copy the linklink copied!Argentina
1. Argentina was first reviewed during the 2017/2018 peer review. This report is supplementary to Argentina’s 2017/2018 peer review report (OECD, 2018[1]). The first filing obligation for a CbC report in Argentina commences on or after the 1 January 2017.
copy the linklink copied!Summary of key findings
2. Argentina’s implementation of the Action 13 minimum standard meets all applicable terms of reference (OECD, 2017[2]).
3. Argentina’s 2017/2018 peer review included a recommendation that Argentina take steps to ensure that the appropriate use condition is met ahead of the first exchanges of information. Argentina now has measures in place to ensure the appropriate use of information in all six areas identified in the OECD Guidance on the Appropriate Use of Information contained in CbC Reports (OECD, 2017[4]). The recommendation with respect to appropriate use issued in the 2017/2018 peer review is removed.
copy the linklink copied!Part A: The domestic legal and administrative framework
4. Argentina has secondary law1 in place to implement the BEPS Action 13 minimum standard, establishing the necessary requirements, including filing and reporting obligations. Primary law is not necessary as Argentina relies on existing powers in the Tax Administration Act 1997 that allow the Federal Public Revenue Administration to enact laws to regulate the administration of taxes.2 Guidance has also been issued.3
(a) Parent entity filing obligation
5. Argentina’s 2017/2018 peer review included a monitoring point relating to the annual consolidated group revenue threshold, which could be incompatible with the guidance on currency fluctuations if local filing requirements were applied in respect of a Constituent Entity (which is a Argentinian tax resident) of an MNE Group which does not reach the threshold as determined in the jurisdiction of the Ultimate Parent Entity of such Group. Argentina confirmed that that the rule will be interpreted in line with the OECD guidance on currency fluctuations and the amendments to the secondary law4. The monitoring point is therefore removed.
(b) Scope and timing of parent entity filing
6. No changes were identified with respect to the parent entity filing obligation.
(c) Limitation on local filing obligation
7. Argentina’s 2017/2018 peer review included a general monitoring point with respect to local filing conditions. Amendments to the secondary law5 modified the previous provisions so local filing may be required only in circumstances where there is a current international agreement between Argentina and the residence jurisdiction of the Ultimate Parent Entity, but no Qualifying Competent Authority Agreement in effect which is in line with the terms of reference. Local filing may also be required in Argentina when “there would be a Systematic Failure by the tax jurisdiction of the Ultimate Parent Entity”. In light of this, Argentina has also amended its definition of Systemic failure, to be in accordance with the minimum standard.6 The monitoring points are therefore removed.
(d) Limitation on local filing in case of surrogate filing
8. No changes were identified with respect to the limitation on local filing in case of surrogate filing.7
(e) Effective implementation
9. Argentina’s 2017/2018 peer review included a monitoring point relating to the absence of specific processes in place that would allow Argentina to take appropriate measures in case it 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. Argentina indicates that its domestic framework allows the Federal Administration of Public Revenue to take the necessary action. It also clarified that in the event of an anomaly or a filing error, the company will be requested by the tax authorities to file an amending declaration and these corrected CbC reports will be further exchanged with the relevant jurisdictions. The monitoring point is therefore removed.
Conclusion
10. There is no change to the conclusion in relation to the domestic legal and administration framework for Argentina since the previous peer review. Argentina meets all the terms of reference relating to the domestic legal and administrative framework.
copy the linklink copied!Part B: The exchange of information framework
(a) Exchange of information framework
11. As of 31 May 2019, Argentina has 64 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, Argentina 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.8 9 Regarding Argentina’s exchange of information framework, no inconsistencies with the terms of reference were identified.
(b) Content of information exchanged
12. Argentina has processes in place that are intended to ensure that each of the mandatory fields of information as required in the CbC template are present in the information exchanged. It has provided details in relation to these procedures.
(c) Completeness of exchanges
13. Argentina has processes in place that are intended to ensure that CbC reports are exchanged with all tax jurisdictions listed in Table 1 of a CbC reporting template with which it should exchange information as per the relevant QCAAs. There is an internal control board that allows Argentina to have an up-to-date list of jurisdictions with which Argentina has QCAAs in place. The list of jurisdictions is also continually updated in the official website dedicated to CbC Reporting.
