minimum standard. Guidance has been published.
Part B: The exchange of information framework
(a) Exchange of information framework
11. As of 31 March 2020, Singapore has 64 bilateral relationships activated under the CbC MCAA. Within the context of its international exchange of information agreements that allow automatic exchange of information, Singapore has taken steps to have qualifying competent authority agreements in effect with jurisdictions of the Inclusive Framework that meet the confidentiality, consistency and appropriate use conditions.5
References
OECD (2019), Country-by-Country Reporting – Compilation of Peer Review Reports (Phase 2): Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 13, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/f9bf1157-en. [1]
OECD (2018), Country-by-Country Reporting – Compilation of Peer Review Reports (Phase 1): Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 13, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264300057-en. [2]
OECD (2017), Terms of reference for the conduct of peer review of the Action 13 minimum standard on country-by-country reporting, OECD Publishing, https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/beps-action-13-on-country-by-country-reporting-peer-review-documents.pdf. [3]
Notes
← 1. Singapore’s 2017/2018 peer review included a monitoring point in relation to a “designation provision”. This monitoring point remains in place.
← 2. Singapore’s 2017/2018 peer review included a monitoring point in relation to the ability of the Comptroller to allow a CbC report to be filed later than the filing deadline as set in the regulations. This monitoring point remains in place.
← 3. Singapore’s 2017/2018 peer review included a monitoring point whereby if local filing requirements were introduced, these requirements should comply with the terms of reference under paragraph 8 (c). This monitoring point remains in place.
← 4. Singapore’s 2017/2018 peer review included a monitoring point whereby if local filing requirements were introduced, these requirements should be deactivated in case of surrogate filing in a manner consistent with the terms of reference under paragraph 8 (d). This monitoring point remains in place.
← 5. No inconsistency with the terms of reference will be identified where a QCAA is not in effect with one or more jurisdictions of the Inclusive Framework that meet the confidentiality, consistency and appropriate use conditions, but this is due to circumstances that are not under the control of the reviewed jurisdiction. This may include, for example, where the other jurisdiction intends to exchange CbC reports using the MCAA but it does not have the Convention in effect for the relevant fiscal period, or where the other jurisdiction has declined to have a QCAA in effect with the reviewed jurisdiction