Estonia

Estonia has met all aspects of the terms of reference (OECD, 2017[3]) (ToR) for the calendar year 2019 (year in review) and no recommendations are made.

Estonia can legally issue two types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework.

In practice, Estonia issued rulings within the scope of the transparency framework as follows:

• 20 past rulings;

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

• For the calendar year 2017: 11 future rulings;

• For the calendar year 2018: nine future rulings, and

• For the year in review: nine future rulings.

Peer input was received from one jurisdiction in respect of the exchanges of information on rulings received from Estonia. The input was positive, noting that information was complete, in a correct format and almost all received in a timely manner.

A. The information gathering process

364. Estonia can legally issue the following two types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework: (i) permanent establishment rulings and (ii) related party conduit rulings.

365. For Estonia, 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. Future rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued on or after 1 April 2016.

366. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Estonia’s undertakings to identify past and future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. In addition, it was determined that Estonia’s review and supervision mechanism was sufficient to meet the minimum standard. Estonia’s implementation remains unchanged, and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.

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

B. The exchange of information

368. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Estonia’s process for the completion and exchange of templates were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. With respect to past rulings, no further action was required from Estonia. Estonia’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.

369. Estonia 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”), (ii) the Directive 2011/16/EU with all other European Union Member States and (iii) bilateral agreements in force with 59 jurisdictions.1

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

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
	12	0	N/A	N/A

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

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

C. Statistics (ToR IV)

372. The statistics for the year in review are as follows:

Category of ruling	Number of exchanges	Jurisdictions exchanged with
Permanent establishment rulings	De minimis rule applies	N/A
Related party conduit rulings	8	Finland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland
De minimis rule applies	4
Total	12

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

373. Estonia does not offer an intellectual property regime for which transparency requirements under the Action 5 Report (OECD, 2015[1]) 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.

References

[3] OECD (2017), BEPS Action 5 on Harmful Tax Practices - Terms of Reference and Methodology for the Conduct of the Peer Reviews of the Action 5 Transparency Framework, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/beps-action-5-harmful-tax-practices-peer-review-transparency-framework.pdf.

[1] OECD (2015), Countering Harmful Tax Practices More Effectively, Taking into Account Transparency and Substance, Action 5 - 2015 Final Report, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264241190-en.

[4] OECD/Council of Europe (2011), The Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264115606-en.

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. Estonia also has bilateral agreements with Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Austria, Bahrein, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, China (People’s Republic of), Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Isle of Man, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jersey, Kazakhstan, Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Moldova, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan and Viet Nam.