Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes

The Forum ensures compliance with EOIR through an intense peer review process, the forum's main activity since 2009, which is carried out by its Peer Review Group composed of 30 members representative of the diversity of the Forum, and is currently chaired by Singapore.[5]

The review focuses on three main parts, divided into ten elements: Ownership and identity information (A.1); Accounting records (A.2); Banking Information (A.3); Access to Information (B.1); Compatibility of Rights and Safeguards (B.2); Effective mechanisms for EOIR (C.1); Network of EOIR partners (C.2); Confidentiality (C.3); Respect of Rights and Safeguards (C.4); Quality and Timeliness (C.5). Every element is evaluated with regards to the legal and regulatory framework (Phase 1) but also its effective implementation (Phase 2). The output of the peer review is a report in which a rating (Compliant; Largely Compliant; Partially Compliant; Non-compliant) is attributed to each element, alongside an overall rating. The draft report is discussed and approved by the Peer Review Group, and adopted by all Forum members. Where areas of weakness are identified during the review, reports include recommendations setting out improvements jurisdictions need to make in order to reach the international standard. The peer review reports are published and made publicly available.

A first round of reviews was conducted for all member jurisdictions and jurisdictions relevant to the work of the Forum, and ended in 2016. Then, the 2010 Terms of Reference used to conduct the reviews were strengthened to integrate new principles, such as the availability of beneficial ownership information, and became the 2016 Terms of Reference. The Forum is currently in the middle of its second round of reviews.

Since 2009 it has classified tax havens into a "blacklist" of non-committers and a "graylist" (or "greylist") of non-implementers of the request-based "internationally agreed tax standard". The terms blacklist and graylist are not used by the Forum but by news services like Reuters,[6] the BBC[7] and the Congressional Research Service.[8]^:6

In 2014, the Global Forum adopted the Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information in Tax Matters (the AEOI Standard), developed by the OECD working with G20 countries. The AEOI Standard requires financial institutions to automatically disclose information on financial accounts they maintain for non-residents to their tax authorities under the globally-agreed Common Reporting Standard (CRS), who in turn exchange this information with the tax authorities of the account holders’ country of residence.

To be able to exchange information under the AEOI Standard, jurisdictions are asked to:

• Introduce domestic rules requiring their financial institutions to collect and report the data to be exchanges
• Put in place international agreements with each if their partners to deliver the widespread networks necessary for automatic exchange
• Put in place the technical solutions to link into the Common Transmission System (CTS) that was put in place by the OECD’s Forum on Tax Administration and managed by the Global Forum

To deliver a level playing field, the Global Forum launched a commitment process under which 100 jurisdictions committed to implement the AEOI Standard and exchanges commenced accordingly in 2017. In 2018, a total of 93 jurisdictions exchanged information under the AEOI Standard. For 2019, a total of 102 jurisdictions are committed to undertake exchanges under the AEOI Standard.

The 2009 estimate of a budget was 2.9 million. It was raised by a flat fee of 15000 euros for each of the members plus a fee based on the overall GNP with an abatement of 450 USD/inhabitant.[9]

In April 1998 an OECD report acknowledged that tax havens erode the tax base of other countries and undermine the fairness of tax systems, diminishing global welfare.[10] It noted that tax havens were expanding at an exponential rate. The report focused on tax havens in the Caribbean who were not OECD members, and the OECD was thus criticized for not addressing tax havens who were its members. A second report in 2000 included a blacklist of 35 secrecy jurisdictions - all outside the OECD - and a threat of defensive measures against them, with backing from the United States under the Clinton administration.

In 2000, the Global Forum was created with 32 members. Efforts to move against tax evasion in tax havens were quickly "bogged down in arcane haggling", including by a working group between tax havens and the OECD set up at the suggestion of the Commonwealth. In the United States, the Heritage Foundation criticized the move as a European effort to limit competition among tax jurisdictions. The new U.S. administration of George Bush and his first treasury secretary Paul O'Neill stated in May 2001 that the OECD's efforts were "not in line with the administration's priorities". The OECD gave in and announced it had no intention to pursue "defensive measures" against tax havens.[11]^{:149–150, 160–162}

After the September 11, 2001, attacks the United States wanted better cooperation from tax havens on terrorist financing, but was reluctant to tackle tax evasion forcefully. Since the two practices are very similar, the United States only asked the OECD to require tax havens to provide information on request under very narrow conditions, which became the OECD's model for information on tax exchange. As a result, for example Jersey, an important tax haven, provided information to the United States in only five or six cases over a period of seven years.[11]^:167–168

Leaders of the G-20 countries at the London Summit in 2009

The activities against tax havens were only expanded after the financial crisis of 2007-08. At the April 2009 G-20 London summit tax havens were divided into a "blacklist" of non-committers and a "graylist" of non-implementers, based on compliance with the request-based "internationally agreed tax standard".[12] The actual list included three categories:

1. 40 countries and territories substantially implemented the standard
2. 38 countries and territories committed to but had not yet substantially implemented the standard
3. 4 countries had not committed to the standard.

