Congo

270. Congo can legally issue the following two types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework: (i) cross-border unilateral APAs and any other cross-border unilateral tax rulings (such as an advance tax ruling) covering transfer pricing or the application of transfer pricing principles and (ii) permanent establishment rulings.

271. For Congo, past rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued either (i) on or after 1 January 2015 but before 1 April 2017; and (ii) on or after 1 January 2012 but before 1 January 2015, provided they were still in effect as at 1 January 2015.

272. In the 2018 peer review report, it was determined that Congo issued no past rulings in scope of the transparency framework. As such, there was no need to identify potential exchange jurisdictions.

273. For Congo, future rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued on or after 1 April 2017.

274. In the 2018 peer review report, Congo indicated that there were no processes in place for the record keeping of rulings for the purposes of the transparency framework. It was noted that Congo intended to implement guidelines and practices to make sure the necessary information to meet the requirements of the transparency framework is required in all cases. Congo was recommended to finalise its information gathering process as soon as possible.

275. During the year in review, as it is not known whether Congo has finalised its information gathering process, the recommendation remains in place.

276. In the 2018 peer review report, it was determined that Congo did not yet have a review and supervision mechanism under the transparency framework. Congo was in the process of considering the implementation of a revision and supervision mechanism for ensuring implementation of the transparency framework. As it is not known whether Congo has put in place a review and supervision mechanism under the transparency framework for the year in review, the recommendation remains in place.

277. Congo is recommended to finalise its information gathering process, with a review and supervision mechanism, as soon as possible (ToR I.A).

278. In the 2018 peer review report, it was determined that Congo was in the process of putting in place the necessary domestic legal basis to exchange information spontaneously. It is not known whether Congo has already put in place the necessary domestic legal basis to exchange information spontaneously for the year in review.

279. Congo has international agreements permitting spontaneous exchange of information, including bilateral agreements in force with 3 jurisdictions.2 Congo is not a party to the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol (OECD/Council of Europe, 2011[4]) (“the Convention”). Congo is encouraged to continue its efforts to expand its international exchange of information instruments to be able to exchange information on rulings. It is noted, however, that jurisdictions are assessed on their compliance with the transparency framework in respect of the exchange of information network in effect for the year of the particular annual review.

280. In the 2018 peer review report, it was determined that Congo was developing a process to complete the templates on relevant rulings, to make them available to the Competent Authority for exchange of information, and to exchange them with relevant jurisdictions. It is not known whether Congo has already put in place such a process for the year in review.

281. As it is not known whether exchanges took place in the year of review, no data on the timeliness of exchanges can be reported.

282. Congo is recommended to put in place a domestic legal framework allowing spontaneous exchange of information on rulings and to continue its efforts to complete the templates for all relevant rulings and to ensure that the exchanges of information on rulings occur as soon as possible (ToR II.B).

283. As the Secretariat is not aware whether information on rulings was exchanged by Congo for the year in review, no statistics can be reported.

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

References

[3] OECD (2021), 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.

[2] OECD (ed.) (2017b), Harmful Tax Practices - 2017 Progress Report on Preferential Regimes, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264283954-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.

Notes

← 1. Congo was not yet in a position to provide written comments on the draft report.

← 2. Congo has bilateral agreements with France, Italy and Mauritius.

Metadata, Legal and Rights

This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Extracts from publications may be subject to additional disclaimers, which are set out in the complete version of the publication, available at the link provided.

© OECD 2021

The use of this work, whether digital or print, is governed by the Terms and Conditions to be found at http://www.oecd.org/termsandconditions.