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: Georgia Phase 1 Report

This report for Georgia has been published on 4 Aug 2014. 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, but certain aspects of the legal implementation of the element need improvement.   Foreign companies with sufficient nexus to Georgia (e.g. being resident for tax purposes) and foreign partnerships that are carrying on business in Georgia are not required to maintain nor provide to the authorities ownership information in all cases.  Georgia should ensure the availability of ownership information of foreign companies with sufficient nexus to Georgia and foreign partnerships that are carrying on business in Georgia in all cases.  
Georgian law does not ensure that information is available identifying the settlors and beneficiaries of a foreign trust with a Georgian trustee or trust administrator.  Georgia should ensure that information identifying the settlors and beneficiaries of foreign trusts, which are administered in Georgia or in respect of which a trustee is resident in Georgia, is available. 
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.   The lack of an explicit exception in the banking law for disclosure of information to the tax authorities leaves some uncertainty in the application of the laws that may prevent affect effective exchange of information.  Georgia should ensure that the absence of an explicit exception to the confidentiality rules in the Law on Activities of Commercial Banking does not inhibit effective exchange of information.  
The scope of legal professional secrecy found in the domestic legislation is broader than the international standard as it is not limited to “confidential communications” between a client and an advocate, but it extends to any information which became known to the advocate during the exercise of legal practice.  Georgia should ensure that the scope of legal professional secrecy is consistent with the standard. 
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.   The lack of an explicit exception in the banking law for disclosure of information to the tax authorities leaves some uncertainty in the application of the laws that may affect effective exchange of information.  Georgia should ensure that the absence of an explicit exception to the confidentiality rules in the Law on Activities of Commercial Banking does not prevent its EOI agreements from being given full effect. 
The jurisdictions' network of information exchange mechanisms should cover all relevant partners. (ToR C.2)
Determination Factors Recommendations
The element is in place.     Georgia should continue to develop its exchange of information 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 EOI agreements of Georgia do not define the term "professional secret" and the scope of legal professional secrecy found in the domestic legislation would be applicable. This is broader than the international standard as it is not limited to “confidential communications” between a client and an advocate, but it extends to any information which became known to the advocate during the exercise of legal practice.  Georgia should ensure that the scope of legal professional secrecy is consistent with the standard. 
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.