This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-730 
entitled 'Tax Administration: IRS's Information Exchanges with Other 
Countries Could Be Improved through Better Performance Information' 
which was released on October 7, 2011. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate: 

August 2011: 

Tax Administration: 

IRS's Information Exchanges with Other Countries Could Be Improved 
through Better Performance Information: 

GAO-11-730: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-11-730, a report to the Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs, U.S. Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

With trillions of dollars in cross-border financial activity, U.S. tax 
authorities and others around the world exchange information with each 
other to administer and enforce compliance with the tax laws of their 
respective countries. 

GAO was asked to (1) identify and describe all income tax treaties and 
other such agreements between the United States and other countries, 
(2) describe the volume of exchange activity, types of information 
exchanged between the United States and its treaty partners, and 
request processing times, and (3) identify opportunities to improve 
the effectiveness of current U.S. information exchange processes and 
procedures. GAO analyzed agreement documents, IRS data on information 
exchanges, and interviewed program officials and the users of 
exchanged information. 

What GAO Found: 

Treaties and other agreements authorizing information exchange provide 
tax authorities in the United States and abroad with a useful tax law 
enforcement tool. As of April 30, 2011, the United States had such 
agreements in force with 90 foreign jurisdictions. Agreements have 
many similar features, but the bounds within which information can be 
exchanged are unique to the legal and administrative arrangements 
agreed to by the United States and each partner. 

Between 2006 and 2010, 5,111 requests for information to or from the 
United States and 75 foreign jurisdictions were completed; 4,217 were 
incoming requests for information such as tax returns or corporate 
records and 894 were outgoing requests from the United States. IRS’s 
enforcement presence also relies on several other methods to obtain 
relevant information, including a mechanism which yields about 2.1 
million records annually from treaty partners. GAO estimates that most 
requests close about 50 to 200 days after being opened, but some take 
much longer. The time it takes to close requests can be influenced by 
factors such as the complexity of the requested information and the 
legal system of the treaty partner. GAO analysis of IRS data shows 
that the United States takes more time to close incoming requests for 
some groups of countries than others. 

Although IRS collects data on exchanges between the United States and 
its treaty partners, the agency does not consistently collect or 
analyze performance information, such as the type of information 
requested, whether the information was collected successfully, or 
feedback from staff making the requests about the usefulness of the 
information or their views on the process for obtaining it. Collecting 
this information could help program managers assess how well the IRS 
is managing the information exchange process, and whether changes to 
administrative processes and procedures could improve the exchange of 
information between the United States and its treaty partners. 

Figure: Bilateral Information Exchange Partnerships between the U.S. 
and Other Countries, April 2011: 

[Refer to PDF for image: world map] 

Treaty partners by region: 

Americas: 12; 
Caribbean: 16; 
Europe: 37; 
Africa and Middle East: 7; 
Asia-Pacific: 18. 

Sources: GAO analysis of data from Thomson Reuters, Government 
Printing Office (GPO), Lexis Nexis, and the Department of State;
Map Resources (map). 

[End of figure] 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue determine the 
key types of performance information that exchange program managers 
could use to ensure the program is working as well as possible. 
Specifically, the Commissioner should require the collection of (1) 
consistent and accurate data on specific tax information exchange 
cases and (2) feedback from program users on a routine basis as part 
of regular program operations. IRS concurred with our recommendation. 
The agencies discussed in this report also suggested technical changes 
to a draft of this report which GAO incorporated as appropriate. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-730]. For more 
information, contact Michael Brostek at (202) 512-9110 or 
brostekm@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Agreements That Authorize Exchange of Information between the United 
States and its Treaty Partners Differ in Content and Application: 

Volume, Type, and Processing Time of Requests Varies: 

Improved Collection of Balanced Performance Data Could Help IRS 
Improve Administrative Processes and Program Outcomes for Exchange of 
Information: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Article 26 (Exchange of Information and Administrative 
Assistance) of 2006 U.S. Model Tax Convention: 

Appendix III: Administrative Processes for Addressing Outgoing and 
Incoming Specific Requests for Information: 

Appendix IV: TIEA, MLAT, and MLAA between the United States and 
Foreign Jurisdictions as of April 30, 2011: 

Appendix V: Catalog and Key Characteristics of Information Exchange 
Agreements: 

Appendix VI: Composition of Treaty-Partner Groupings: 

Appendix VII: Comments from the Internal Revenue Service: 

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Number of New Incoming and Outgoing Specific Information 
Exchange Requests, 2006-2010: 

Table 2: Processing Time for Closed Incoming and Outgoing Requests, by 
Information Category, 2006-2009: 

Table 3: Model Estimates of Country Group Differences in Average 
Request Processing Time for Closed Cases, 2006-2010: 

