Article 26: Exchange of Information
United Nations Model Double Taxation Convention between Developed and Developing Countries (2017 Update)
Article 26
Exchange of Information
The competent authorities of the Contracting States shall exchange such information as is foreseeably relevant for carrying out the provisions of this Convention or to the administration or enforcement of the domestic laws of the Contracting States concerning taxes of every kind and description imposed on behalf of the Contracting States, or of their political subdivisions or local authorities, insofar as the taxation thereunder is not contrary to the Convention. In particular, information shall be exchanged that would be helpful to a Contracting State in preventing avoidance or evasion of such taxes. The exchange of information is not restricted by Articles 1 and 2.
Any information received under paragraph 1 by a Contracting State shall be treated as secret in the same manner as information obtained under the domestic laws of that State and it shall be disclosed only to persons or authorities (including courts and administrative bodies) concerned with the assessment or collection of, the enforcement or prosecution in respect of, or the determination of appeals in relation to, the taxes referred to in paragraph 1, or the oversight of the above. Such persons or authorities shall use the information only for such purposes. They may disclose the information in public court proceedings or in judicial decisions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, information received by a Contracting State may be used for other purposes when such information may be used for such other purposes under the laws of both States and the competent authority of the supplying State authorizes such use.
In no case shall the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 be construed so as to impose on a Contracting State the obligation:
(a) To carry out administrative measures at variance with the laws and administrative practice of that or of the other Contracting State;
(b) To supply information which is not obtainable under the laws or in the normal course of the administration of that or of the other Contracting State;
(c) To supply information which would disclose any trade, business, industrial, commercial or professional secret or trade process, or information, the disclosure of which would be contrary to public policy (ordre public).
4 If information is requested by a Contracting State in accordance with this Article, the other Contracting State shall use its information gathering measures to obtain the requested information, even though that other State may not need such information for its own tax purposes. The obligation contained in the preceding sentence is subject to the limitations of paragraph 3 but in no case shall such limitations be construed to permit a Contracting State to decline to supply information solely because it has no domestic interest in such information.
5 In no case shall the provisions of paragraph 3 be construed to permit a Contracting State to decline to supply information solely because the information is held by a bank, other financial institution, nominee or person acting in an agency or a fiduciary capacity or because it relates to ownership interests in a person.
6 The competent authorities shall, through consultation, develop appropriate methods and techniques concerning the matters in respect of which exchanges of information under paragraph 1 shall be made.
OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital (2017 Update)
Article 26
The competent authorities of the Contracting States shall exchange such information as is foreseeably relevant for carrying out the provisions of this Convention or to the administration or enforcement of the domestic laws concerning taxes of every kind and description imposed on behalf of the Contracting States, or of their political subdivisions or local authorities, insofar as the taxation thereunder is not contrary to the Convention. The exchange of information is not restricted by Articles 1 and 2.
Any information received under paragraph 1 by a Contracting State shall be treated as secret in the same manner as information obtained under the domestic laws of that State and shall be disclosed only to persons or authorities (including courts and administrative bodies) concerned with the assessment or collection of, the enforcement or prosecution in respect of, the determination of appeals in relation to the taxes referred to in paragraph 1, or the oversight of the above. Such persons or authorities shall use the information only for such purposes. They may disclose the information in public court proceedings or in judicial decisions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, information received by a Contracting State may be used for other purposes when such information may be used for such other purposes under the laws of both States and the competent authority of the supplying State authorises such use.
In no case shall the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 be construed so as to impose on a Contracting State the obligation:
a) to carry out administrative measures at variance with the laws and administrative practice of that or of the other Contracting State;
b) to supply information which is not obtainable under the laws or in the normal course of the administration of that or of the other Contracting State;
c) to supply information which would disclose any trade, business, industrial, commercial or professional secret or trade process, or information, the disclosure of which would be contrary to public policy (ordre public).
4 If information is requested by a Contracting State in accordance with this Article, the other Contracting State shall use its information gathering measures to obtain the requested information, even though that other State may not need such information for its own tax purposes. The obligation contained in the preceding sentence is subject to the limitations of paragraph 3 but in no case shall such limitations be construed to permit a Contracting State to decline to supply information solely because it has no domestic interest in such information.
5 In no case shall the provisions of paragraph 3 be construed to permit a Contracting State to decline to supply information solely because the information is held by a bank, other financial institution, nominee or person acting in an agency or a fiduciary capacity or because it relates to ownership interests in a person.