The list of non-implementers initially included, among others, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg and Switzerland. The list of non-committed included Costa Rica, Malaysia, the Philippines and Uruguay.[13] Within five days Costa Rica, Malaysia, the Philippines and Uruguay made "a full commitment to exchange information to the OECD standards" and were removed from the "blacklist" which was thus empty.[14] Panama was ‘white listed’ because it signed a tax information exchange agreement (TIEA) with France. The British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands were white listed by August 2009.[15] No G-20 country was on the greylist of non-implementers, prompting Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker to criticise it for failing to include various states of the USA which provide incorporation infrastructure indistinguishable from the tax havens on the G-20 blacklist.[16] Der Spiegel called the list "The World's Shortest Blacklist" and "the Fight against Tax Havens Is a Sham".[17]

At a meeting in Mexico in September 2009, the Global Forum was restructured and received its own Secretariat. The main decisions were:

• Agree on restructuring the OECD Global Forum to expand its membership and ensure its members participate on an equal footing;
• Agree on how to establish an in-depth peer review process to monitor and review progress made towards full and effective exchange of information; and
• Identify mechanisms to speed-up the negotiation and conclusion of agreements to exchange information and to enable developing countries to benefit from the new more cooperative tax environment.[9]

In March 2010, international efforts were stepped up when the U.S. Congress passed the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) which forces foreign financial firms to disclose their American clients. Also in 2010, the 1988 Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters was amended to include automated exchange of tax information, a key instrument in fighting tax evasion, and expanding it to developing countries.[18] In 2013, a working group was formed to promote the automated exchange of tax information.

In July 2014, the Forum published standards for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information.[19]

As of November 2015, more than 90 members have committed to go beyond Exchange of Information on Request and to implement Automatic Exchange of Information. An international framework agreement, the Common Reporting Standard Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement (CRS MCAA), specifies the details of what information will be exchanged and when. As of October 2015, it has been signed by 74 jurisdictions. Since the agreement is a framework agreement, it only comes into effect for each signatory after it has confirmed that it has undertaken certain steps such as passing national legislation.[20] According to the Forum, "Work is currently underway to implement this Standard, with the first exchanges occurring on a very ambitious timeline of 2017 and 2018".[2]

  Member tax jurisdictions as of 2011

  Interest in membership as of 2011

At its founding in 2000, the Forum had 32 member tax jurisdictions, and it had 90 members in September 2009. In November 2015, the Forum had 128 member tax jurisdictions and the European Union, and in November 2019 it had 158 members:[3]

•  European Union

Tax jurisdictions

As of November 2019 there are 19 observers

• African Development Bank
• African Tax Administration Forum (ATAF)
• African Union Commission (AUC)
• Asian Development Bank
• Caribbean Community (CARICOM)
• Centre de Rencontre des Administrations Fiscales (CREDAF)
• Commonwealth Secretariat
• Council of Europe Development Bank
• European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
• European Investment Bank
• Financial Action Task Force (FATF)
• Inter-American Development Bank
• Inter-American Center of Tax Administrations (CIAT)
• International Monetary Fund
• International Finance Corporation
• Intra-European Organisation of Tax Administrations (IOTA)
• United Nations
• World Bank Group
• World Customs Organisation

The Global Forum's peer review process examines both the legal and regulatory aspects of exchange (Phase 1 reviews) and the exchange of information in practice (Phase 2). The peer reviews cover only the limited exchange of information on request.

At its meeting in Jakarta in November 2013, the Global Forum assigned the ratings for the first 50 jurisdictions that had completed their Phase 1 and Phase 2 reviews. The Phase 1 review found that 14 countries and territories had gaps in their legal framework and were not allowed to move to Phase 2 unless they improved their legal framework.[21]

The ten countries and territories that were at the top of the Financial Secrecy Index 2013, an index established by the NGO Tax Justice Network and that also takes into account the size of the transactions in a tax haven, were categorized as follows: Lebanons and Switzerland had not completed Phase 1. Luxembourg was listed as Category D, Jersey as Category C, and the Cayman Islands, Germany, Hong Kong, Singapore as well as the United States were listed as Category B. Japan was the only country classified as one of the ten major tax havens by the Tax Justice Network that was listed in Category A.

