South Africa
1. South Africa 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 South Africa applies to reporting fiscal years commencing on or after 1 January 2016.
Summary of key findings
3. South Africa’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 Approved
4. South Africa has legislation in place which implements the BEPS Action 13 minimum standard, establishing the necessary requirements1.
Part B: The exchange of information framework
(a) Exchange of information framework
11. As of 31 March 2020, South Africa has 72 bilateral relationships in place, including those activated under the CbC MCAA and under a bilateral CAA. Within the context of its international exchange of information agreements that allow automatic exchange of tax information, South Africa 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. Regarding South Africa’s exchange of information framework, no inconsistencies with the terms of reference were identified.2
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. South Africa’s 2017/2018 peer review included a monitoring point for South Africa to issue an updated interpretation or clarification of the definitions of "Revenues – Unrelated Party" and "Revenues – Related Party" within a reasonable timeframe to ensure consistency with OECD guidance. This monitoring point remains in place
← 2. 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.