Article 26 Bibliography
Bacchetta, Philippe & María Pax Espinosa. “Exchange-of-Information Clauses in International Tax Treaties” (2000) 7:3 International Tax and Public Finance 275 <https://people.unil.ch/philippebacchetta/files/2015/07/ITAX00.pdf>
Bernasconi, Stefano & Michael Beusch. “Switzerland: Group Request under the Switzerland-United States Tax Treaty” in Eric CCM Kemmeren et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2014 (Amsterdam: International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation, 2014) 315 <https://www.ibfd.org/sites/ibfd.org/files/content/pdf/15_010_Tax_Treaty_Case_Law_Around_the_Globe_2014_final_web.pdf>
Bernasconi, Stefano & Michael Beusch. “Switzerland: Substantiation of a Request Under the France-Switzerland Tax Treaty” in Michael Lang et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2015 (Vienna: Linde, 2016) 323 <https://www.ibfd.org/IBFD-Products/Tax-Treaty-Case-Law-around-Globe-2015>
Beusch, Michael & Alexander Misic. “Switzerland: The Case of UBS: Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters” in Michael Lang et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2011 (Alphen on the Rhine: Kluwer Law International, 2012)485 <https://www.lindeverlag.at/buch/tax-treaty-case-law-around-the-globe-2011-4419>
Brauner, Yariv. “United States: Exchange of Information and Taxpayer Protection” in Eric CCM Kemmeren et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law around the Globe 2012 (Vienna: Linde, 2013)295 <https://www.ibfd.org/IBFD-Products/Tax-Treaty-Case-Law-around-Globe-2012>
Christians, Allison, Tax Secrecy and Tax Transparency – The Relevance of Confidentiality in Tax Law Country Report: Canada (September 17, 2012). Forthcoming in Kristoffersson, Eleonor, Lang, Michael, Pistone, Pasqual, Schuch, Josef, Staringer, Claus, and Storck, Alfred (eds.), TAX SECRECY AND TAX TRANSPARENCY: THE RELEVANCE OF CONFIDENTIALITY IN TAX LAW, PART 1 AND 2, Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Wien, 2013. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2148091
Christians, Allison, Tax Activists and the Global Movement for Development Through Transparency (March 26, 2012). Tax Law and Development, Miranda Stewart, Yariv Brauner, ed., Edward Elgar Publishing, 2012. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2029055
Cockfield, Arthur J., "How Countries Should Share Tax Information" (2017) 50 VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L. 1091 <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3103151>
Cockfield, Arthur J. “Protecting Taxpayer Privacy Rights Under Enhanced Cross-Border Tax Information Exchange: Toward a Multilateral Taxpayer Bill of Rights” (2008) 42:2 UBC L Rev 421, <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1705551>
Cooper, Graeme S. “Australia: Use of Information Collected from Cayman Islands” in Eric CCM Kemmeren et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2014 (Amsterdam: International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation, 2014) 365 <https://www.ibfd.org/sites/ibfd.org/files/content/pdf/15_010_Tax_Treaty_Case_Law_Around_the_Globe_2014_final_web.pdf>
Griffiths, Shelley. “New Zealand: Information Sharing and Information Gathering and the New Zealand Australia DTC” in Michael Lang et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2011 (Alphen on the Rhine: Kluwer Law International, 2012)471 <https://www.lindeverlag.at/buch/tax-treaty-case-law-around-the-globe-2011-4419>
Haslehner, Werner C. “Luxembourg: Disclosure of Information Requests in Court” in Eric CCM Kemmeren et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2014 (Amsterdam: International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation, 2014) 339 <https://www.ibfd.org/sites/ibfd.org/files/content/pdf/15_010_Tax_Treaty_Case_Law_Around_the_Globe_2014_final_web.pdf>
Haslehner, Werner C. “Luxembourg: The Standard of “Foreseeable Relevance” in Eric CCM Kemmeren et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2014 (Amsterdam: International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation, 2014) 323 <https://www.ibfd.org/sites/ibfd.org/files/content/pdf/15_010_Tax_Treaty_Case_Law_Around_the_Globe_2014_final_web.pdf>
Keen, Michael & Jenny E Ligthart. “Revenue Sharing and Information Exchange under Non-Discriminatory Taxation” (2005) CentER Discussion Paper No 2005-69, online: <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=756370>
Nogueira, João Félix Pinto. “Portugal: Right to be Notified in Requested State” in Eric CCM Kemmeren et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2014 (Amsterdam: International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation, 2014) 355 <https://www.ibfd.org/sites/ibfd.org/files/content/pdf/15_010_Tax_Treaty_Case_Law_Around_the_Globe_2014_final_web.pdf>
Oberson, Xavier. “The OECD Model Agreement on Exchange of Information: A Shift to the Applicant State” (2003) 57:1 Bull Intl Fiscal Doc 14.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement on the Exchange of Country-by-Country Reports, online: <https://www.oecd.org/tax/automatic-exchange/about-automatic-exchange/cbc-mcaa.pdf>
Pankiv, Marta. “Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEAs)” in Oliver-ChristophGünther & Nicole Tüchler, eds, Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes (Vienna: Linde, 2013), online: <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2648583>
Pross, Achim et al, “Update to Article 27 of the OECD Model Treaty: What the Changes Mean” (2012) Tax Notes Intl 185.