The following jurisdictions are not eligible to move to Phase 2 review until they act on recommendations to improve their legal and regulatory framework:

Country/Region
Botswana
Brunei
Dominica
Guatemala
Lebanon
Liberia
Marshall Islands
Nauru
Niue
Panama
Switzerland
Trinidad and Tobago
United Arab Emirates
Vanuatu

Among those countries that had created an adequate legal framework and thus had moved to Phase 2, four countries - including Luxembourg - were found to be non-compliant with their own legal framework (grade D). Two countries - Austria and Turkey - were only partially compliant (grade C).[21]

Country/Region	Overall Rating
Australia	A - Compliant
Belgium	A - Compliant
Canada	A - Compliant
China	A - Compliant
Denmark	A - Compliant
Finland	A - Compliant
France	A - Compliant
Iceland	A - Compliant
India	A - Compliant
Ireland	A - Compliant
Isle of Man	A - Compliant
Japan	A - Compliant
Korea	A - Compliant
New Zealand	A - Compliant
Norway	A - Compliant
South Africa	A - Compliant
Spain	A - Compliant
Sweden	A - Compliant
Argentina	B - Largely Compliant
Bahamas	B - Largely Compliant
Bahrain	B - Largely Compliant
Bermuda	B - Largely Compliant
Brazil	B - Largely Compliant
Cayman Islands	B - Largely Compliant
Estonia	B - Largely Compliant
Germany	B - Largely Compliant
Greece	B - Largely Compliant
Guernsey	B - Largely Compliant
Hong Kong	B - Largely Compliant
Italy	B - Largely Compliant
Jamaica	B - Largely Compliant
Jersey	B - Largely Compliant
Macau	B - Largely Compliant
Malta	B - Largely Compliant
Mauritius	B - Largely Compliant
Monaco	B - Largely Compliant
Netherlands	B - Largely Compliant
Philippines	B - Largely Compliant
Qatar	B - Largely Compliant
San Marino	B - Largely Compliant
Singapore	B - Largely Compliant
Turks and Caicos Islands	B - Largely Compliant
United Kingdom	B - Largely Compliant
United States	B - Largely Compliant
Austria	C - Partially Compliant
Turkey	C - Partially Compliant
Cyprus	D - Non Compliant
Luxembourg	D - Non Compliant
Seychelles	D - Non Compliant
British Virgin Islands	D - Non Compliant

As of October 31, 2015 the ratings were as follows:[22] 8 countries still had deficiencies in their legal framework. 25 countries, including Switzerland, had completed their legal framework (Phase 1 review), but had not yet had a Phase 2 review. Among the countries and territories that had passed a Phase 2 review, none was rated non-compliant (Grade D) any more. Nine countries were rated as only partially compliant (Grade C), still including Austria and Turkey.

The ten countries and territories that were at the top of the Financial Secrecy Index 2015, an index established by the NGO Tax Justice Network and that also takes into account the size of the transactions in a tax haven, were categorized as follows: Lebanon had not completed Phase 1. Switzerland and the UAE had completed Phase 1 and were awaiting Phase 2. Luxembourg and Jersey had moved up to Category B, along with the Cayman Islands, Germany, Hong Kong, Singapore as well as the United States. Bahrain, which had not been among the top ten tax havens in 2013, was also in Category B. Japan and Jersey had improved their transparency and were not any more among the ten most important tax havens, moving to number 12 and 16 respectively.

The following jurisdictions are not eligible to move to Phase 2 review until they act on recommendations to improve their legal and regulatory framework:

Country/Region
Micronesia
Guatemala
Kazakhstan
Lebanon
Liberia
Nauru
Trinidad and Tobago
Vanuatu

The following jurisdictions have completed the Phase 1 review, i.e. their legal framework had been reviewed and they were eligible to move to Phase 2:

Country/Region
Albania
Azerbaijan
Botswana
Brunei
Burkina Faso
Cameroon
Dominica
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Gabon
Georgia
Kenya
Lesotho
Marshall Islands
Mauritania
Morocco
Nigeria
Niue
Pakistan
Panama
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Switzerland
Uganda
United Arab Emirates

The following countries and territories had passed a Phase 2 review:

