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 - Luxembourg

This report for Luxembourg has been published on 12 Sep 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.


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 not in place.   Luxembourg allows for the issuance of bearer securities by SAs, SEs and S.e.c.as without having mechanisms allowing for the identification of such securities holders in any circumstances. This possibility is also opened to investment companies taking the form of a SA or a S.e.c.a.  Luxembourg should ensure the availability of information relating to SAs, SEs and S.e.c.as bearer securities holders in any circumstances. 
Ownership information relating to foreign partners of SICARs which take the form of an S.e.c.s is not available in Luxembourg in all circumstances.  Luxembourg should ensure that ownership information relating to SICARs which take the form of an S.e.c.s is available in all circumstances. 
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.   There are some questions regarding how CDD rules apply in practice to numbered accounts opened prior to the enactment of Grand Ducal Regulation of 1 February 2010.  CDD rules applying to numbered accounts opened prior the enactment of Grand Ducal Regulation of 1 February 2010 should be clarified by Luxembourg authorities. 
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.   Limitations in access to information provided for by Luxembourg’s domestic legislation are currently overridden in respect of only 28 of the 68 signed agreements. Only these new rules allow for access to information held by financial institutions, insurance companies, and SPFs.  Luxembourg should ensure access to information held by financial institutions, insurance companies, and SPFs for all its relevant partners. 
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.      
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.   Of the 28 agreements concluded by Luxembourg, since its commitment to the standard in March 2009, 3 establish restrictions which are inconsistent with the standard.  Luxembourg should ensure, in line with its commitment to the standard, that each of its EOI mechanisms strictly respects the standard of transparency 
As a result of domestic law limitations with respect to access to information, only 25 of the 68 signed EOI mechanisms allow for exchange of information in accordance with the international standard. Of these 25 agreements 17 are in force.  Luxembourg should ensure that all the treaties signed could allow for an exchange of information in accordance with the international standard. 
The jurisdictions' network of information exchange mechanisms should cover all relevant partners. (ToR C.2)
Determination Factors Recommendations
The element is in place.   Luxembourg cannot exchange information in accordance with the international standards under its EOI agreements with several partners.  Luxembourg should continue to develop its EOI mechanisms network to the standard, regardless of their form. 
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.