<p>  One of the latest decisions of the OECD is based on the study of 11 preferential tax regimes and their compliance with the BEPS rules. The tax policy of such countries as Latvia, Luxembourg, Slovakia and Singapore was determined not to be dangerous and corresponding to the standards of <span>Forum on Harmful Tax Practices</span>.</p><p>  Many mass media and public organizations often cover issues of international taxation, although the question itself is more technical and political in nature. In this regard, governments of different countries are trying to apply effective measures to combat manifestations of tax evasion and seek to ensure equal and fair conditions for all taxpayers.</p><p>  The BEPS program is a single set of international tax rules. This program was developed by the OECD, "G20" and is aimed at protecting the tax base, while the BEPS standards offer taxpayers certainty and predictability.</p><p>  To fulfill the BEPS standards, the G20 countries and OECD have identified 15 stages, all of which are aimed at counteracting the erosion of the tax base and the removal of profits from taxation. Each of the 15 stages is a separate taxation issue, for which specific ways and methods are proposed. Also, the BEPS rules provide for ways to implement reforms in national laws and international treaties.</p><p>  This OECD decision is based on the latest reviews and updated audit results regarding the implementation of the 5th phase of the BEPS project. This fifth stage is one of the four basic minimum standards required to meet the requirements of the BEPS. At the same time, OECD experts conduct a detailed peer review of each of the four minimum standards to ensure their timely incorporation into domestic legislation and the creation of an equal tax environment at the international level.</p><p>  There are also other minimum standards requirements that oblige international companies to pay the appropriate tax. Thus, all BEPS member states undertake to fulfill the established requirements and regularly conduct expert evaluations.</p><p>  In turn, the 5th stage is divided into two sections. On the first section, an expert evaluation is conducted to identify preferential signs of tax preferences, which can lead to a weakening of the taxable base and profits. The second section analyzes the level of "transparency" of jurisdiction, which should provide for the automatic exchange of tax information.</p><p>  <span>Forum on Harmful Tax Practices</span> (FHTP), which evaluated eleven jurisdictions in addition to the above countries, also noted countries such as Malaysia, Uruguay, Chile and Turkey. The tax systems of these four states were also excluded from the list of countries conducting aggressive tax planning, since they introduced the necessary international rules into their legislation.</p><p>  Including tax regimes assessing of the two free tax zones of Vietnam and the tax regime of Kenya. Studies in these countries have shown that these tax regimes do not apply to offshore zones or are not related to business taxation. As a result, it was concluded that these zones don't represent financial risks and do not fall under the requirements of the 5th phase of the BEPS project.</p><p>  One of the main transparency indicators is the availability of specific rules for taxpayers on the provision of detailed personal data. Jurisdiction can be associated as a country with an aggressive tax regime in the absence of conditions for automatic exchange in accordance with the requirements of BEPS. Therefore, this would mean that the jurisdiction conducts an unfair tax policy in relation to other countries.</p><p>  The purpose of the BEPS project is to ensure that states comply with unified tax standards and coordinate their actions internationally. Such concerted actions include the following functions:</p><ul><li>  <em> Sharing a wider range of data on the availability of bank accounts and other assets held offshore.</em></li><li><em>   Automatic e-currency exchange of tax information in case of investigations of specific offenses.</em></li></ul><p>  If in 2017 FHTP examined about 120 tax regimes, this number is approaching 175 regimes, which operate in more than 50 states. Of this total, 31 the tax regime was changed in a positive way, 81 the regime is in the legislative reform stage, 4 tax regimes are classified as aggressive or potentially aggressive and 12 are under consideration. Only 47 tax regimes comply with BEPS requirements.</p><p style="text-align: center;"><em><em>If you have any questions, <strong>Castle Family Office</strong> specialists are ready to answer them! Please, write to us at</em> <strong><em><span face="Calibri" size="3"><span lang="EN-US"><span face="Calibri" size="3"><a href="mailto:info@castle-familyoffice.sg">info@castle-familyoffice.sg</a></span></span></span></em></strong> </em></p>