Country/Region	Overall Rating
Australia	A - Compliant
Belgium	A - Compliant
Canada	A - Compliant
China	A - Compliant
Colombia	A - Compliant
Denmark	A - Compliant
Finland	A - Compliant
France	A - Compliant
Iceland	A - Compliant
India	A - Compliant
Ireland	A - Compliant
Isle of Man	A - Compliant
Japan	A - Compliant
Korea	A - Compliant
Lithuania	A - Compliant
Mexico	A - Compliant
New Zealand	A - Compliant
Norway	A - Compliant
Slovenia	A - Compliant
South Africa	A - Compliant
Spain	A - Compliant
Sweden	A - Compliant
Argentina	B - Largely Compliant
Bahamas	B - Largely Compliant
Bahrain	B - Largely Compliant
Belize	B - Largely Compliant
Bermuda	B - Largely Compliant
Brazil	B - Largely Compliant
British Virgin Islands	D - Largely Compliant
Cayman Islands	B - Largely Compliant
Chile	B - Largely Compliant
Cook Islands	B - Largely Compliant
Cyprus	D - Largely Compliant
Czech Republic	D - Largely Compliant
Estonia	B - Largely Compliant
Germany	B - Largely Compliant
Greece	B - Largely Compliant
Grenada	B - Largely Compliant
Guernsey	B - Largely Compliant
Hong Kong	B - Largely Compliant
Hungary	B - Largely Compliant
Italy	B - Largely Compliant
Jamaica	B - Largely Compliant
Jersey	B - Largely Compliant
Latvia	B - Largely Compliant
Liechtenstein	B - Largely Compliant
Luxembourg	B - Largely Compliant
Macau	B - Largely Compliant
Malta	B - Largely Compliant
Mauritius	B - Largely Compliant
Monaco	B - Largely Compliant
Netherlands	B - Largely Compliant
Philippines	B - Largely Compliant
Poland	B - Largely Compliant
Portugal	B - Largely Compliant
Qatar	B - Largely Compliant
Russia	B - Largely Compliant
Saint Kitts and Nevis	B - Largely Compliant
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	B - Largely Compliant
San Marino	B - Largely Compliant
Seychelles	B - Largely Compliant
Singapore	B - Largely Compliant
Slovak Republic	B - Largely Compliant
Turks and Caicos Islands	B - Largely Compliant
United Kingdom	B - Largely Compliant
United States	B - Largely Compliant
Uruguay	B - Largely Compliant
Austria	C - Partially Compliant
Costa Rica	C - Partially Compliant
Curacao	C - Partially Compliant
Indonesia	C - Partially Compliant
Israel	C - Partially Compliant
Saint Lucia	C -Partially Compliant
Samoa	C - Partially Compliant
Sint Maarten	C - Partially Compliant
Turkey	C - Partially Compliant

The following jurisdictions have completed the Phase 1 review, i.e. their legal framework had been reviewed and they were eligible to move to Phase 2:

Country/Region
Croatia
Lebanon
Liberia
Nauru
Peru
Tunisia
Ukraine
Vanuatu

The following countries and territories had passed a Phase 2 review:

Country/Region	Overall Rating
Albania	B - Largely Compliant
Azerbaijan	B - Largely Compliant
Barbados	B - Largely Compliant
Botswana	B - Largely Compliant
Brunei Darussalam	B - Largely Compliant
Burkina Faso	B - Largely Compliant
Cameroon	B - Largely Compliant
Dominica	C - Partially Compliant
Dominican Republic	C - Partially Compliant
El Salvador	B - Largely Compliant
Gabon	B - Largely Compliant
Georgia	B - Largely Compliant
Israel	B - Largely Compliant
Kenya	B - Largely Compliant
Lesotho	B - Largely Compliant
Marshall Islands	D - Non-Compliant
Mauritania	B - Largely Compliant
Morocco	B - Largely Compliant
Nigeria	B - Largely Compliant
Niue	B - Largely Compliant
Pakistan	B - Largely Compliant
Panama	D - Not-Compliant
Romania	B - Largely Compliant
Saint Lucia	B - Largely Compliant
Saudi Arabia	B - Largely Compliant
Senegal	B - Largely Compliant
Switzerland	B - Largely Compliant
Uganda	B - Largely Compliant
United Arab Emirates	C - Partially Compliant

For the first time, a Combined review of both Phase 1 and Phase 2 was introduced as part of the review process :

Country/Region	Overall Rating
Bulgaria	B - Largely Compliant

Starting 2017, the Global Forum started its second round of Reviews, assessing new members for the first time as well as the progress made by the jurisdictions that underwent a review in the first Round. The following jurisdictions have completed a Combined review of both Phase 1 (legal and regulatory framework) and Phase 2 (implementation)

