Russian Federation

Russian Federation (“Russia”) has met all aspects of the terms of reference (OECD, 2017[3]) (ToR) for the calendar year 2018 (year in review) and no recommendations are made.

In the prior year report, Russia did not receive any recommendations.

Russia can legally issue five types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework. In practice, Russia issued rulings within the scope of the transparency framework as follows:

• One past ruling;

• For the period 1 April 2016 - 31 December 2016: no future rulings;

• For the calendar year 2017: no future rulings, and

• For the year in review: no future rulings.

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

Introduction

This peer review covers Russia’s implementation of the BEPS Action 5 transparency framework for the year 2018. The report has four parts, each relating to a key part of the ToR. Each part is discussed in turn. A summary of recommendations is included at the end of this report.

A. The information gathering process

Russia can legally issue the following five 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) rulings providing for unilateral downward adjustments; (iv) permanent establishment rulings; and (v) related party conduit rulings.

Past rulings (ToR I.4.1.1, I.4.1.2, I.4.2.1, I.4.2.2)

For Russia, past rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued either: (i) on or after 1 January 2014 but before 1 April 2016; or (ii) on or after 1 January 2010 but before 1 January 2014, provided they were still in effect as at 1 January 2014.

In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Russia’s undertakings to identify past rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions were sufficient to meet the minimum standard in the absence of rulings being issued in practice. Russia’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged, and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.

Future rulings (ToR I.4.1.1, I.4.1.2, I.4.2.1)

For Russia, future rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued on or after 1 April 2016.

In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Russia’s undertakings to identify future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions was sufficient to meet the minimum standard in the absence of rulings being issued in practice. Russia’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged, and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.

Review and supervision (ToR I.4.3)

In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Russia’s review and supervision mechanism currently in place and the procedure to be implemented once a larger number of rulings are issued were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. Russia’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged, and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.

Conclusion on section A

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

B. The exchange of information

Legal basis for spontaneous exchange of information (ToR II.5.1, II.5.2)

Russia has the necessary domestic legal basis to exchange information spontaneously. Russia 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.

Russia has international agreements permitting spontaneous exchange of information, including being a party to the (i) Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol (OECD/Council of Europe, 2011[4]) (“the Convention”) and (ii) bilateral agreements in force with 83 jurisdictions.2

Completion and exchange of templates (ToR II.5.3, II.5.4, II.5.5, II.5.6, II.5.7)

In the prior year peer review report, it was determined that Russia’s process for the completion and exchange of templates that would be applicable if rulings were issued in practice was sufficient to meet the minimum standard. Russia’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.

As Russia did not issue any rulings in scope of the transparency framework in the relevant period, Russia was not required to exchange any information on rulings in the year in review and no data on the timeliness of exchanges can be reported.

Conclusion on section B

Russia has the necessary legal basis for spontaneous exchange of information, a process for completing the templates in a timely way. Russia has met all of the ToR for the exchange of information process that can be met in the absence of rulings being issued and exchanged in practice and no recommendations are made.

C. Statistics (ToR IV)

As there was no information on rulings exchanged by Russia for the year in review, no statistics can be reported.

D. Matters related to intellectual property regimes (ToR I.4.1.3)

Russia does not offer an intellectual property regime for which transparency requirements under the Action 5 Report (OECD, 2015[5]) 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.

Notes

← 1. With respect to the following preferential regimes: Special economic/industry zones.

← 2. Parties to the Convention are available here: www.oecd.org/tax/exchange-of-tax-information/convention-on-mutual-administrative-assistance-in-tax-matters.htm. Russia has bilateral agreements in force with: Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Botswana, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China (People’s Republic of), Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Morocco, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkey, Turkmenia, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam.

Note by Turkey: The information in this document 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 the 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 Union. The Republic of Cyprus is recognised by all members of the United Nations with the exception of Turkey. The information in this document relates to the area under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.