Table 4: Article 26 of 2006 U.S. Model Tax Convention: 

Table 5: Presence of Provisions Included in Article 26 of 2006 U.S. 
Model Tax Convention in Most Recent U.S. Tax Treaties in Force 
(Chronological): 

Table 6: Description of Key Features Included in U.S. TIEAs 
(Chronological): 

Table 7: Description of Key Features Included in Bilateral U.S. MLATs 
(Chronological): 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Need title: 

Figure 2: 

Figure 3: Numbers of Treaty Partners with Different Combinations of 
Agreements in Force That Authorize Tax Information Exchange: 

Figure 4: Distribution of Information Types Requested for 3,569 
Requests with Available Data, 2006-2009: 

Figure 5: Estimated Probability That a Request Will Close at a Certain 
Time, 2006-2010: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

September 9, 2011: 

The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable Tom Coburn:
Ranking Member:
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate: 

As globalization and technological advancements continue to reduce 
barriers to cross-border commerce, individuals and businesses are 
increasingly conducting trade and earning income beyond traditional 
geographic or political boundaries. According to the U.S. Department 
of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, in 2010, U.S. exports of 
goods and services and income receipts were estimated at $2.5 trillion 
($1.83 trillion in exports of goods and services and $0.66 trillion in 
income receipts on U.S.-owned assets abroad). Meanwhile, imports of 
goods and services and income payments were valued at $2.83 trillion 
($2.33 trillion in imports of goods and services, and $0.5 trillion in 
income payments on foreign-owned assets in the United States). 

Tax authorities around the world have made increasing use of 
information exchange with other countries to administer and enforce 
the tax laws of their respective countries. In this environment, it is 
particularly important that the United States continues to develop and 
maintain cooperative cross-border relationships with other countries 
to ensure that U.S. taxpayers comply with U.S. tax laws. The legal 
authority to obtain information from other countries through 
international agreements such as income tax treaties,[Footnote 1] Tax 
Information Exchange Agreements (TIEA), and Mutual Legal Assistance 
Treaties (MLAT) and Agreements (MLAA) provides federal officials in 
the United States with an important tax law enforcement tool. 

Given that little is known about the extent to which information is 
shared under these agreements, you asked us to report on exchange 
practices between the United States and other countries. On the basis 
of your request and subsequent discussions with your offices, this 
report: (1) identifies and describes all bilateral income tax 
treaties, TIEAs and MLATs between the United States and other 
countries in force, proposed, or signed as of April 30, 2011; (2) 
describes the volume of exchange activity, types of information 
exchanged between the United States and its treaty partners, and the 
time to process requests for information; and (3) identifies 
opportunities to improve the effectiveness of current U.S. information 
exchange processes and procedures. This report also describes the 
legal framework and administrative processes that the United States 
uses to exchange information with its treaty partners. 

For all three of our report's objectives we interviewed relevant 
officials from the Department of the Treasury, the Internal Revenue 
Service (IRS), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Department of 
State and examined applicable policies and guidance to understand the 
administrative procedures involved in information exchange. To 
identify and describe agreements, we obtained copies of all current 
bilateral U.S. income tax treaties, TIEAs, and MLATs and created a 
comprehensive catalog, capturing key dates and other descriptive 
elements. We also conducted a content analysis of information exchange 
provisions contained in all of the information exchange agreements in 
force between the United States and foreign jurisdictions as of April 
30, 2011, to identify and compare key requirements or restrictions for 
information exchange contained in each agreement. To determine the 
volume of exchange activity, types of information exchanged, and the 
time required to complete information exchange requests, we obtained 
data from the IRS Exchange of Information and Overseas Operations 
(EOI/OO) division on information exchanges completed between January 
1, 2006 and December 31, 2010. To assess the reliability of these 
data, we questioned knowledgeable officials, reviewed system 
documentation, and examined the data for obvious errors. We determined 
the data to be sufficiently reliable for this report. To determine if 
opportunities exist to improve IRS processes related to international 
information exchange, we reviewed GAO and other guidance on internal 
controls and interviewed officials from IRS, DOJ, and the Organisation 
for Economic Co-operation and Development to obtain their perspectives 
on the effectiveness of the current administrative practices for the 
exchange of tax information. More detailed information on our 
methodology can be found in appendix I. 

We conducted this performance audit from January 2010 through August 
2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

International agreements, such as income tax treaties, permit the 
United States and other countries to provide information to each other 
for tax administration and enforcement purposes through a process 
referred to as exchange of information or information exchange. 
Information may be shared upon request or without a preceding request. 