Ring, Diane, "Developing Countries in an Age of Transparency and Disclosure" (2016) B.Y.U. L. REV. 1767 < https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3078&context=lawreview>
Roeleveld, Jennifer & Craig West, “South Africa: Exchange of Information under an Income Tax Treaty” in Eric CCM Kemmeren et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law around the Globe 2012 (Vienna: Linde, 2013)289 <https://www.ibfd.org/IBFD-Products/Tax-Treaty-Case-Law-around-Globe-2012>
Scavron, Samant>ha H. “In Pursuit of Offshore Tax Evaders: The Increased Importance of International Cooperation in Tax Treaty Negotiations After United States v. UBS AG” (2010) 9 Cardozo Pub L Pol’y & Ethics J 157 <https://www.kdvlaw.com/news-resources/note-pursuit-offshore-tax-evaders-increased-importance-international-cooperation-tax-treaty-negotiations-united-states-v-ubs-ag-9-cardozo-pub-l-poly-ethics-j/>
Sheppard, Lee A. “News Analysis: OECD Revisits Information Sharing Problems” (2010) Tax Notes Intl, Doc 2010-12825.
Spencer, David E. “OECD Model Agreement is a Major Advance in Information Exchange” (2002) 13 J Intl Tax 10.
Tanzi, Vito & Howell H Zee. “Taxation in a Borderless World: The Role of Information Exchange” in Gustaf Lindencrona, Sven-Olof Lodin & Bertil Wiman, eds, International Studies in Taxation:Law and Economics (London: Kluwer Law International, 1999), 321 <https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.kluwer/intrtax0028÷=12&id=&page=>
Tonkovich, Mark. “The Treaty Network Theory: Accessing Foreign Tax Information Networks Under the OECD Model Convention” (2013) 61:4 Can Tax J 875, online: <http://www.bakermckenzie.com/ARTorontoTreatyNetworkTheoryJan14/>
Wenz, Martin & Patrick Knörzer. “Liechtenstein: Fishing Expedition” in Eric CCM Kemmeren et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2014 (Amsterdam: International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation, 2014) 333 <https://www.ibfd.org/IBFD-Products/Tax-Treaty-Case-Law-Around-Globe-2014>
Wenz, Martin & Patrick Knörzer. “Liechtenstein: Legal Protection in Requested State” in Eric CCM Kemmeren et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2014 (Amsterdam: International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation, 2014) 349 <https://www.ibfd.org/IBFD-Products/Tax-Treaty-Case-Law-Around-Globe-2014>
Zagaris, Bruce. “Information Exchange Between the U.S. and Latin America: The U.S. Perspective, Part 1” (2014) 74:10 Tax Notes Intl 955, online: <http://www.freedomandprosperity.org/files/Part I - TaxInfoExchBetwUS&LatinAmerica.pdf>
Zagaris, Bruce. “Information Exchange Between the U.S. and Latin America: The U.S. Perspective, Part 2” (2014) 74:11 Tax Notes Intl 1051, online: <http://www.freedomandprosperity.org/files/PartII- TaxInfoExchBetwUSLA.pdf>
Zimmerman, Salome & Beat König. “Switzerland: The Revised Provisions on Administrative Assistance in Swiss Double Taxation Agreements: Limitations Arising from National Law” in Michael Lang et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2015 (Vienna: Linde, 2016) 313 <https://www.ibfd.org/IBFD-Products/Tax-Treaty-Case-Law-around-Globe-2015>
Zimmerman, Salome & Cédric Ballenegger. “Switzerland: Revised Wording of Article 26 on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters” in Eric CCM Kemmeren et al, eds, Tax Treaty Case Law Around the Globe 2014 (Amsterdam: International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation, 2014) 383 <https://www.ibfd.org/IBFD-Products/Tax-Treaty-Case-Law-Around-Globe-2014>
Article 26 Cases
AL Burbank & Co Ltd v United States, 1 August 1974, 74-2 USTC (CCH) 9779 (United States).
