Anguilla
1. Anguilla was first reviewed during the 2018/2019 peer review. This report is supplementary to that previous report (OECD, 2018[2]).
2. The first filing obligation for a CbC report in Anguilla commences on or after the 1 January 2019.
Summary of key findings
3. Anguilla’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. Anguilla has primary law in place to implement the BEPS Action 13 minimum standard, establishing the necessary requirements including the filing and reporting obligations.
Part B: The exchange of information framework
(a) Exchange of information framework
11. As of 31 March 2020, Anguilla has 34 bilateral relationships in place for the exchange of CbC reports including those activated under the CbC MCAA. Within the context of its international exchange of information agreements that allow automatic exchange of information, Anguilla 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 condition.1 Regarding Anguilla’s exchange of information framework, no inconsistencies with the terms of reference were identified.
(f) Consultation with other Competent Authority before determining systemic failure or significant non-compliance
16. No changes were identified.
(g) Format for information exchange
17. Anguilla confirms that it uses the OECD XML Schema and User Guide (OECD, 2017[4]) for the international exchange of CbC reports.
Part C: Appropriate use
Appropriate use
20. Anguilla is a non-reciprocal jurisdiction and, as such, will not receive CbC reports submitted to tax authorities in other jurisdictions, and will not apply local filing. It is therefore not necessary for this peer review evaluation to reach any conclusions with respect to appropriate use of the reports.
Conclusion
21. Anguilla is a non-reciprocal jurisdiction and, as such, will not receive CbC reports submitted to tax authorities in other jurisdictions, and will not apply local filing. It is therefore not necessary for this peer review evaluation to reach any conclusions with respect to Anguilla’s compliance with paragraphs 11(a), (b), (c) and (d) and paragraph 12(a) of the terms of reference on appropriate use.
References
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), Country-by-Country Reporting XML Schema: User Guide for Tax Administrations, OECD Publishing, http://www.oecd.org/tax/country-by-country-reporting-xmlschema-user-guide-for-tax-administrations.pdf. [4]
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]
Note
← 1. 1 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.