The information shared between countries can cover a range of 
documents and sources, and can occur in a variety of formats. 
Exchanges include responses to narrowly tailored requests for 
documents related to a specific taxpayer, as well as records for 
thousands of taxpayers. Exchanges are not limited to tax returns and 
other tax system-specific information; other sources can involve 
public records, information from securities brokers, and real-estate 
information. Exchanges are also defined to include broad-based 
discussions of policy and administration between tax authorities. 
According to the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), there were nearly 
2.5 million disclosures of tax returns or return information to 
foreign countries under tax treaty disclosure authority in 2010. 
[Footnote 2] The total number of disclosures may be greater than the 
number of taxpayers involved, as the same taxpayer may be the subject 
of more than one information exchange. 

Legal Framework of Exchange of Information: 

Tax treaties, Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEA), and Mutual 
Legal Assistance Treaties (MLAT)[Footnote 3] provide U.S. officials 
working on tax matters the authority to exchange information with 
authorities in other countries. Generally, these agreements contain 
exchange-of-information provisions that have been agreed upon by the 
United States and one other country or jurisdiction; that is, they are 
bilateral.[Footnote 4] While U.S. domestic law or international law 
does not prevent countries from providing the United States with 
otherwise-unprotected information, such exchanges typically do not 
occur outside the bounds of these agreements.[Footnote 5] 

Agreement Types: 

Tax treaty provisions cover a wide range of tax issues but have two 
primary purposes; (1) avoiding double taxation[Footnote 6] and (2) 
enforcing the domestic tax laws of treaty partners. All but one tax 
treaty between the United States and other countries contains 
provisions that authorize exchange of information.[Footnote 7] 
According to officials at the Department of the Treasury, U.S. 
officials generally rely on a model income tax treaty to identify the 
terms and provisions that the United States would like to incorporate 
into its agreements with other countries. The U.S. Model Income Tax 
Convention of 2006 is the most-recently published model treaty that 
U.S. officials rely on to negotiate tax-treaty provisions, and 
includes Article 26 concerning information exchange. The Department of 
State serves as an advisor to the Department of the Treasury, which 
develops and negotiates tax treaties and other international 
agreements related to tax matters.[Footnote 8] 

Although model treaties are the starting point for U.S. negotiations 
with other countries, officials we spoke to noted that the terms and 
conditions of tax treaties, like other international agreements, are 
the product of negotiations between the countries involved. Specific 
agreements vary in the terms or provisions governing exchange of 
information between the United States and individual treaty partners, 
and, as discussed later in this report, these variations can have 
meaningful effects on the exchange-of-information process.[Footnote 9] 
When seeking approval for a treaty, including tax treaties, the 
Secretary of State formally submits the proposed treaty to the 
President of the United States for transmittal to the United States 
Senate. Following advice and consent of the United States Senate, the 
President of the United States signs the treaty, and directs the 
Secretary of State to take the actions necessary for the treaty to 
enter into force. After both countries have complied with the entry- 
into-force provisions of the treaty, it becomes binding under 
international law. 

TIEAs also authorize exchange of information between the United States 
and other countries for tax purposes. Like tax treaties, the 
provisions contained in TIEAs must be agreed upon by all parties to 
the agreement, and the terms and conditions governing exchange of 
information between the United States and other countries may differ 
from agreement to agreement. Unlike treaties, however, TIEAs are 
executive agreements that are signed by the President of the United 
States and do not require the advice and consent of the United States 
Senate. Also, while tax treaties cover a broad array of tax matters 
including exchange of information, the sole purpose of a TIEA is to 
facilitate the exchange of information. As with tax treaties, TIEAs 
become binding under international law once both countries have 
complied with the entry-into-force provisions. 

MLATs create a routine channel for obtaining a broad range of legal 
assistance for criminal matters. Like tax treaties, MLATs are treaties 
that require the advice and consent of the Senate. MLATs are 
negotiated by the DOJ in cooperation with the Department of State. 
Unlike the information obtained through tax treaties and TIEAs, which 
authorize the exchange of information for tax purposes, MLATs 
authorize the exchange of information for criminal matters, which can 
include criminal tax matters.[Footnote 10] 

Information shared through exchange of information and information 
about such exchanges is confidential and protected by domestic laws 
and provisions contained in tax treaties and other such agreements. 
The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) protects information exchanged under 
tax treaties and other relevant agreements from disclosure in the same 
manner as information obtained under domestic laws except in specific 
circumstances, such as to courts and administrative bodies. The 
identity of taxpayers, information about those taxpayers, and the 
identity of the countries involved in the exchange of information are 
protected from public disclosure.[Footnote 11] 

Delegation to Competent and Central Authorities: 

Tax treaties, TIEAs and MLATs require that both the United States and 
its treaty partners designate and authorize an entity within their 
respective governments to interpret agreement provisions and disclose 
information. Tax treaties and TIEAs commonly refer to these entities 
as "competent authorities" or "taxation authorities," while MLATs 
refer to these entities as "central authorities" or "competent 
authorities." For information exchanges under tax treaties and TIEAs, 
the Secretary of the Treasury is the competent authority. For 
administrative purposes, the authority to exchange information with 
other tax authorities has been delegated to the IRS Deputy 
Commissioner (International), Large Business and International 
Division. 