Allan B Karme v Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 24 March 1980, 73 TC 1163 (United States).
Aloe Vera of America v United States, 580 F (3d) 867 (AC 9th Cir 2011).
Avowal Administrative Attorneys v District Court at North Shore, [2010] NZCA 183 (New Zealand).
BJY & Ors v Comptroller of Income Tax, 13 September 2013 (Singapore).
Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Fiscal Court), I B 35/05, 13 January 2006 (Germany).
Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Fiscal Court), I B 218/04, 10 May 2005, Bundesfinanzhof/NB, 2005, 1503 (Germany).
Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Fiscal Court), I R 79/07, 29 April 2008 (Germany).
Bull D SA de CV v United States, 5 January 2007, 487 F Supp 772 (United States).
Chatfield & Co Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue, NZHC 2099 (New Zealand).
Chhabra v MNR, [1988] 1 CTC 84 (FCTD).
Commissioner for South African Revenue Service v Van Kets, [2011] ZAWCHC 435 (S Afr).
Constitutional Court, 23 November 2012, No 2012/166 (Liechtenstein).
Constitutional Court, 3 September 2013, No 2012/106 (Liechtenstein).
Cour Administrative [Administrative Court], 2 May 2013, No 32184C (Luxembourg).
Cour Administrative [Administrative Court], 24 September 2013, No 33118C (Luxembourg).
ER Squibb and Sons v Commissioner of Inland Revenue, 2 October 1992, (1992) 14 NZTC 9,146 (New Zealand).
Federal Administrative Court, 21 January 2010, No A-7789/2009 (Switzerland).
Federal Administrative Court, 17 December 2013, No A-4232/2013 (Switzerland).
Federal Administrative Court, 7 October 2014, No A-1606/2014 (Switzerland).
Federal Administrative Court, 8 December 2014, No A-3294/2014 (Switzerland).
Federal Supreme Court, 5 July 2013, Credit Suisse, No 2C_269/2013 (Switzerland).
Finanzgericht Hamburg (Tax Court Hamburg), Hamburg, 30 September 2004, Entscheidungen der Finanzgerichte 2005, 923 (Germany).
Finanzgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen (Tax Court Nordrhein-Westfalen), 4 V 5580/04 S, 10 January 2005, Deutsche Steuerrecht, 2005, 605 (Germany).
Gabriel Azouz v United States (Internal Revenue Service), 13 December 1999 (Summary) (United States).
Gilbert Wolf v United States, 21 December 1984, 601 F Supp 435 (United States).
Hillis v. Canada (Attorney General), [2016] 2 FCR 235, 2015 FC 1082
Hua Wang Bank Berhad v Commissioner of Taxation [2013] FCAFC 28 (13 March 2013)
Julio Roberto Zarate Barquero v United States, 15 June 1993, 93-2 USTC (CCH) 50,411 (United States).
Lidas Inc, David Chelala, Liliane Chelala v United States, 5 February 1999, 99-1 USTC (CCH) 50,309 (United States).
Lincoln First Bank v United States, 14 February 1980, 80-1 USTC (CCH) 9231 (United States).
Luis A Fernandez Marinelli v United States, 29 November 1995, 96-1 USTC (CCH) 50,014 (United States).
Midwest Generator Company v Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 17 February 1988, 55 TCM (CCH) 90 (United States).
Montreal Aluminum Processing Ltd v The Queen, [1991] 2 CTC 70 (FCTD).
Pacific Network Services Ltd v Minister of National Revenue, 2002 FC 1158.
Supreme Administrative Court, 23 October 2013, No 01361/13 (Portugal).
United States v LaSalle National Bank, 19 June 1978, 437 US 298 (1977) (United States).
United States v Powell, 23 November 1964, 379 US 48 (1964) (United States).
Yeong Yae Yun v United States, 13 November 2000, 2001-1 USTC (CCH) 50,313 (United States).
Zbigniew Emilian Mazurek v United States
, 7 November 2001, 2001-2 USTC (CCH) 50,776 (United States).