Country/Region	Overall Rating
Australia	B - Largely Compliant
Bermuda	B - Largely Compliant
Canada	B - Largely Compliant
Cayman Islands	B - Largely Compliant
Curacao	C - Partially Compliant
Germany	B - Largely Compliant
India	B - Largely Compliant
Ireland	B - Largely Compliant
Isle of Man	A - Compliant
Italy	A - Compliant
Jamaica	C - Partially Compliant
Jersey	A - Compliant
Mauritius	A - Compliant
Norway	A - Compliant
Qatar	B - Largely Compliant

The following jurisdictions have completed a Combined review of both Phase 1 (legal and regulatory framework) and Phase 2 (implementation)

Country/Region	Overall Rating
Aruba	B - Largely Compliant
Austria	B - Largely Compliant
Bahamas	B - Largely Compliant
Bahrain	A - Compliant
Belgium	B - Largely Compliant
Brazil	B - Largely Compliant
Estonia	A - Compliant
France	A - Compliant
Ghana	C - Partially Compliant
Guernsey	A - Compliant
Hungary	B - Largely Compliant
Indonesia	B - Largely Compliant
Jamaica	B - Largely Compliant
Japan
Kazakhstan	C - Partially Compliant
Monaco	A - Compliant
New Zealand	A - Compliant
Philippines	B - Largely Compliant
Saint Kitts and Nevis	B - Largely Compliant
San Marino	A - Compliant
Singapore	A - Compliant
United Kingdom	B - Largely Compliant
United States	B - Largely Compliant

As of March 2015, more than 90 countries have committed in principle to the automated exchange of tax information.[23] More specifically, the first undertaking first exchanges by 2017 will be: Anguilla, Argentina, Barbados, Belgium, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Bulgaria, Cayman Islands, Colombia, Croatia, Curaçao, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Estonia, Faroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Gibraltar, Greece, Greenland, Guernsey, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Isle of Man, Italy, Jersey, Korea, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Montserrat, Netherlands, Niue, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Seychelles, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands, United Kingdom The ones undertaking first exchanges by 2018 will be: Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Australia, Austria, The Bahamas, Belize, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, China, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Ghana, Grenada, Hong Kong (China), Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, Marshall Islands, Macao (China), Malaysia, Mauritius, Monaco, New Zealand, Qatar, Russia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sint Maarten, Switzerland, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay

In the old situation, assessed at 2014, 50 countries had made a commitment (the list needs to be updated and completed):

Country	Target Year for Implementation	Primary legislation	Secondary legislation
Mexico	2017
Hungary	2017
Monaco	2017
Czech Republic	2017
United Kingdom	2017	Yes	Yes
Germany	2017
Switzerland	2018
Ukraine	2017
Portugal	2017
Netherlands	2017
Italy	2017	Yes
Iceland	2017
France	2017
Spain	2017	Yes	Yes
Norway	2017
Luxemburg	2017
Ireland	2017	Yes
Denmark	2017	Yes
South Korea	2017	Yes	Yes
Cyprus	2017
Sweden	2017
Colombia	2017
Belgium	2017
Greece	2017
Singapore	2017
Liechtenstein	2017
South Africa	2017
Mauritius	2017
Barbados
India		Yes	Yes
Bulgaria
Serbia	2017
Poland	2017
Norway	2017
Finland	2017
Croatia	2017
Argentina	2017
San Marino	2017
Seychelles
Trinidad and Tobago
Greenland
Faroe Islands	2017
Guernsey	2017
Isle of Man	2017
Jersey	2017
Anguila	2017
Bermuda	2017
Gibraltar	2017
Cayman Islands	2017
Turks and Caicos	2017
British Virgin Islands	2017
Montserrat	2017
Austria	2018	Yes
Aruba	2018

As of November 2015, 41 countries have submitted specific commitments to implement legislation and other measures related to the automated exchange of tax information. No single tax haven has made specific commitments to the automated exchange of information so far. The following countries have passed primary legislation related to the automated exchange of tax information:[23]

Country/Region
Austria
Denmark
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
South Korea
Spain
United Kingdom

For the automated exchange of information to be implemented secondary legislation is also necessary. India, Japan, South Korea, Spain and the UK are the only countries that have also passed secondary legislation until October 2015.[23] A peer review process on automated exchange of information, based on the existing peer review for information exchange on request, is in the process of being set up.