Uruguay
1. Uruguay 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 Uruguay commences in respect of reporting fiscal years commencing on or after 1 January 2017.
Summary of key findings
3. Uruguay’s implementation of the Action 13 minimum standard meets all applicable terms of reference (OECD, 2017[3]), except for the following:
It is recommended that Uruguay amend its local filing conditions as they are wider than the circumstances when local filing may be required under the terms of reference. This recommendation remains unchanged since the 2017/2018 peer review.
Part A: The domestic legal and administrative framework
4. Uruguay’s law in place to implement the BEPS Action 13 minimum standard.
(c) Limitation on local filing obligation
7. The 2017/2018 peer review included a recommendation to amend its local filing conditions as they are wider than the circumstances when local filing may be required under paragraph 8(c) iv. a) b) and c) of the terms of reference.1 This recommendation remains in place.
Part B: The exchange of information framework
(a) Exchange of information framework
11. As of 31 March 2020 Uruguay has 63 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, Uruguay 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.3
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. See fifth subparagraph, article 46 ter, Title 4 of the 1996 T.O.
← 2. Uruguay’s 2017/2018 peer review included a monitoring point relating to the absence of processes in place to take appropriate measures in case Uruguay is notified by another jurisdiction 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.
← 3. 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