The primary objective of this work is to ensure alignment between the guidance on intra-group services and the foundational principles in Chapters I, II and III of the TPG.

The revisions also seek to further enhance clarity and provide practical illustrations through the inclusion of new examples. The revisions are not intended to change the general principles underlying the transfer pricing analysis of intra-group services.

The discussion draft presents proposed revisions relating to the accurate delineation of intra-group services, the determination of the arm’s length charge and other conditions for such services, documentation considerations intended to supplement the guidance in Chapter V, and new examples illustrating the application of the principles described in the guidance.

A section on “Low value-adding intra-group services” reproduces the existing approach in the TPG, with updated cross-references where necessary.

The publication of the discussion draft reflects the views of Working Party 6 delegates that this is an appropriate time to invite input from stakeholders, but it does not at this stage represent the consensus views of the Committee on Fiscal Affairs or its subsidiary bodies that any portion of the content of the draft should be adopted in an updated version of Chapter VII. The discussion draft is merely intended to provide stakeholders with substantive proposals for potential revisions and additions to the current version of Chapter VII for analysis and comment.

The OECD invites stakeholders to comment on all aspects of the discussion draft, including the extent to which the objectives of this work have been met by 22 July 2026. The draft includes several specific questions for public commentators on matters for which input will be particularly valuable to WP6 in advancing its work and preparing subsequent iterations of the draft following consideration of the comments received.

The OECD intends to hold a public consultation on this discussion draft in November 2026 at the OECD Conference Centre in Paris, France.

If you would like more information on the consultation, please contact Keith Rushen on 0207 486 2378.

The post OECD Issues Consultation on TP Guidelines and Intra Group Services appeared first on Robinson Rushen.

The report includes a technical update on progress regarding implementation of the BEPS minimum standards in Annex A.

Action 5 – Harmful Tax Practices

The Action 5 minimum standard addresses harmful tax practices through peer review, ensuring that preferential tax regimes do not facilitate BEPS or attract profits without real economic activity, and by ensuring transparency through the exchange of information on certain tax rulings.

• Transparency framework: peer review assessments are carried out annually on almost 140 jurisdictions. When the BEPS Package was issued, virtually no information on tax rulings was being exchanged. The latest peer review results were published in December 2025. Based on recent data, over 64,000 exchanges of rulings have taken place.
• Preferential regimes: the Forum on Harmful Tax Practices (FHTP) has released its latest regime review results in February and has now reviewed 326 regimes, with over 40% of those regimes being abolished. The latest review was the first one done in line with the revised methodology, adopted by the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework in April 2025, that ensures that the BEPS-impact of a regime is first assessed prior to a legislative review by the FHTP. In 2026, the FHTP will continue its regime reviews in line with the revised methodology.
• No or only nominal tax jurisdictions: the 11 no or nominal tax jurisdictions have been reviewed under Action 5 for the fifth consecutive year and have all introduced economic substance requirements. The next annual monitoring exercise for no or only nominal tax jurisdictions will take place in the second half of 2026.

Action 6 – Tax Treaty Abuse

The Action 6 minimum standard is focused on strengthening tax treaties with anti-abuse measures to ensure that they do not create opportunities for non-taxation or reduced taxation through tax evasion or avoidance, including through treaty shopping arrangements. Preventing treaty abuse helps to more closely align the allocation of income between countries with the economic activity that generates that income.

Implementation of the Action 6 minimum standard in tax treaties is at an advanced stage primarily through the use of the BEPS MLI, with most newly concluded tax treaties now also including provisions implementing the Action 6 minimum standard.

To date, the BEPS MLI covers 107 jurisdictions of which 90 have already ratified and over 2,000 bilateral tax treaties. The MLI has already effectively modified over 1,600 of those bilateral tax treaties with approximately 400 additional treaties to be effectively modified once all Signatories ratify. Most jurisdictions that have signed the BEPS MLI have listed all, or almost all, of their tax treaties to be covered.

At this stage more than 90% of the tax treaties concluded between members of the IF are either compliant with the minimum standard, subject to a complying instrument, or subject to steps taken by at least one treaty partner to implement the minimum standard.

