Wikipedia

Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 78.41.129.20 (talk) at 15:07, 6 November 2019 (→‎Members). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, founded in 2000 and restructured in September 2009, consists of OECD countries as well as other jurisdictions that agreed to implement tax related transparency and information exchange.[2] It addresses tax evasion, tax havens, offshore financial centres, tax information exchange agreements, double taxation and money laundering. The forum works under the auspices of the OECD and G20. In 2000 it published a blacklist of 35 tax havens, which by 2009 had shrunk to zero. It has since focused on increasing the standard for exchange of information. As of October 2019, the Forum had 157 member tax jurisdictions and the European Union, all on equal footing.[3]

Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes
Predecessor1996 G7 Lyon Summit: tackling harmful tax practices and tax havens
Formation2000
TypeInternational Economic Treaty Organization
PurposeMultilateral framework within which work in the area transparency and exchange of information has been carried out by both OECD and non-OECD economies
Membership
157 member jurisdictions and the European Union, with 12 observers
Chair [1]
Maria-José Garde
Chair of PEER Review group
Huey Min Chia-Tern
Head of the Global Forum Secretariat
Manatta Zayda
Key people
François d'Aubert (past Chair)
Parent organization
OECD
Budget
€3.9 million (2013)
Revenue
fixed annual fee of €15,300 per member and a progressive fee determined by scale in accordance with jurisdictions’ Gross National Product.[1]
Staff
27[1]
Websitewww.oecd.org/tax/transparency/

Activities

The Forum promotes the implementation of two internationally agreed standards on exchange of information for tax purposes : the standard on Exchange of Information on Request (EOIR) and the standard on Automatic Exchange of Information (AEOI). Members must commit to, at least, implement the Exchange of Information on Request (EOIR) standard,[4].

Exchange of Information on Request

The Global Forum ensures compliance to the internationally agreed EOIR standard through an intense peer review process, the forum's main activity since 2009. This monitoring is carried out by the Peer Review Group. This Peer Review Group is composed by 30 members representative of the diversity of the Global Forum, and is currently chaired by Singapore. The review focus 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 o 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 Global Forum Members. Where areas of weakness are identified during the review, reports include recommendations clearly 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 has been conducted for all member jurisdictions and jurisdictions relevant to the work of the Global Forum, and ended in 2016. Then, the 2010 Terms of Reference used to conduct the reviews were strengthened in order to integrate new principles missing from the standard, such as the availability of Beneficial ownership information, and became the 2016 Terms of Reference. The Global Forum is currently in the middle of its second Round of reviews, with already 61 reports.

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,[5] the BBC[6] and the Congressional Research Service.[7]: 6 

Automatic Exchange of Information

Budget

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.[8]

History

Precursors

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.[9] 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.[citation needed]

Creation (2000) and first years

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.[10]: 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.[10]: 167–168 

Stepping-up of efforts after the financial crisis of 2007-08

 
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".[11] 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.[12] 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.[13] 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.[14] 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.[15] Der Spiegel called the list "The World's Shortest Blacklist" and "the Fight against Tax Havens Is a Sham".[16]

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.[8]

Expansion of exchange of information

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.[citation needed] 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.[17] In 2013, a working group was formed to promote the automated exchange of tax information.[citation needed]

In July 2014, the Forum published standards for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information.[18]

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.[citation needed] 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.[19] 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

Members and observers

Members

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

(this list has not been updated since November 2019)

Tax jurisdictions

Observers

As of November 2015 there are 15 observer intergovernmental organizations:[20]

Compliance by country

The forum reviews compliance of its member tax jurisdictions separately for the two standards, the more limited exchange of information on request and the more comprehensive automated exchange of information.

More than 80 countries and territories were not (yet) members of the Global Forum as of November 2015 and are thus not included in the lists below. Notable non-members include Belarus and Serbia in Europe; Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela in Latin America; Egypt, Ethiopia, Algeria and many smaller countries in Africa; as well as Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Thailand and Vietnam in Asia. All important tax havens, however, are members of the Global Forum - the 30 countries topping the Financial Secrecy Index in 2013 were all members as of 2015.

Exchange of Information on Request

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.

2013 Ratings

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

2015 Ratings

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

Automated Exchange of Information

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.

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d "Tax Transparency 2013 Report on Progress" (PDF). Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes. 2013. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 21, 2014. Retrieved 19 August 2014.
  2. ^ a b "About the Global Forum". GFTEITP. n.d. Retrieved 21 November 2015.
  3. ^ a b "Global Forum Members". Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information on Tax Purposes.
  4. ^ "Exchange of Information on Request". OECD Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes. n.d. Retrieved 7 May 2016.
  5. ^ "Four countries on OECD tax haven blacklist". Reuters. 2 April 2009. Retrieved 7 May 2016.
  6. ^ "OECD names and shames tax havens". BBC. 3 April 2009. Retrieved 7 May 2016.
  7. ^ Jane G. Gravelle (15 January 2015). "Tax Havens: International Tax Avoidance and Evasion" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. p. 60. Retrieved 7 May 2016.
  8. ^ a b "Summary of Outcomes of the Meeting of the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes Held in Mexico on 1 - 2 September 2009" (PDF). The Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes. p. 6. Retrieved 19 August 2014.
  9. ^ Harmful Tax Competition: An Emerging Global Issue (PDF). OECD. 1998. p. 82.
  10. ^ a b Shaxson, Nicholas (2011). Treasure Islands - Uncovering the Damage of Offshore Banking and Tax Havens. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-34172-2.
  11. ^ Watt, Nicholas; Elliott, Larry; Borger, Julian; Black, Ian (April 2, 2009). "G20 declares door shut on tax havens". The Guardian.
  12. ^ "A Progress Report on The Jurisdictions Surveyed by The OECD Global Forum in Implementing The Internationally Agreed Tax Standard" (PDF). OECD. 2 April 2009.
  13. ^ BBC (2009-04-07). "OECD removes tax havens from list". BBC News. Retrieved 2009-04-07.
  14. ^ Crispian Balmer (14 August 2009). "British Virgin Islands, Cayman on tax "white list"". Reuters. Retrieved 8 May 2016.
  15. ^ Clark, Andrew (2009-04-10). "Welcome to tax-dodge city, USA". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-04-14.
  16. ^ Alexander Neubacher (11 April 2009). "The World's Shortest Blacklist: Why the Fight against Tax Havens Is a Sham". Der Spiegel. Retrieved 7 May 2016.
  17. ^ "Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters". OECD. n.d. Retrieved 21 November 2015.
  18. ^ "Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information in Tax Matters". OECD. 21 July 2014. doi:10.1787/9789264216525-en. Retrieved 7 May 2016.
  19. ^ "Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement (MCAA)". GFTEITP. Retrieved 21 November 2015.
  20. ^ "Global Forum Observers". GFTEITP. Retrieved 20 November 2015.
  21. ^ a b Global Forum:2013 Annual Report Archived 2013-11-26 at the Wayback Machine
  22. ^ "Summary of Compliance Ratings". GFTEITP. Retrieved 20 November 2015.
  23. ^ a b c "Automatic Exchange Portal: Common Reporting Standard by Jurisdiction". GFTEITP. Retrieved 21 November 2015.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_Forum_on_Transparency_and_Exchange_of_Information_for_Tax_Purposes&oldid=924887740"