(d) Timeliness of exchanges
14. Argentina has processes in place to ensure that the information to be exchanged is transmitted to the relevant jurisdictions in accordance with the timelines provided for in the relevant QCAAs and terms of reference.10
(e) Temporary suspension of exchange or termination of QCAA
15. Argentina has processes in place that are intended to ensure that a temporary suspension of the exchange of information or termination of a relevant QCAA be carried out only as per the conditions set out in the QCAA. Argentina estimates that if this situation was to occur, the Tax Administration would consult the Department of International Information Management and the concerned Competent Authority prior to making a determination that those conditions set out in the QCAA have occurred.
(f) Consultation with other Competent Authority before determining systemic failure or significant non-compliance
16. Argentina has processes in place that are intended to ensure that the Competent Authority consults with the other Competent Authority prior to making a determination that there is or has been significant non-compliance with the terms of the relevant QCAA or that the other Competent Authority has caused a systemic failure. Argentina confirms that any suspension of exchange of information would only be carried out as stated in the conditions established in the QCAAs.
(g) Format for information exchange
17. Argentina confirms that it uses the OECD XML Schema and User Guide (OECD, 2017[3]) for the international exchange of CbC reports.
(h) Method for transmission
18. Argentina indicates that it uses the Common Transmission System to exchange CbC reports.
Conclusion
19. Argentina has in place the necessary processes and written procedures to ensure that the exchange of information is conducted in a manner consistent with the terms of reference relating to the exchange of information framework. Argentina meets all the terms of reference regarding the exchange of information.
copy the linklink copied!Part C: Appropriate use
20. The 2017/2018 peer review included a recommendation that Argentina take steps to ensure that the appropriate use condition is met ahead of the first exchanges of information. Argentina has provided details in relation to these measures, enabling it to answer “yes” to the additional questions on appropriate use as per the OECD Guidance on the Appropriate use of Information contained in CbC Reports (OECD, 2017[4]). In light of the update provided by Argentina the recommendation on appropriate use is removed.
Conclusion
21. Argentina meets all the terms of reference relating to the appropriate use of CbC reports.
copy the linklink copied!Summary of recommendations on the implementation of country-by-country reporting
Notes
← 1. Secondary law consists of General Resolution 4130-E of 19 September 2017. Argentina has also issued an amendment to the secondary law, General Resolution No. 4332/18, ensuring that the definitions, terms and conditions set out in the legislation are in accordance with the OECD Model Legislation.
← 2. In addition, on 27 December 2018, the Executive Power has released the Decree No. 1170/2018 that modified the General Regulation of the Income Tax Law (Decree No. 1344/44) expressly foresees the three-tiered approach on Transfer Pricing Documentation according to BEPS Action 13.
← 3. See www.afip.gob.ar/multinacionalesDDJJ/regimenes/informe-pais-por-pais/informe-pais-por-pais.asp and www.afip.gob.ar/multinacionalesDDJJ/default.asp#ayuda, as well as related webpages.
← 4. General Resolution No. RESOG-2018-4332-E-AFIP, Article 1, sections a) and b) includes a clarification to this point.
← 5. General Resolution No. RESOG-2018-4332-E-AFIP, Article 1, section c).
← 6. General Resolution No. RESOG-2018-4332-E-AFIP, Article 1, section g).
← 7. Argentina notes that that some explanations on the limitations on local filing are displayed on AFIP’s official website in a Q&A format, for the taxpayers to check, in accordance with item V of the guidelines for the preparation and submission of country-by-country reports. See: www.afip.gob.ar/genericos/guiavirtual/directorio_subcategoria_nivel3.aspx?id_nivel1=563id_nivel2=569&id_nivel3=2495
← 8. 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.
← 9. On 31 October 2018, Argentina also deposited a Unilateral Declaration on “the effective date for exchanges of information under the Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement on the exchange of Country-by-Country Reports” with the Depository of the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters to allow for an earlier date of entry into effect of the Convention for jurisdictions that will sign the Convention at a later date.
← 10. Delays due entirely to the fact that an exchange partner was not able to participate in the exchange of CbC reports are not considered to raise concerns with respect to the jurisdiction under review.
Metadata, Legal and Rights
https://doi.org/10.1787/f9bf1157-en
© OECD 2019
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.
