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: Uruguay Phase 2 Review

This report for Uruguay has been published on 16 Mar 2015. You can buy this report, or 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.      
Phase 2 Rating Factors Recommendations
Largely Compliant.   Legal requirements have been introduced for the reporting of ownership information in relation to bearer shares in all cases. However, some of these legal requirements such as the extinction of shareholder rights for non-reporting and the mandatory liquidation of non-compliant bearer share companies, have only recently come into force and their effectiveness could not be assessed in practice by the assessment team.  Uruguay should continue to monitor the mandatory liquidation of non-compliant bearer share companies and ensure that information on the owners of bearer shares is made fully available in all cases. 
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
Largely Compliant.   Experience with the record keeping requirements in respect of underlying accounting documentation and the filing requirements of annual accounts, which applies to entities not subject to tax since August 2012, is limited.  Uruguay should ensure that its monitoring and enforcement powers are sufficiently exercised in practice to support the record keeping and filing requirements applicable to entities not subject to tax in Uruguay. 
Banking information should be available for all account-holders. (ToR A.3)
Determination Factors Recommendations
The element is in place.      
Phase 2 Rating Factors Recommendations
Compliant.      
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, but certain aspects of the legal implementation of the element need improvement.   Uruguay’s ability to access bank information prior to 2 January 2011 is limited under its domestic legislation.  Uruguay should ensure that all relevant bank information may be accessed for EOI purposes, regardless of the period to which the information relates, to ensure they can give full effect to their EOI agreements. 
Phase 2 Rating Factors Recommendations
Partially Compliant.   During the peer review period, Uruguay did not gather banking information from banks concerning information on transactions taking place before 2 January 2011 for exchange of information purposes . In addition, Uruguay did not gather banking information from banks concerning information on transactions taking place after 2 January 2011, although it has done so after the peer review period. Accordingly, the effectiveness of the access powers could not be assessed.  Uruguay should ensure that all relevant bank information may be accessed for exchange of information purposes and monitor the implementation of the access powers in practice. 
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, but certain aspects of the legal implementation of the element need improvement.   Under the court process for accessing bank information, certain information must be provided to the Uruguayan court to which the relevant account-holder (often the taxpayer) will have access. There are no exceptions to this notification of the account-holder prior to exchange of information, for example for cases where the information requested is of a very urgent nature, or where prior notification is likely to undermine the chance of success of the investigation in the requesting jurisdiction.   Uruguay should ensure that disclosure of information relating to an EOI request in the course of the court process to access bank information includes appropriate exceptions to notification prior to exchange of the information.  
Decree no. 313/011, as amended, requires the prior notification of the individual or the entity concerned prior to the tax authority’s decision on responding to an incoming EOI request. It is not clear that there are appropriate exceptions from this prior notification procedure.  It is recommended that Uruguay clarifies that suitable exceptions from prior notification requirement are permitted to facilitate effective exchange of information (e.g. in cases in which the information requested is of a very urgent nature or the notification is likely to undermine the chance of the success of the investigation conducted by the requesting jurisdiction). 
Phase 2 Rating Factors Recommendations
Partially Compliant.      
Exchange of information mechanisms should provide for effective exchange of information. (ToR C.1)
Determination Factors Recommendations
The element is in place.   Uruguay has signed two TIEAs ( in 2012 which it has not yet taken all steps necessary, for its part, to bring into force.  Uruguay should take all steps necessary for its part, to bring each of its signed EOI agreements into force as quickly as possible. 
Phase 2 Rating Factors Recommendations
Largely Compliant.   The interpretation by Uruguay of the entry into force provision of one TIEA concluded with a significant EOI partner during the peer review period is not in line with the international standard.  Uruguay must ensure that its interpretation of the entry into force provision of that TIEA does not restrict the exchange of information with that EOI partner. 
The jurisdictions' network of information exchange mechanisms should cover all relevant partners. (ToR C.2)
Determination Factors Recommendations
The element is in place.     Uruguay should continue to develop and rapidly expand its network of EOI arrangements with all relevant partners, and take all steps necessary to bring concluded agreements into effect as quickly as possible. 
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
Largely Compliant.   Uruguay has resources and organisational processes in place that appear to be adequate for dealing with incoming EOI requests. However, out of 17 requests received over the review period, Uruguay processed only five EOI income tax requests during the three-year period under review due to the reasons set out in section C.1.9. Consequently, the organisational processes for EOI have not been sufficiently tested in practice.  Uruguay should continue to monitor the practical implementation of the organisational processes of the competent authority as well as the level of resources committed to EOI purposes, in particular taking account of any significant changes to the volume of incoming EOI requests, to ensure that both the processes and level of resources are adequate for effective EOI in practice. 
Uruguay did not provide an update or status report to its EOI partners within 90 days when the competent authority was not able to provide a substantive response within that time, unless it was specifically requested by the treaty partner.   Uruguay should ensure that updates to EOI partners are provided within 90 days in those cases where it is not possible to provide a partial or complete response within that timeframe.