Action 13 – Country-by-Country reporting

Action 13 requires all large multinationals to prepare a CbC report with aggregate data on the global allocation of income, profit, taxes paid and economic activity in all tax jurisdictions in which it operates. The CbC report is then shared with qualifying tax administrations in these jurisdictions, for use in high level transfer pricing and BEPS risk assessments.

As a result of Action 13, over 120 IF members have introduced legislation to require the filing of a CbC report, covering substantially all MNEs above the EUR 750 million threshold.  106 IF members are automatically exchanging CbC reports filed in their jurisdiction with other members that meet the conditions under the standard, and  84 IF members have completed all of the building blocks to enable them to be in a position to receive CbC reports on exchange.

The eighth annual peer review report of Action 13, which considers all aspects of implementation of the CbC Reporting minimum standard by 142 IF members as of 31 March 2025, was released in September 2025. This shows that, where a jurisdiction has legislation in place, the implementation of CbC Reporting has been largely consistent with the Action 13 minimum standard. In particular, since the previous peer review report was released in 2024, 16 jurisdictions have taken steps which followed one or more recommendations for improvements to their domestic legal and administrative framework, their exchange of information framework, or their controls over the appropriate use of CbC reports, enabling these recommendations to be removed. The ninth annual peer review is currently underway and the results are expected to be released in September 2026.

The OECD has provided extensive support, including targeted multilateral workshops on technical issues, to developing countries in their implementation of the Action 13 minimum standard. In total, 28 developing countries now have CbC reporting fully in place, plus a further two jurisdictions that were developing countries at the time they implemented CbC reporting, but which have since been re-categorised as high-income jurisdictions, including 13 that completed the steps to receive CbC reports since the G20/OECD Roadmap on Developing Countries and International Taxation Update was released in July 2023.

Work is also underway to make sure that the information in CbC reports exchanged under Action 13 can be put to effective use, including through workshops, training events, risk assessment software, handbooks and guidance.

Action 14 – Mutual Agreement Procedure

The Action 14 minimum standard aims to ensure that dispute resolution mechanisms in tax treaties operate effectively. This is achieved through a peer review process designed to assess how jurisdictions comply with the standard.

Under this framework, IF members are assessed based on their ability to prevent disputes, the availability and access to MAP, the resolution of MAP cases, and the implementation of MAP agreements. Beyond assessment, the peer review process serves as an opportunity to provide jurisdictions with recommendations, guidance, and ongoing support to help them meet the standard. Peer reviews began in 2016, initially focusing on jurisdictions with significant MAP experience.

Following the completion of these reviews in 2022 with each jurisdiction being reviewed in two stages, these jurisdictions are now subject to a full peer review every four years to monitor their progress and are encouraged to use the feedback to further refine their MAP policies and practices. Since 2022, jurisdictions with limited MAP experience have been subject to a simplified peer review process which helps them develop policies, share information, and build capacity for future MAP cases, with support from the FTA MAP Forum.

Key outcomes of Action 14:

• 82 jurisdictions have completed two stages of peer review. A full peer review process is currently underway to assess the progress achieved by 55 jurisdictions with meaningful MAP experience in meeting the Action 14 minimum standard. Reviews have been started for 44 of these jurisdictions. Of these, reviews for 18 have been completed, with final reports already published for four and expected soon for the remaining 12.
• 77 jurisdictions with limited or no MAP experience have undergone or are undergoing a simplified peer review process. Reports for 60 of these jurisdictions have already been published and the remaining 17 jurisdictions are undergoing peer review. The simplified peer review process aims to help these jurisdictions to set up a more robust MAP programme for a possible increase in cases in the future.

Jurisdictions also report statistics related to their tax certainty obligations under Action 14. Ongoing collection of data provides a clearer picture of implementation and ensures transparency through published information on MAP, for example MAP guidance or MAP profiles are available through the annual Consolidated Information on MAP. Starting in 2024, jurisdictions have also begun reporting statistics on Advance Pricing Arrangements, offering stakeholders deeper insights into the functioning of dispute prevention mechanisms within each jurisdiction.

If you would like more detail on the above, please contact Keith Rushen on 0207 486 2378.

The post OECD Reports On BEPS Minimum Standards Implementation appeared first on Robinson Rushen.

The list is part of the EU’s efforts to promote tax good governance worldwide. It is composed of countries which fail to comply with agreed international tax standards or did not fulfil their commitments on tax good governance within a specific timeframe.