All exchanges of information under an agreement involving the United 
States must occur through formal channels established between the 
United States and treaty partner competent or central authorities. 
Exchanges that occur within these formal channels restrict the 
disclosure of tax information. Also, some foreign governments may 
restrict foreign tax authorities from conducting investigative 
activities within their borders. 

Types of Exchange of Information: 

Specific exchanges of information are those in which information is 
provided by one jurisdiction after it is requested by a partner 
jurisdiction in the context of a specific audit or investigation. From 
the U.S. perspective, requests for specific exchange of information 
are incoming or outgoing. When a treaty partner submits a request for 
specific exchange of information to the United States, these foreign 
initiated requests are called incoming requests for specific exchange 
of information. Conversely, when the United States initiates a request 
for specific exchange of information, that request is referred to as 
an outgoing request for specific exchange of information. 

Treaty partners may also exchange information with one another without 
a request. For example, tax administration officials may come across 
information about a taxpayer that officials believe could be of 
interest to tax administration and compliance officials in another 
country. The competent authority may then send this information to the 
treaty partner's competent authority through what is referred to as a 
spontaneous exchange of information. 

Treaty partners may also exchange information with one another on a 
regular or routine basis, through what is referred to as an automatic 
exchange of information. Such exchanges typically involve the 
voluntary exchange of information on multiple taxpayers, and 
cumulatively can include millions of records. For example, a country 
may routinely provide information on domestic dividends paid to 
foreign citizens. Automatic exchanges of information are similar to 
spontaneous exchanges because they are not associated with a formal, 
one-time written request for information on a specific taxpayer or 
taxpayers. 

The United States also exchanges information with treaty partners 
through the Simultaneous Examination Program (SEP) and Simultaneous 
Criminal Investigation Program (SCIP). SEP/SCIP is used in situations 
where the United States and a treaty partner have common issues 
concerning the examination or investigation of a taxpayer or related 
taxpayers. Officials meet to discuss audit plans, information 
requirements and other issues related to the examination or 
investigation. Treaties also allow broad-based discussions on matters 
such as tax administration trends, operating practices and tax matters 
related to particular economic sectors. In the United States, these 
exchanges are referred to as industrywide exchanges of information. 
According to IRS officials, industrywide exchanges are rare and do not 
involve sharing information about specific taxpayers. 

While the provisions of most tax treaties and relevant agreements are 
broad enough to permit the exchanges of information previously 
described, specific exchanges of information are the only type of 
exchanges that the United States and its treaty partners are obligated 
or required to do under the terms of these agreements. Therefore, the 
administrative processes and much of the data presented in later 
sections of this report will focus on the activity occurring through 
specific exchanges of information. 

Administrative Procedures for Processing Specific Exchanges of 
Information: 

All administrative activities associated with processing incoming and 
outgoing requests for specific exchanges of information are handled by 
IRS Tax Attachés or EOI/OO staff located in one of the agency's 
civilian posts of duty or in Washington, D.C. IRS has four overseas 
posts of duty located in Europe and Asia and one domestic duty post in 
Plantation, Florida. Each foreign duty post is headed by a Tax Attaché 
and the domestic post is headed by a Revenue Service Representative 
(RSR). Tax Attachés, RSRs, and EOI/OO headquarters staff are 
responsible for ensuring that the incoming and outgoing requests 
pertaining to their designated jurisdictions meet agreement standards 
and are processed in a timely manner. Requests for information 
involving Australia, Canada, France, Japan, and New Zealand are 
processed through EOI/OO in Washington, D.C. 

Incoming requests for information are assessed by the relevant Tax 
Attaché, RSR, or headquarters staff to ensure that they comport with 
the agreement in place with the country and with U.S. laws. All 
incoming requests must specifically include (1) the identity of the 
taxpayer about whom the information is being requested,[Footnote 12] 
(2) an itemized list of all the information requested, (3) a detailed 
explanation of relevance of the information requested and the taxpayer 
and issue being examined, and (4) an explanation of how the 
information that is being requested relates to the taxes or 
liabilities covered by the agreement authorizing the exchange. To 
ensure that these requirements are met, IRS personnel are required to 
complete a checklist for each incoming request for information. IRS 
officials stated that they do not fulfill requests for information 
they deem to be inadequately supported, and will frequently ask the 
relevant treaty partner to provide additional details to support the 
request. Incoming requests that meet the specified standards are 
typically forwarded to other business operating divisions within the 
IRS, which then assign the request to appropriate examiners or revenue 
agents to obtain the information. The information obtained to meet the 
request, or a determination that the requested information is not 
obtainable, is passed back to EOI/OO staff that then send the response 
to the requesting jurisdiction. 

