copy the linklink copied!Chile

copy the linklink copied!

Chile has met all aspects of the terms of reference (OECD, 2017[3]) (ToR) for the calendar year 2018 (year in review) that can be met in the absence of rulings being issued.

In the prior year report, Chile did not receive any recommendations.

Chile can legally issue two types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework. In practice, Chile has issued no rulings within the scope of the transparency framework.

As no exchanges were required to take place, no peer input was received in respect of the exchanges of information on rulings received from Chile.

copy the linklink copied!Introduction

This peer review covers Chile’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

Chile can legally issue the two following types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework: (i) cross-border unilateral advance pricing arrangements (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 and (ii) related party conduit rulings.

Past rulings (ToR I.4.1.1, I.4.1.2, I.4.2.1, I.4.2.2)

For Chile, 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 years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Chile’s undertakings to identify past rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions were sufficient to meet the minimum standard in the absence of rulings being issued in practice. Chile’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 Chile, future rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued on or after 1 April 2016.

In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Chile’s undertakings to identify future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions was sufficient to meet the minimum standard in the absence of rulings being issued in practice. Chile’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged, and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.

Review and supervision (ToR I.4.3)

In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Chile’s review and supervision mechanism currently in place and the procedure to be implemented once a larger number of rulings are issued were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. Chile’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged, and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.

Conclusion on section A

Chile has met all of the ToR for the information gathering process and no recommendations are made.

copy the linklink copied!B. The exchange of information

Legal basis for spontaneous exchange of information (ToR II.5.1, II.5.2)

Chile has the necessary domestic legal basis to exchange information spontaneously. Chile 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.

Chile 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”) and (ii) bilateral agreements in force with 32 jurisdictions.1

Completion and exchange of templates (ToR II.5.3, II.5.4, II.5.5, II.5.6, II.5.7)

In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Chile’s process for the completion and exchange of templates that would be applicable if rulings were issued in practice was sufficient to meet the minimum standard. Chile’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.

As Chile did not issue any rulings in scope of the transparency framework in the relevant period, Chile was not required to exchange any information on rulings in the year in review and no data on the timeliness of exchanges can be reported.

Conclusion on section B

Chile has the necessary legal basis for spontaneous exchange of information, a process for completing the templates in a timely way. Chile has met all of the ToR for the exchange of information process that can be met in the absence of rulings being issued and exchanged in practice and no recommendations are made.

copy the linklink copied!C. Statistics (ToR IV)

As no information on rulings was exchanged for the year in review, no statistical data can be reported.

copy the linklink copied!D. Matters related to intellectual property regimes (ToR I.4.1.3)

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

copy the linklink copied!Summary of recommendations on implementation of the transparency framework

copy the linklink copied!

Aspect of implementation of the transparency framework that should be improved

Recommendation for improvement

No recommendations are made.

Note

← 1. Parties to the Convention are available here: www.oecd.org/tax/exchange-of-tax-information/convention-on-mutual-administrative-assistance-in-tax-matters.htm. Chile also has bilateral agreements in force with Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China (People’s Republic of), Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Norway, New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, United Kingdom and Uruguay.

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.

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.