copy the linklink copied!Denmark
Denmark has met all aspects of the terms of reference (ToR) for the calendar year 2018 (year in review) and no recommendations are made.
In the prior year report, Denmark did not receive any recommendations.
Denmark can legally issue five types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework. In practice, Denmark issued rulings within the scope of the transparency framework as follows:
-
43 past rulings;
-
For the period 1 April 2016 - 31 December 2016: seven future rulings;
-
For the calendar year 2017: 17 future rulings, and
-
For the year in review: 13 future rulings.
These rulings are published in anonymised form on the tax administration’s website when they are deemed of general public interest.1
Peer input was received from two jurisdictions in respect of the exchanges of information on rulings received from Denmark. The input was generally positive, noting that information was complete, in a correct format and received in a timely manner.
copy the linklink copied!Introduction
This peer review covers Denmark’s implementation of the BEPS Action 5 transparency framework for the year 2018. The report has four parts, each relating to a key part of the ToR. Each part is discussed in turn. A summary of recommendations is included at the end of this report.
copy the linklink copied!A. The information gathering process
Denmark can legally issue the five following types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework: (i) preferential regimes;2 (ii) cross-border unilateral advance pricing agreements (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.4.1.1, I.4.1.2, I.4.2.1, I.4.2.2)
For Denmark, past rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued either: (i) on or after 1 January 2014 but before 1 April 2016; or (ii) on or after 1 January 2010 but before 1 January 2014, provided they were still in effect as at 1 January 2014.
In the prior year peer review reports, it was determined that Denmark’s undertakings to identify past rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. Denmark’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged, and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.
Future rulings (ToR I.4.1.1, I.4.1.2, I.4.2.1)
For Denmark, future rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued on or after 1 April 2016.
In the prior year peer review reports, it was determined that Denmark’s implementation of a new system to identify future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions was sufficient to meet the minimum standard. Denmark’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged, and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.
copy the linklink copied!B. The exchange of information
Legal basis for spontaneous exchange of information (ToR II.5.1, II.5.2)
Denmark has the necessary domestic legal basis to exchange information spontaneously. Denmark 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.
Denmark has international agreements permitting spontaneous exchange of information, including being a party to the (i) Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol (OECD/Council of Europe, 2011[4]) (“the Convention”), (ii) the Directive 2011/16/EU with all other European Union Member States and (iii) double tax agreements in force with 70 jurisdictions.3
Completion and exchange of templates (ToR II.5.3, II.5.4, II.5.5, II.5.6, II.5.7)
In the prior year peer review report, it was determined that Denmark’s process for the completion and exchange of templates were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. Denmark’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.
For the year in review, the timeliness of exchanges is as follows:
It is noted that Denmark experienced a delay with respect to one exchange, due to a change in personnel. The exchange was completed within the year in review, and by seven months of the ruling being made available to the Competent Authority. Denmark has taken action to ensure this problem does not occur in the future by way of a data sheet with an overview of all rulings and dates of exchange, to assist case workers in keeping track of deadlines. As such, no recommendation is made given it was a non-recurring issue that was swiftly remedied.
copy the linklink copied!C. Statistics (ToR IV)
The statistics for the year in review are as follows:
copy the linklink copied!D. Matters related to intellectual property regimes (ToR I.4.1.3)
Denmark does not offer an intellectual property regime for which transparency requirements under the Action 5 Report (OECD, 2015[5]) were imposed.
Notes
← 1. Available at www.skat.dk/skat.aspx?oid=80859&ik_navn=transport
← 2. With respect to the following preferential regime: tonnage tax.
← 3. Parties to the Convention are available here: www.oecd.org/tax/exchange-of-tax-information/convention-on-mutual-administrative-assistance-in-tax-matters.htm. Denmark also has double tax agreements with Argentina, Armenia, Aruba, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, British Virgin Islands, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China (People’s Republic of), Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Egypt, Estonia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Korea, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, North Macedonia, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zambia.
Note by Turkey: The information in this document with reference to “Cyprus” relates to the southern part of the Island. There is no single authority representing both Turkish and Greek Cypriot people on the Island. Turkey recognises the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Until a lasting and equitable solution is found within the context of the United Nations, Turkey shall preserve its position concerning the “Cyprus issue”.
Note by all the European Union Member States of the OECD and the European Union. The Republic of Cyprus is recognised by all members of the United Nations with the exception of Turkey. The information in this document relates to the area under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.
Metadata, Legal and Rights
https://doi.org/10.1787/7cc5b1a2-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.
