Brazil
1. Brazil 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 Brazil commences in respect of periods commencing on or after 1 January 2016.
Summary of key findings
3. Brazil’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. Brazil meets all the terms of reference relating to the domestic legal and administrative framework.
(e) Effective implementation
9. No changes were identified with respect to the effective implementation.1
Part B: The exchange of information framework
(a) Exchange of information framework
11. As of 31 March 2020, Brazil has 73 bilateral relationships, including those activated under the CbC MCAA and under bilateral CAAs. Within the context of its international exchange of information agreements that allow automatic exchange of information, Brazil 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.2 Regarding Brazil’s exchange of information framework, no inconsistencies with the terms of reference were identified.
(d) Timeliness of exchanges
14. Peer input was received indicating that Brazil made some late exchanges of CbC reports. Brazil reports that these exchanges were late because of a delay resending reports after receipt of an error status message. Brazil has changed their procedures to ensure that these status messages are picked up and dealt with more quickly so that the delay will not occur and therefore no recommendation is required.
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. Brazil’s 2017/2018 peer review included a general monitoring point relating to a specific process to that would allow to take appropriate measures in case Brazil 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. 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.