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: Peer Review Report Phase 1 Legal and Regulatory Framework - Aruba

This report for Aruba has been published on 22 Apr 2011. 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.




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.   NVs are not always required to keep identity information concerning their shareholders, particularly when bearer shares are issued.  An obligation should be established for NVs to keep identity information concerning their shareholders in all cases, particularly when bearer shares are issued. 
LPs are not required to keep a register of identity information concerning their limited partners.  An obligation should be established for LPs to keep identity information concerning their limited partners. 
Foundations are not systematically required to keep a register of identity of information concerning their beneficiaries.  An obligation should be established for foundations to keep identity information concerning their beneficiaries. 
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.      
Banking information should be available for all account-holders. (ToR A.3)
Determination Factors Recommendations
The element is in place.      
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.   It is unclear whether the involvement of the Minister of Justice can cause any delay or restriction to the effective exchange of information on criminal tax matters.   Aruba should consider clarifying the procedural rules concerning exchange of information on criminal tax matters to avoid any delay or restriction to the effective exchange of information.  
The scope of the professional secrecy safeguard, which includes not only information covered by the attorneyclient privilege, but also accounting records held by clerics, notaries, physicians and pharmacists, appears to be broader than the international standard.  Aruba should make it clear that the scope of its professional secrecy rules in the case of notaries apply only to the extent that they act in their capacity as attorneys or other legal representatives, and in the case of clerics, physicians and pharmacists to the extent that they obtain information in the performance of their respective professional activities. 
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.   The power of the Aruban tax authorities to provide information for exchange purposes is not unequivocally established and may be subject to interpretation issues (namely, minimum two-month stand-by term and subjective test before responding to an EOI request) that could prevent effective exchange of information.  Aruba should consider clarifying the General Tax Ordinance to remove any potential ambiguity as to whether tax authorities have the power to provide information in response to a request for information under an international agreement. 
Exchange of information mechanisms should provide for effective exchange of information. (ToR C.1)
Determination Factors Recommendations
The element is in place, but certain aspects of the legal implementation of the element need improvement.   The interpretation given by Item I of the Protocol to the Aruba-Cayman Islands TIEA to the term “pursued all means available in its own territory” under Article 5(5)(g) imposes disproportionate difficulties on the requesting party.  Aruba is encouraged to propose a modification of this provision to bring it into conformity with the international standard. 
Although 18 EOI agreements have been concluded by Aruba, to date only two have been ratified and entered into force. Out of the other 16 EOI agreements, 4 were signed less than one year ago and 7 are currently pending with Parliament in the Netherlands.  Aruba should ensure that its EOI agreements are ratified and brought into force as quickly as possible. 
The jurisdictions' network of information exchange mechanisms should cover all relevant partners. (ToR C.2)
Determination Factors Recommendations
The element is in place, but certain aspects of the legal implementation of the element need improvement.   Although 18 EOI agreements have been concluded by Aruba, to date only two have been ratified and entered into force. Aruba is actively negotiating new EOI agreements with relevant partners.  Aruba should continue to develop its EOI network with all relevant partners. 
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.      
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.      
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.