Two countries – Turks and Caicos Islands and Viet Nam – have been added to the EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes (Annex 1).

The Turks and Caicos Islands have been added to Annex I following concerns raised by the OECD forum on harmful tax practices regarding the enforcement of economic substance requirements in the jurisdiction. Viet Nam has also been included after the OECD Global Forum’s review revealed that the country did not meet the necessary standards for the exchange of tax information on request

Three countries – Fiji, Samoa and Trinidad and Tobago – have been removed from the list as they now comply with all agreed international standards.

Annex 1 now consists of 10 jurisdictions, including American Samoa, Anguilla, Guam, Palau, Panama, Russia, Turks and Caicos Islands, US Virgin Islands, Vanuatu and Viet Nam.

In addition, the entries in Annex I for American Samoa, Guam, and the US Virgin Islands have been updated to reflect ongoing efforts to address compliance with certain tax cooperation standards. However, this progress was not considered enough to warrant their complete removal from the list.

The Council has also approved the usual state of play document (Annex II) which reflects ongoing commitments of those countries included to reform their legislation to adhere to agreed tax good governance standards.

Annex II did include 11 jurisdictions, being Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, British Virgin Islands, Brunei Darussalam, Eswatini, Greenland, Jordan, Montenegro, Morocco, Seychelles, and Turkey.

Antigua and Barbuda and Seychelles have both received a positive rating from the Global Forum regarding their systems for exchanging tax information on request. As a result, both jurisdictions have fulfilled their commitments and will be removed from the state of play document.

Brunei has been granted a six-month extension to reform its foreign-source income exemption regime. The additional time will allow Brunei to implement the necessary changes to be delisted.

Work on the list is a dynamic process and, since 2020, the Council updates the list twice a year. The next revision of the list is scheduled for October 2026.

If you would like more information on the above, please contact Keith Rushen on 0207 486 2378.

The post EU Updates List of Non Cooperative Jurisdictions for Tax Purposes appeared first on Robinson Rushen.

During its meeting in November 2025, the OECD Forum on Harmful Tax Practices (FHTP) reached new conclusions on four regimes and completed its fifth annual monitoring of the substantial activities requirements in no or only nominal tax jurisdictions, as part of the implementation of the BEPS Action 5 minimum standard on harmful tax practices.

Three newly introduced regimes were examined, with two assessed as not harmful, being Ireland (participation exemption for certain foreign dividends), and Peru (framework law on special economic zones). The third was found to have been abolished, being Fiji (original ICT business investment activities). Another regime that had previously been under review was confirmed as abolished, also Fiji (export income deduction regime).

Results of the FHTP’s fifth annual monitoring of the substantial activities requirements in no or only nominal tax jurisdictions indicate that the majority of these eleven jurisdictions are fully compliant with the BEPS Action 5 minimum standard. However, focused monitoring will be undertaken for two jurisdictions (Anguilla and the Turks and Caicos Islands), where substantial improvements are required in specific areas.

These results also include the FHTP’s review of legislation, regulations and guidance issued since the June 2019 meeting.

Since the launch of the BEPS Project, the FHTP has reviewed a total of 326 preferential regimes, with almost 40% of those regimes being abolished.

If you would like more detail on the above, please contact Keith Rushen on 0207 486 2378.

The post OECD Publishes Latest Peer Review Results on Preferential Tax Regimes appeared first on Robinson Rushen.

The package includes five key components:

• a series of simplification measures will reduce compliance burdens for multinational enterprises and tax authorities in calculating and reporting under the global minimum tax rules.
• alignment of the treatment of tax incentives globally through the introduction of a new targeted substance-based tax incentive safe harbour.
• new safe harbours are available to MNE groups having an ultimate parent entity located in an eligible jurisdiction which meets minimum taxation requirements.
• an evidence-based stocktake process to ensure a level playing field is maintained for all Inclusive Framework Members.
• reinforcement of the objective that qualified domestic minimum top-up tax regimes remain a primary mechanism in the global minimum tax framework for ensuring the protection of local tax bases, particularly in developing countries.

The OECD package follows months of negotiations since the G7 statement issued in June 025 on global minimum taxes which made reference to US concerns regarding the Pillar 2 rules agreed by the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS and a proposed ‘side-by-side’ solution under which US parented groups would be exempt from the Income Inclusion Rule and Undertaxed Profits Rule in recognition of the existing US minimum tax rules to which they are subject.

