Malaysia

Information gathering process (ToR I.A)

784. Malaysia can legally issue the following five types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework: (i) preferential regimes;1 (ii) 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; (iii) rulings providing for unilateral downward adjustments; (iv) permanent establishment rulings; and (v) related party conduit rulings.

Past rulings (ToR I.A.1.1, I.A.1.2, I.A.2.1, I.A.2.2)

785. For Malaysia, past rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued either (i) on or after 1 January 2015 but before 1 September 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.

786. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Malaysia’s undertakings to identify past rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. Malaysia’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged, and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.

Future rulings (ToR I.A.1.1, I.A.1.2, I.A.2.1)

787. For Malaysia, future rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued on or after 1 September 2017.

788. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Malaysia’s undertakings to identify past and future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions have met all the ToR, except for identifying all potential exchange jurisdictions for future rulings (ToR I.A.2.1). Therefore, Malaysia was recommended to ensure that all potential exchange jurisdictions are identified swiftly for all future rulings.

789. Malaysia notes that during the year in review, a process has been created for identifying potential exchange jurisdictions. Taxpayers need to provide the information required in the Annex C template upon approval of the preferential regime. The promotional agency of Malaysia will monitor the information provided by the taxpayer. However, Malaysia notes that in case taxpayers do not provide the information required in the Annex C template, it will identify potential exchange jurisdictions using the “best efforts approach”. As Malaysia cannot ensure that potential exchange jurisdictions are always identified through the process of requiring taxpayers to provide the Annex C template, the recommendation is not yet resolved. Malaysia is therefore recommended to continue its efforts to ensure that all potential exchange jurisdictions are identified swiftly for all future rulings. Malaysia notes that it started improving this process in 2023, and this will be taken into account in next year's peer review.

Review and supervision (ToR I.A.3)

790. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Malaysia’s review and supervision mechanism was sufficient to meet the minimum standard. Malaysia’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged, and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.

Conclusion on section A

791. Malaysia has met all of the ToR for the information gathering process except for identifying all potential exchange jurisdictions for future rulings (ToR I.A.2.1). Malaysia is recommended to ensure that all potential exchange jurisdictions are identified swiftly for all future rulings.

Exchange of information (ToR II.B)

Legal basis for spontaneous exchange of information (ToR II.B.1, II.B.2)

792. Malaysia has the necessary domestic legal basis to exchange information spontaneously. Malaysia notes that there are no legal or practical impediments that prevent the spontaneous exchange of information on rulings as contemplated in the Action 5 minimum standard.

793. Malaysia has international agreements permitting spontaneous exchange of information, including: (i) the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol (OECD/Council of Europe, 2011[2]) (“the Convention”) and (ii) bilateral agreements in force with 73 jurisdictions.2

Completion and exchange of templates (ToR II.B.3, II.B.4, II.B.5, II.B.6, II.B.7)

794. In the prior year’s peer review report, it was determined that Malaysia’s internal policies, processes and procedures for the completion and exchange of templates were sufficient to meet the minimum standard, except for the provision of information on rulings to the Competent Authority without undue delay, and the timely spontaneous exchange of information on future rulings (ToR II.B).

795. Malaysia’s internal procedures and timelines to provide information on rulings to the Competent Authority remain unchanged, and therefore the recommendation to reduce the timelines for providing information on rulings to the Competent Authority without undue delay remains.

796. During the year in review, no exchanges were required to take place and no data on the timeliness of exchanges is reported. However, as there were delays on the exchange of information on future rulings in previous years and Malaysia reports that internal processes to ensure timely exchanges still need to be further developed, the recommendation to ensure that the exchanges of information on future rulings occur as soon as possible remains. This will be reassessed in next year’s peer review.

Conclusion on section B

797. Malaysia has the necessary legal basis to undertake spontaneous exchange of information. Malaysia is recommended to continue its efforts to reduce the timeliness for providing the information on rulings to the Competent Authority and to complete the templates for all relevant future rulings and to ensure that the exchanges of information on future rulings occur as soon as possible (ToR II.B).

Statistics (ToR IV.D)

798. As no rulings were issued, no statistics can be reported.

Matters related to intellectual property regimes (ToR I.A.1.3)

799. Malaysia does not offer an intellectual property regime for which transparency requirements under the Action 5 Report (OECD, 2015[3]) were imposed.

Summary of recommendations on implementation of the transparency framework