x

The Exchange of Tax Information Portal is an initiative of the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes. The Global Forum conducts peer reviews of its member jurisdictions' ability to co-operate with other tax administrations in accordance with the internationally agreed standard. The standard provides for exchange of information on request where it is foreseeably relevant to the administration and enforcement of the domestic tax laws of the requesting jurisdiction. Effective exchange of information requires that jurisdictions ensure information is available, that it can be obtained by the tax authorities and that there are mechanisms in place allowing for the exchange of that information. 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 EOI Portal will track the development of these peer reviews, including changes that jurisdictions make in response to the Global Forum's recommendations.

Peer Review: The Netherlands Second Round 2019

This report for Netherlands has been published on 18 Mar 2019. You can browse it online below.

Skip directly to the Executive Summary. You may also want to view the tables of determinations and ratings.


loading...


Determinations and Recommendations

Jurisdictions should ensure that ownership and identity information for all relevant entities and arrangements is available to their competent authorities. (ToR A.1)
Determination Factors Recommendations
The element is in place, but certain aspects of the legal implementation of the element need improvement.   There are some bearer shares in circulation in the Netherlands at present, but there are insufficient mechanisms in place that ensure the availability of information allowing for identification of the owners of bearer shares in unlisted public limited liability companies. There are insufficient mechanisms in place in the Caribbean Netherlands that ensure the availability of information on the owners of bearer shares.   The Netherlands should take necessary measures to ensure that mechanisms are in place to identify the owners of bearer shares in unlisted public limited liability companies in the European Netherlands and in the Caribbean Netherlands, or should eliminate such bearer instruments. 
Foundations in the European Netherlands and the Caribbean Netherlands are not systematically required to keep identity information concerning all beneficiaries.  An obligation should be established in both the European Netherlands and the Caribbean Netherlands for foundations to keep identity information concerning all beneficiaries. 
Beneficial ownership information is required to be collected by a wide range of AML obliged persons in the European Netherlands and the Caribbean Netherlands when engaged by legal entities and arrangements. In practice, legal entities and arrangements usually have a relationship with an AML obliged person, but they have no obligation to do so. In addition, the AML legal framework in force in the Caribbean Netherlands is not fully in line with the standard.   The Netherlands should ensure that beneficial ownership information is available for all relevant entities and arrangements in accordance with the standard. 
Phase 2 Rating Factors Recommendations
Partially Compliant.  In July 2018, the AML legal framework in the European Netherlands was amended, in particular, to define new rules for simplified customer due diligence and for identification of beneficial owners. Due to its recent entry into force, the implementation of the new provision could not be assessed in practice.   The Netherlands should supervise the effective implementation of the recent amendments to the AML legal framework.  
   
   
Jurisdictions should ensure that reliable accounting records are kept for all relevant entities and arrangements. (ToR A.2)
Determination Factors Recommendations
The element is in place.      
Phase 2 Rating Factors Recommendations
Compliant.     
Banking information should be available for all account-holders. (ToR A.3)
Determination Factors Recommendations
The element is in place.   The definition of beneficial owner and the simplified customer due diligences which allow the AML obliged person not to identify and verify the beneficial owner of a customer who is also a customer of other professionals (who may not be based in the Netherlands), as applicable in the Caribbean Netherlands is not fully in line with the standard.  The Netherlands should ensure that beneficial ownership information is available for all relevant entities and arrangements in the Caribbean Netherlands in accordance with the standard.  
Phase 2 Rating Factors Recommendations
Largely Compliant.  Before 25 July 2018, the AML legal framework in European Netherlands was not in line with the standards and deficiencies were found with regards to simplified due diligence, customer due diligence requirements to identify the beneficial owners of relevant entities and arrangements. After the review period, in July 2018, the AML legal framework in European Netherlands was amended, in particular to define new rules for simplified customer due diligence and for identification of beneficial owners. Due to its recent entry into force, the implementation of the new provision could not be assessed in practice.  The Netherlands should supervise the effective implementation of the recent amendments on beneficial ownership.  
Competent authorities should have the power to obtain and provide information that is the subject of a request under an exchange of information arrangement from any person within their territorial jurisdiction who is in possession or control of such information (irrespective of any legal obligation on such person to maintain the secrecy of the information). (ToR B.1)
Determination Factors Recommendations
The element is in place.      
Phase 2 Rating Factors Recommendations
Compliant.     
The rights and safeguards (e.g. notification, appeal rights) that apply to persons in the requested jurisdiction should be compatible with effective exchange of information. (ToR B.2)
Determination Factors Recommendations
The element is in place.      
Phase 2 Rating Factors Recommendations
Compliant.     
Exchange of information mechanisms should provide for effective exchange of information. (ToR C.1)
Determination Factors Recommendations
The element is in place.      
Phase 2 Rating Factors Recommendations
Compliant.     
The jurisdictions' network of information exchange mechanisms should cover all relevant partners. (ToR C.2)
Determination Factors Recommendations
The element is in place.      
Phase 2 Rating Factors Recommendations
Compliant.     
The jurisdictions' mechanisms for exchange of information should have adequate provisions to ensure the confidentiality of information received. (ToR C.3)
Determination Factors Recommendations
The element is in place.      
Phase 2 Rating Factors Recommendations
Compliant.     
The exchange of information mechanisms should respect the rights and safeguards of taxpayers and third parties. (ToR C.4)
Determination Factors Recommendations
The element is in place.      
Phase 2 Rating Factors Recommendations
Compliant.     
The jurisdiction should provide information under its network of agreements in a timely manner. (ToR C.5)
Determination Factors Recommendations
The assessment team is not in a position to evaluate whether this element is in place, as it involves issues of practice that are dealt with in the Phase 2 review.      
Phase 2 Rating Factors Recommendations
Compliant.