Following an analysis of respective minimum tax regimes, consideration of proposed changes to the US international tax system based on the Senate amendment of H.R. 1 (introduced June 16, 2025), the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), the removal of s.899 in the Senate version of the OBBBA, and consideration of the success of Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax implementation and its impact, it became clear that a side-by-side system could preserve important gains made by jurisdictions in the IF in tackling base erosion and profit shifting and provide greater stability and certainty in the international tax system moving forward.

The G7 statement referred to the following accepted principles:

• exclusion of U.S. parented groups from the UTPR and the IIR in respect of both their domestic and foreign profits.
• include a commitment to ensure any substantial risks that may be identified with respect to the level playing field, or risks of base erosion and profit shifting, are addressed to preserve the common policy objectives of the side-by-side system.
• work to deliver a side-by-side system would be undertaken alongside material simplifications to the overall Pillar 2 administration and compliance framework.
• work to deliver a side-by-side system would be undertaken alongside considering changes to the Pillar 2 treatment of substance-based non-refundable tax credits that would ensure greater alignment with the treatment of refundable tax credits.

Delivery of a side-by-side system is intended to facilitate further progress to stabilize the international tax system, including a constructive dialogue on the taxation of the digital economy and on preserving the tax sovereignty of all countries.

The G7 also recognised the removal of s.899 was crucial to this overall understanding and to providing a more stable environment for discussions to take place in the Inclusive Framework.

If you would like more detail on the side by side package, please contact Keith Rushen on 0207 486 2378.

The post OECD Publishes Side by Side Package on Global Minimum Tax appeared first on Robinson Rushen.

The update, approved by the OECD Council, provides new and detailed guidance on short-term cross-border remote work and on the taxation of income from natural resource extraction.

The 2025 Update to the Model Tax Convention clarifies when remote work across borders, such as from a home office, creates a taxable presence for business. In particular, clear guidance is given on how cross-border “home office” arrangements are treated under tax treaties, providing certainty for employers and employees.  This responds to the rise in such arrangements following the COVID-19 pandemic.

The update also introduces a new alternative provision setting out how income from activities connected with the extraction of natural resources such as oil, gas and minerals should be taxed, a measure that is particularly relevant for developing and other resource-endowed economies.  The new alternative tax treaty provision is designed to ensure that income from activities connected with natural resources extraction is taxed where it occurs, reinforcing source-country rights and supporting resource-endowed developing economies.

Other improvements have been made to enhance consistency in treaty interpretation and strengthen tax certainty.

The OECD Model Tax Convention is a cornerstone of the international tax system, helping to reduce tax obstacles and promote cross-border trade and investment. The latest updates reflect the realities of a global economy where remote work and digital mobility are here to stay. They also underline the importance of multilateral co-operation in addressing shared challenges and ensuring that tax systems keep pace with economic change.

The updates will be reflected in changes to and commentaries on Articles 5, 7, 9, 24, 25 and 26 and included in revised condensed and full editions of the OECD Model Tax Convention to be released in 2026.

If you would like more detail on the above, please contact Keith Rushen on 0207 486 2378.

The post OECD Publishes Update To Model Tax Convention appeared first on Robinson Rushen.

In SC Arcomet Towercranes SRL [Case C-726/23], Arcomet Romania (AR) was part of the Arcomet Group which purchased and rented cranes for sale or rent to its customers in Romania. Arcomet Service NV Belgium (AB) sought suppliers for all its subsidiaries, including AR, and negotiated with those suppliers the contractual terms to be applied to its subsidiaries.

A transfer pricing study in respect of the relations between AB and its subsidiaries, carried out in December 2010, showed that the subsidiaries had to record, in accordance with transfer pricing rules, an operating profit margin of between ‑0.71% and 2.74%.

A contract was concluded between AB and AR, under which each party undertook to carry out a certain number of services for the other (the 2012 contract). AB undertook to assume the majority of the commercial responsibilities, including strategy and planning, negotiating contracts with third-party suppliers, negotiating the terms and conditions of financing contracts, engineering, finance, crane fleet management at central level, and quality and safety management. AB also bore the main economic risks associated with the activity of AR whilst AR undertook to purchase and hold all the goods necessary for the exercise of its activity and to be responsible for the sale and rental of those goods and related services.