A similar IRS process is used for U.S.-initiated, outgoing requests 
for information. EOI/OO receives requests for information from IRS or 
DOJ field staff, and passes the requests along to Tax Attaché, RSR, or 
EOI/OO staff. The staff evaluate the request to ensure that it 
includes all of the information that the treaty partner will need, 
including: 

* the name and address of the taxpayer under examination or 
investigation, when it is known; 

* the type of tax and tax years (whether calendar or fiscal) involved; 

* general case information to establish that a tax examination or 
investigation is being conducted; 

* the location of the information and an explanation as to why the 
information is believed to be in the country from which the 
information is being requested; 

* the specific information needed and how the information is relevant 
to the investigation; 

* the date by which the information is needed (can include statute-of- 
limitations[Footnote 13] or court dates); and: 

* whether certified copies of the documents are required. 

Although the international examiner, revenue agent, revenue officer, 
investigator, or attorney in charge of the original examination or 
investigation summarizes these details using a template developed by 
EOI/OO, the formal written request is prepared and transmitted to the 
treaty partner by the Tax Attaché, RSR, or EOI/OO staff assigned to 
the request.[Footnote 14] 

An interactive graphic illustrating the administrative process for 
incoming and outgoing specific exchanges of information is shown in 
figure 1. Process details can also be found in appendix III. 

Figure 1: Administrative Processes for Addressing Outgoing and 
Incoming Specific Requests for Information: 

[Refer to PDF for image: Interactive graphic] 

Directions: 

Mouse over each participant below to read about each one’s primary 
responsibilities. 

Mouse over document icons below to see examples of information 
required for requests. 

Outgoing requests: 

IRS Revenue Agent or Examiner[A]: 
A need for information is identifies, a justification for request is 
prepared and a cover memorandum and attachment is sent to U.S. 
Competent Authority. 
Outgoing Memorandum must contain: 
* Name of taxpayer in question; 
* Requester's name and phone number; 
* Address or fax number where response should be sent; 
* Any background information that should not be sent to Foreign 
Competent Authority; 
* Ant statute, courts, or other dates by which the information is 
required; 
* Whether the request includes grand jury information. 
Outgoing Attachment must contain: 
* Name of taxpayer in question; 
* Type of tax and tax years (fiscal/calendar) involved; 
* Evidence that an investigation is being conducted; 
* Identification of location of the information and why the United 
States believes it is in that location; 
* Specific information needed; 
* How information is related to the investigation; 
* * Ant statute, courts, or other dates by which the information is 
needed; 
* Any document certification requirements. 

U.S. Competent Authority: 
Formal request letter is prepared and sent to Foreign Competent 
Authority. 

Foreign Competent Authority: 
Formal request letter is received and response is prepared. 

Formal response sent back to U.S. Competent Authority. Information 
results sent to IRS Revenue Agent or Examiner. 

Incoming Requests: 

Foreign Competent Authority: 
Request for information is sent to U.S. Competent Authority: 
Foreign request must contain: 
* Specific identification of taxpayer; 
* Itemized list of specific information requested; 
* A detailed narrative identifying the tax nexus of the relevance of 
the information sought to the taxpayer and the issues examined; 
* An explanation of how the request for transactions, facts, or 
documents pertain to a tax or tax liability covered by a tax treaty or 
TIEA. 

U.S. Competent Authority: 
Request is evaluated and the case is assigned to appropriate division. 

IRS Revenue Agent or Examiner[A]: 
If feasible, requested information is obtained within 60 days. If 
necessary, status update is provided every 60 days until resolved. 

Information results sent to U.S. Competent Authority. Information 
results may consist of partial or complete information, or an 
explanation of why material cannot be obtained. 

Formal response sent from U.S. Competent Authority to Foreign 
Competent Authority. 

Source: GAO analysis of IRS data. 

[A] In some cases, participant may be Department of Justice (DOJ) 
Prosecutor or Investigator. 

[End of figure] 

EOI/OO procedures require that the Tax Attaché, RSR, or EOI/OO staff 
responsible for processing the outgoing request provide status updates 
to the person requesting the information every 60 days. After the 
information has been secured, the response is reviewed by the Tax 
Attaché, RSR, or EOI/OO staff responsible for processing the request 
and forwarded to the requester. When a treaty partner supplies only 
part of the information requested, the IRS official responsible for 
processing the request follows up with the treaty partner until all 
information requested has been secured, or until all attempts by the 
treaty partner to secure the information have been exhausted and it is 
determined that the information does not exist or cannot be obtained 
from the country. The Tax Attaché, RSR, or EOI/OO staff working the 
case will forward information to the requester as it is received. 

