Japan

Japan has met all aspects of the terms of reference (ToR) for the calendar year 2018 (year in review) and no recommendations are made.

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

Japan can legally issue three types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework. In practice, Japan has issued rulings within the scope of the transparency framework as follows:

• 51 past rulings;

• For the period 1 April 2016 - 31 December 2016: 12 future rulings;

• For the calendar year 2017: 14 future rulings, and

• For the year in review: 16 future rulings.

Unilateral APAs are not published, whereas written answers under the Written Reply Procedure are published on the National Tax Agency (“NTA”) website.

Peer input was received from two jurisdictions in respect of the exchanges of information on rulings received from Japan. The input was generally positive, noting that information was complete, in a correct format and received in a timely manner.

Introduction

This peer review covers Japan’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

Japan can legally issue the three following types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework: (i) cross-border unilateral advance pricing arrangements (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; (ii) permanent establishment rulings; and (iii) related party conduit rulings.

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

For Japan, 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 Japan’s undertakings to identify past rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. Japan’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 Japan, 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 Japan’s undertakings to identify future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions was sufficient to meet the minimum standard. Japan’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 Japan’s review and supervision mechanism was sufficient to meet the minimum standard. Japan’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged, and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.

Conclusion on section A

Japan 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)

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

Japan is a party to international agreements permitting spontaneous exchange of information, including (i) the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol (OECD/Council of Europe, 2011) (“the Convention”) and (ii) double tax agreements in force with 71 jurisdictions.1

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 Japan’s completion and exchange of templates were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. Japan’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged, and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.

For the year in review, the timeliness of exchanges is as follows:

Past rulings in the scope of the transparency framework	Number of exchanges transmitted by 31 December 2018	Delayed exchanges
		Number of exchanges not transmitted by 31 December 2018	Reasons for the delays	Any other comments
0	0	N/A	N/A
Future rulings in the scope of the transparency framework	Number of exchanges transmitted within three months of the information becoming available to the competent authority or immediately after legal impediments have been lifted	Delayed exchanges
		Number of exchanges transmitted later than three months of the information on rulings becoming available to the competent authority	Reasons for the delays	Any other comments
	38	0	N/A	N/A
Total	38	0

Follow up requests received for exchange of the ruling	Number	Average time to provide response	Number of requests not answered
0	N/A	N/A

Conclusion on section B

Japan has the necessary legal basis for spontaneous exchange of information and a process for completing the templates in a timely way. Japan has met all of the ToR for the exchange of information process and no recommendations are made.

C. Statistics (ToR IV)

The statistics for the year in review are as follows:

Category of ruling	Number of exchanges	Jurisdictions exchanged with
Ruling related to a preferential regime	N/A	N/A
Cross-border unilateral advance pricing agreements (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	38	Australia, Belgium, China (People’s Republic of), Hong Kong (China), India, Indonesia, Ireland, Korea, Malaysia, Netherlands, Philippines, Singapore, Switzerland, Thailand, United Kingdom, United States
Cross-border rulings providing for a unilateral downward adjustment to the taxpayer’s taxable profits that is not directly reflected in the taxpayer’s financial / commercial accounts	N/A	N/A
Permanent establishment rulings	0	N/A
Related party conduit rulings	0	N/A
De minimis rule	N/A	N/A
IP regimes: total exchanges on taxpayers benefitting from the third category of IP assets, new entrants benefitting from grandfathered IP regimes; and taxpayers making use of the option to treat the nexus ratio as a rebuttable presumption	N/A	N/A
Total	38

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

Japan 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

Note

← 1. Parties to the Convention are available here: www.oecd.org/tax/exchange-of-tax-information/convention-on-mutual-administrative-assistance-in-tax-matters.htm. Japan also has bilateral agreements in force with Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brunei Darussalam, Egypt, Fiji, Hong Kong (China), Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Oman, Philippines, Qatar, Sri Lanka, Chinese Taipei, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United States, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam and Zambia.