The 2012 contract provided for remuneration to be determined by mutual agreement based on the transactional net margin method laid down in the OECD Guidelines. AB was entitled to receive remuneration from AR annually as set out in end of year invoices. AR would bear VAT relating to the remuneration received by AB in accordance with reverse charge provisions under Romanian tax legislation.

The annual settlement invoice issued by AB would recover operating profit margin earned by AR in excess of 2.74% or reimburse AR where the loss was less than ‑0.71%. No remuneration was due where the operating profit margin fell in the range ‑0.71% and 2.74%.  In 2011, 2012 and 2013, AR recorded an operating profit margin greater than the 2.74% as provided for in the 2012 contract. In respect of each of those years, AR was issued an invoice containing an amount exclusive of VAT by AB.

AR declared the first two invoices as relating to intra-Community purchases of services in respect of which it applied the reverse charge mechanism for the VAT due on those purchases, but considered that the third invoice had been issued for transactions falling outside the scope of VAT.

AR became subject of a tax inspection which included the years in which the three invoices were issued. Additional VAT on account of the deductions refused in respect of the invoices issued by AB, together with interest and penalties. The right of deduction was refused on the ground that AR had not demonstrated that the services invoiced had actually been supplied and that those services were necessary for the purposes of AR’s taxable transactions.

AR brought an action before the Regional Court in Bucharest for annulment of the decision rejecting its complaint against the report of the tax inspectors, the decision establishing additional VAT, and the corresponding interest and penalties. That court however dismissed the action by a ruling in March 2017.

The CJEU held that Article 2(1)(c) of the VAT Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the remuneration in respect of intra-group services, provided by a parent company to its subsidiary and contractually detailed, and which is calculated in accordance with a method recommended by the OECD Guidelines and corresponds to the part of the operating profit margin greater than 2.74% achieved by that subsidiary, constituted the consideration for a supply of services for consideration falling within the scope of VAT.

The Court also held that Articles 168 and 178 of the VAT Directive must be interpreted as not precluding the tax authority from requiring a taxable person who seeks the deduction of input VAT paid to submit documents other than the invoice in order to prove the existence of the services referred to in that invoice and their use for the purposes of the taxed transactions of that taxable person, provided that the submission of that evidence is necessary and proportionate for that purpose.

This is an important decision with regard to whether transfer pricing adjustments are VATable in which case relevant documentation should be made available to support the services being provided and the right to VAT recovery.

If you would like more information on the above, please contact Keith Rushen on 0207 486 2378.

The post CJEU Judgment on VAT Implications of Transfer Pricing Adjustments appeared first on Robinson Rushen.

The list consists of the same 11 jurisdictions as before, including American Samoa, Anguilla, Fiji, Guam, Palau, Panama, Russia, Samoa, Trinidad and Tobago, US Virgin Islands and Vanuatu.

The countries listed are within the scope of the EU screening process.

Although this round of the update of the list features positive developments, the Council regrets that these jurisdictions are not yet fully cooperative on tax matters and invites them to improve their legal framework to resolve the identified issues.

In addition to the list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions, the Council approved the usual state of play document (Annex II) which reflects ongoing EU cooperation with its international partners and the commitments of these countries to reform their legislation to adhere to agreed tax good governance standards.

Its purpose is to recognise ongoing constructive work in the field of taxation, and to encourage the positive approach taken by cooperative jurisdictions to implement tax good governance principles.

Annex II previously included eight cooperative jurisdictions, being Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, British Virgin Islands, Brunei Darussalam, Eswatini, Seychelles, Turkey and Vietnam.

Vietnam has been removed from Annex II after successfully implementing the OECD’s BEPS minimum standard on Country-by-Country Reporting.

Four jurisdictions have made new formal commitments to improve tax transparency and address deficiencies in CbC Reporting, bringing the total number of jurisdictions in Annex II to 11.

Greenland, Jordan and Morocco have made commitments to improve their implementation of the same criterion. Montenegro has made commitments to improve its automatic exchange of financial account information and exchange of tax information on request.

Annex II now includes Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, British Virgin Islands, Brunei Darussalam, Eswatini, Greenland, Jordan, Montenegro, Morocco, Seychelles, and Turkey.

The EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes was established in December 2017. It is part of the EU’s external strategy on taxation and aims to contribute to ongoing efforts to promote tax good governance worldwide. Jurisdictions are assessed on the basis of a set of criteria laid down by the Council. These criteria cover tax transparency, fair taxation and implementation of international standards designed to prevent tax base erosion and profit shifting. The chair of the code of conduct group conducts political and procedural dialogues with relevant international organisations and jurisdictions, where necessary.

Work on the list is a dynamic process and, since 2020, the Council updates the list twice a year. The next revision of the list is scheduled for February 2026.

If you would like more information on the above, please contact Keith Rushen on 0207 486 2378.

The post EU Updates List Of Non Cooperative Jurisdictions For Tax Purposes appeared first on Robinson Rushen.

These latest country profiles present new information on country-specific legislation and practice regarding the transfer pricing treatment of hard-to-value intangibles and the simplified and streamlined approach for baseline marketing and distribution activities.

The transfer pricing country profiles focus on the key transfer pricing aspects of each country’s domestic tax legislation including: the arm’s length principle; methods, comparability analysis; intangible property; intra-group services; cost contribution agreements; documentation; administrative approaches to avoiding and resolving disputes; safe harbours and other implementation measures.

The country profiles now include new sections covering the hard-to-value intangibles approach and the simplified and streamlined approach for baseline marketing and distribution activities, as a result of the work on Amount B as part of the Two-Pillar Solution to Address the Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Economy.

Updates to the transfer pricing country profiles are being released in batches throughout 2025. With this second batch, following the first update in May, the total number of countries and jurisdictions covered now stands at 78.  The information in the profiles was provided by countries themselves in response to a transfer pricing questionnaire.

The OECD has published transfer pricing country profiles since 2009, offering high-level information on the transfer pricing systems of both OECD and non-OECD member jurisdictions.

In 2017, the profiles were substantially revised to reflect the changes in jurisdictions’ transfer pricing frameworks following the 2015 OECD/G20 BEPS Project Reports, namely BEPS Actions 8-10 [Aligning Transfer Pricing Outcomes with Value Creation, and BEPS Action 13 [Transfer Pricing Documentation and CbC Reporting] which introduced revisions to the OECD TP Guidelines.  The scope of the country profiles was later expanded to include non-OECD jurisdictions and, in 2021, further extended to cover financial transactions and permanent establishments.

If you would like more detail on the above, please contact Keith Rushen on 0207 486 2378.

The post OECD Publishes Updated Transfer Pricing Profiles appeared first on Robinson Rushen.

Antigua and Barbuda become the 105^th jurisdiction to join the landmark agreement to strengthen tax treaties, which now covers around 2000 bilateral tax treaties. This represents an important milestone in the implementation of treaty-related BEPS measures, with the strengthening of the global tax treaty network.

89 jurisdictions have either ratified, accepted, or approved the BEPS Convention, resulting in the modification of over 1600 treaties. Around 400 additional treaties will be modified once the BEPS Convention will have been ratified by all signatories.

The BEPS Convention, negotiated by more than 100 countries and jurisdictions, is one of the most prominent results of the G30 BEPS Project. It is the world’s leading instrument for updating bilateral tax treaties and reducing opportunities for tax avoidance by multinational enterprises.

The BEPS Action Plan identified 15 actions to address BEPS and set deadlines to implement those actions. Action 15 provided for the development of a multilateral instrument to modify bilateral tax treaties.

The Multilateral Instrument allows governments to modify existing bilateral tax treaties in a synchronised and efficient manner to implement the tax treaty measures developed during the BEPS Project, without the need to expend resources renegotiating each treaty bilaterally.

Measures included in the BEPS Convention/MLI address treaty abuse, strategies to avoid the creation of a “permanent establishment”, and hybrid mismatch arrangements. The BEPS Convention also enhances the dispute resolution mechanism, especially through the addition of an optional provision on mandatory binding arbitration, which has been taken up by 34 jurisdictions.

The BEPS Convention [Multilateral Instrument] entered into force on 1 July 2018 and its provisions entered into effect for the first provisions on 1 January 2019.

If you would like more information on the above, please contact Keith Rushen on 0207 486 2378.

The post Antigua and Barbuda Sign Multilateral BEPS Convention appeared first on Robinson Rushen.