Agreements That Authorize Exchange of Information between the United 
States and its Treaty Partners Differ in Content and Application: 

The United States Has 143 Information exchange Agreements with 90 
Treaty Partners: 

As of April 30, 2011, the United States had 143 bilateral agreements 
authorizing exchange of information with 90 treaty partners. These 
agreements include 58 tax treaties, 27 TIEAs, 49 MLATs plus 7 partial 
MLATs, and 2 MLAAs in force between the United States and foreign 
jurisdictions.[Footnote 15] Another 12 instruments (7 tax treaties, 2 
TIEAs, and 3 MLATs), all incorporating tax information exchange, were 
signed but were not in force as of that date.[Footnote 16] See 
appendix IV for a list of all income-tax treaties, TIEAs, and MLATs in 
force as of April 30, 2011. Agreements signed but not in force are 
also listed in appendix IV. 

Of the 90 treaty partners, 7 were located in the Africa and Middle 
East regions, 12 in the Americas region, 18 in the Asia-Pacific 
region, 16 in the Caribbean region, and 37 in the Europe region. See 
figure 2 for an interactive graphic showing the different agreements 
that the United States has with its foreign partners, including a map 
for each agreement type. 

Figure 2: Bilateral Tax Information Exchange Partnerships Between the 
United States and Other Countries, April 2011: 

[Refer to PDF for image: Interactive graphic world map] 

Treaty partners by region: Number of Tax Information Exchange 
Partnerships by Region: 
Americas: 12; 
Caribbean: 16; 
Europe: 37; 
Africa and Middle East: 7; 
Asia-Pacific: 18. 

Click on tax information exchange agreements on the right to see each 
one’s geographical distribution. 

Treaties: Partners with income tax treaties: 
TIEAs: Partners with Tax Information Exchange Agreements: 
MLATs: Partners with Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties: 
Potential Partners: Potential partners with signed instruments that 
are not in force: 

Sources: GAO analysis of data from Thomson Reuters, Government 
Printing Office (GPO), LexisNexis, and the Department of State; Map 
Resources (map). 

[End of figure] 

The number of bilateral instruments involving the United States does 
not match the number of tax information exchange relationships the 
United States has with foreign partners. For example, the United 
States has an MLAT with Uruguay, but that MLAT does not allow for 
assistance related to tax offenses unless they pertain to other 
crimes. Since the United States has no other instrument with Uruguay, 
tax information is not exchanged with that country except if the tax 
offense relates to the concealment of income obtained from another 
crime covered by the treaty. Therefore, Uruguay is not counted as an 
exchange partner. At the same time, multiple partners may be 
signatories to a single instrument. For example, the United States has 
an MLAT with four countries of the Eastern Caribbean States 
Organization, which provides a basis for its tax information exchange 
relationships with Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, and St. 
Lucia.[Footnote 17] 

The terms of an agreement may specifically include or exclude an 
associated territory. For example, the U.S.-Australia income-tax 
treaty includes Australia's territories of Norfolk Island, Christmas 
Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Ashmore and Cartier Islands, and the 
Coral Sea Islands, while the U.S.-Denmark income-tax treaty terms 
exclude the Faroe Islands and Greenland. A territory may also be 
included in one agreement and excluded in another. For example, the 
U.S.-United Kingdom MLAT extends to the Isle of Man (a dependency of 
the British Crown), but the territory is excluded from U.S.-United 
Kingdom income-tax treaty. Since the United States also has a unique 
TIEA with the Isle of Man, it is counted as a separate foreign treaty 
partner. 

Tax information exchange relationships may be created by a single 
instrument or by multiple instruments of different types. Figure 3 
shows the numbers of foreign treaty partners with which the United 
States has different combinations of agreements.[Footnote 18] 

Figure 3: Numbers of Treaty Partners with Different Combinations of 
Agreements in Force That Authorize Tax Information Exchange: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Tax Treaty and MLAT: 43; 
TIEA: 17; 
Tax Treaty: 10; 
MLAT: 9; 
TIEA and MLAT: 6; 
Tax Treaty, TIEA, and MLAT: 4; 
Tax Treaty and TIEA: 1. 

Sources: GAO analysis of data from Thomson Reuters, Government 
Printing Office (GPO), LexisNexis, and The Department of State. 

