Austria
1. Austria was first reviewed during the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 peer review. This report is supplementary to those previous reports (OECD, 2019[1]) (OECD, 2018[2]).
2. The first filing obligation for a CbC report in Austria applies to reporting fiscal years commencing on or after 1 January 2016.
Summary of key findings
3. Austria’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. Austria has primary law in place that implements the BEPS Action 13 minimum standard, establishing the necessary requirements, including the filing and reporting obligations.
Part B: The exchange of information framework
11. As of 31 March 2020, Austria has 67 bilateral relationships in place, including those activated under the CbC MCAA, under bilateral QCAAs, and under the EU Council Directive (2016/881/EU). Within the context of its international exchange of information agreements that allow automatic exchange of information, Austria has taken steps to have qualifying competent authority agreements in effect with jurisdictions of the Inclusive Framework that currently meet the confidentiality, consistency and appropriate use conditions. Regarding Austria’s exchange of information framework, no inconsistencies with the terms of reference identified.2
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. Austria’s 2017/2018 peer review included a general monitoring point relating to the absence of a specific process that would allow Austria to take appropriate measures in case it is notified by another jurisdiction that such other jurisdiction has reason to believe that an error may have led to incorrect or incomplete information reporting by a Reporting Entity or that there is non-compliance of a Reporting Entity with respect to its obligation to file a CbC report. Austria indicates that audit processes would apply in cases where no CbC Report was transmitted. This monitoring point remains in place.
← 2. 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.