Egypt

374. Egypt can legally issue the following three 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; (ii) permanent establishment rulings; and (iii) related party conduit rulings.

375. For Egypt, past rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued either (i) on or after 1 January 2016 but before 1 April 2018; and (ii) on or after 1 January 2014 but before 1 January 2016, provided still in effect as at 1 January 2016.

376. In the prior year peer review report, it was determined that Egypt’s undertakings to identify past rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions have met all the ToR, except for identifying all potential exchange jurisdictions for past rulings (ToR I.A.2.2). Therefore, Egypt was recommended to apply the “best efforts approach” to identify potential exchange jurisdictions for past rulings.

377. During the year in review, Egypt has not yet identified the potential exchange jurisdictions for all past rulings, and therefore the recommendation remains in place.

378. For Egypt, future rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued on or after 1 April 2018.

379. In the prior year peer review report, Egypt’s process to identify rulings within the scope of the transparency framework was described, and in addition its process for identifying potential exchange jurisdictions for APAs. However, it was also noted that Egypt did not yet have a process in place for the identification of potential exchange jurisdictions for future rulings other than APAs. Therefore, it was determined that Egypt’s undertakings to identify future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions have met all the ToR, except for identifying all potential exchange jurisdictions for future rulings other than APAs (ToR I.A.2.1). Egypt was recommended to ensure that all potential exchange jurisdictions are identified swiftly for all future rulings other than APAs.

380. During the year in review, Egypt has not yet put in place a process to identify the potential exchange jurisdictions for all future rulings other than APAs, and therefore the recommendation remains in place.

381. Egypt does not yet have in place a review and supervision mechanism for the identification of rulings and potential exchange jurisdictions (ToR I.A.3), and therefore the recommendation remains in place.

382. As noted in the prior year peer review report, Egypt envisages that supervision on the identification of rulings and potential exchange jurisdictions will take place by the managers of the relevant departments. Egypt also intends to issue internal guidance for staff on the identification process.

383. Egypt has met the ToR for the information gathering process except for identifying all potential exchange jurisdictions for past and future rulings (ToR I.A.2.1 and ToR I.A.2.2) and having in place a review and supervision mechanism (ToR I.A.3). Egypt is recommended to continue its efforts to identify all potential exchange jurisdictions for both past and future rulings and to implement a review and supervision mechanism, as soon as possible.

384. Egypt has the necessary domestic legal basis to exchange information spontaneously. Egypt 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.

385. Egypt has international agreements permitting spontaneous exchange of information, including bilateral agreements in force with 58 jurisdictions.1 Egypt 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”). Egypt is encouraged to continue its efforts to expand its international exchange of information instruments to be able to exchange information on tax 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

386. In the prior year peer review report, it was determined that Egypt did not have a process for the completion and exchange of templates. Therefore, Egypt was recommended to develop a process to complete the templates on relevant rulings and to ensure that the exchanges of information on rulings occur in accordance with the form and timelines under the transparency framework (ToR II.B). As no action has been undertaken on this aspect during the year in review, the recommendation remains in place.

387. During the year in review, no exchanges took place and therefore no data on the timeliness of exchanges is reported.

388. Egypt has the necessary legal basis for spontaneous exchange of information, a process for completing the templates in a timely way and has completed all exchanges. Egypt is recommended to swiftly implement its process to complete the templates on relevant rulings and to ensure that the exchanges of information on rulings occur in accordance with the form and timelines under the transparency framework (ToR II.B).

389. As there was no information on rulings exchanged by Egypt for the year in review, no statistics can be reported.

390. Egypt 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.

Note

← 1. Albania, Algeria, Austria, Bahrain, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, China (People’s Republic of), Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Korea, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Palestinian Authority, Poland, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, Spain, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan and Yemen. Egypt also has an agreement with the Council of Arab Economic Unity permitting spontaneous exchange of information.

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.