[End of figure] 

Tax Treaties and TIEAs Have Common Principles, but Many Also Have 
Unique Provisions: 

All U.S. tax treaties (with information exchange provisions) and TIEAs 
currently in force obligate the United States and its treaty partners 
to exchange certain information upon request. In general, the text of 
tax treaties and TIEAs is written broadly, allowing for specific, 
automatic, and spontaneous tax information exchanges. Treasury 
Department officials told us that the starting point for new 
agreements and renegotiations is generally the most recent U.S. Model 
Tax Convention in use by the United States. Department of the Treasury 
officials also noted that the policies embodied in the most recent 
Model Tax Convention may evolve after the publication of the document, 
therefore changes in policy may not be documented until the 
publication of an updated model convention. The language of particular 
agreements and the terms governing each bilateral relationship can 
vary significantly from agreement to agreement, depending on when the 
agreement was negotiated and what the two countries agree to. 

Tax treaties with information exchange articles and TIEAs create, at a 
minimum, the obligation for exchange partners to respond to permitted 
requests for information. Fifty-eight treaties and 12 TIEAs explicitly 
describe a standard for the relevance or necessity of the information 
allowed to be requested. The standard found in the 2006 U.S. Model Tax 
Convention is that information that "may be relevant for carrying out 
the provisions of this Convention or of the domestic laws of the 
Contracting State concerning taxes of every kind" is to be exchanged 
upon request, which mirrors the statutory standard governing IRS's 
authority to access records in a domestic context.[Footnote 19] Some 
agreements use a variation of the standard, however, such as 
"foreseeably relevant," "as is necessary," "as is relevant," or "as is 
pertinent." The "may be relevant" standard and the "forseeably 
relevant" standard are regarded as equivalent by the U.S. government 
and are considered a lower bar than the other standards. 

The 2006 U.S. Model Tax Convention technical explanation cites a U.S. 
Supreme Court case[Footnote 20] and states that the "may be" language 
"would not support a request in which a Contracting State simply asked 
for information regarding all bank accounts maintained by residents of 
that Contracting State in the other Contracting State, or even all 
accounts maintained by its residents with respect to a particular 
bank." This means that, as a general rule, the United States does not 
make requests or respond to requests under these agreements where the 
names or other identifier (such as an account number) of potentially 
noncompliant persons are unknown. The information-exchange provisions 
of TIEAs and bilateral tax treaties concluded by the United States 
require that a request for information satisfy a standard of relevance 
in order to be considered a valid request under the agreement. One of 
the requirements of the relevance standard is that requests contain 
"the identity of the person(s) under examination or investigation." 
During interviews, officials of the IRS and Treasury Department 
explained that the recent global recognition of the importance of full 
exchange of information for tax purposes has led countries to refine 
information-exchange practices to ensure that exchange will occur to 
the widest appropriate extent, and that these topics are under active 
discussion at international standard-setting bodies such as the 
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the 
Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information that focuses 
on exchange-of-information issues. Accordingly, a valid request for 
information will not always require the name of particular taxpayers 
under examination or investigation. In addition, the Treasury 
Department's Technical Explanation of the 2009 protocol[Footnote 21] 
amending the 1996 bilateral tax treaty with Switzerland states the 
following: "In a typical case, information sufficient to identify the 
person under examination or investigation would include a name, and to 
the extent known, an address, account number or similar identifying 
information." Moreover, IRS and Treasury Department officials 
explained that the template TIEA text used by the United States was 
changed in January 2011 to state that a request for information must 
contain "the identity of the person or ascertainable group or category 
of persons under examination or investigation." It is mutually 
understood that there can be circumstances in which there is 
information sufficient to identify the person under examination or 
investigation even though the requesting state cannot provide a name. 
At the time that this study was conducted, however, the Internal 
Revenue Manual had not been correspondingly updated to reflect this 
clearer articulation of policy. 

Some arrangements contain provisions that outline particular types of 
information-gathering measures beyond specific exchanges upon request. 
For example, the U.S.-Austria treaty explicitly states that "states 
shall spontaneously or upon request exchange information" and that 
"states may agree on information to be furnished on a regular basis." 
Several other tax treaties state that exchange of information shall be 
on a "routine basis" or "upon request" with reference to particular 
cases.[Footnote 22] Several TIEAs specifically provide for automatic 
and spontaneous exchange of information in addition to providing 
information upon request.[Footnote 23] The presence of automatic or 
spontaneous exchange language in an agreement does not mean such 
exchanges necessarily happen, and the absence of such language does 
not mean automatic or spontaneous exchanges do not occur, as treaties 
and TIEAs are generally broad enough to permit such types of exchange. 

Certain limits to specific information exchange are common to most tax 
treaties and TIEAs.[Footnote 24] Specifically, countries are not 
obligated to: 

* carry out administrative measures at variance with the laws and 
administrative practice of either contracting state (47 out of 67 tax 
treaties[Footnote 25] and 24 out of 27 TIEAs); 

* supply information that contracting states would not be able to 
obtain under their own laws (51 out of 67 tax treaties and 26 out of 
27 TIEAs); or: 

* provide information that would disclose trade, business, industrial, 
commercial, or professional secret or trade-process or information 
that would be contrary to public policy of either contracting state 
(46 out of 67 tax treaties and 26 out of 27 TIEAs). 

Additionally, all tax treaties with information-exchange articles and 
all TIEAs contain disclosure provisions that protect the 
confidentiality of the information exchanged. Forty tax treaties and 
12 TIEAs also state that an exchange partner may not decline a request 
simply because it may not need that information for its own purposes. 
[Footnote 26] These agreements also contain provisions that obligate 
the requested state to use its information-gathering measures to 
obtain the requested information even though it may not need that 
information for its own purposes. 

While tax treaties and TIEAs share many common principles, many also 
contain unique features. For example, information-exchange 
arrangements can cover different types of tax information. Twenty-
seven tax treaties permit exchange of information in any case 
concerning U.S. federal taxes, 21 limit information exchange to cases 
concerning taxes described under the general scope of the convention, 
and 10 limit exchange to cases concerning specific taxes or apply 
other restrictions. All U.S. TIEAs cover exchanges on all U.S. federal 
taxes, although most specifically state that they do not cover state 
and local taxes or taxes levied by political subdivisions. Eighteen 
treaties and 23 TIEAs also expressly provide that an exchange partner 
cannot decline to share information because it is held by a bank or 
other financial institution, though the absence of such a provision 
does not mean that a treaty partner will decline to share such 
information. Five treaties specify that the requested state will allow 
representatives to interview individuals and examine evidence in the 
requested state, while 18 TIEAs include provisions to this effect. Two 
treaties--with Canada and the Netherlands--have provisions within 
their exchange of information articles that permit disclosure of 
information to an arbitration board. One agreement--the Panama TIEA--
has a provision that "parties may exchange technical know-how, develop 
new audit techniques, identify new areas of non-compliance, and 
jointly study non-compliance areas." 

The focus of information exchange under MLATs is different than tax 
treaties and TIEAs. Assistance under a MLAT, including on tax matters, 
is generally only available for the investigation, prosecution, and 
prevention of criminal offenses or for proceedings related to criminal 
matters. MLATs may also explicitly state that no dual-criminality 
requirement exists for that MLAT. Dual criminality is the requirement 
that the conduct in question be a crime under the domestic laws of 
both the requesting and requested state for assistance to be provided. 
In 25 MLATs there is a limited dual-criminality requirement, such as 
for any searches, seizures, or forfeitures. Where a dual-criminality 
requirement exists, whether or not assistance can be provided on tax 
matters depends, in part, on the domestic law of the other 
jurisdiction. MLATs also commonly provide grounds on which a request 
for information may be refused, but these grounds for refusal vary 
among agreements. 

Appendix V provides detailed information on the contents of each of 
the agreements. 

Volume, Type, and Processing Time of Requests Varies: 

Volume of Requests Made: 

IRS provided us with the number of new incoming and outgoing specific 
information exchange requests for the years 2006 through 2010. The 
number of incoming requests fluctuated over the 5-year period, ranging 
from a high of 1,173 requests in 2006 to a low of 797 in 2008. The 
number of outgoing requests also fluctuated during this period and 
ranged from a high of 236 requests in 2008 to a low of 165 in 2010. 
Table 1 provides the number of new incoming and outgoing requests for 
each year. Requests in this table include both closed requests and 
requests that were still open at the end of 2010. 

Table 1: Number of New Incoming and Outgoing Specific Information 
Exchange Requests, 2006-2010: 

Incoming (foreign-initiated): 
2006: 1,173; 
2007: 1,088; 
2008: 797; 
2009: 914; 
2010: 843; 
All: 4,815. 

Outgoing (U.S.-initiated): 
2006: 221; 
2007: 197; 
2008: 236; 
2009: 203; 
2010: 165; 
All: 1,022. 

Total: 
2006: 1,394; 
2007: 1,285; 
2008: 1,033; 
2009: 1,117; 
2010: 1,008; 
All: 5,837. 

Source: IRS. 

[End of table] 

Volume and Type of Closed Requests: 

Between 2006 and 2010, the IRS closed 5,111 incoming and outgoing 
requests involving 75 treaty partners.[Footnote 27] There were 4,217 
foreign-initiated incoming requests, and 894 U.S.-initiated outgoing 
requests closed during this period. The number of closed incoming and 
outgoing specific requests between the United States and a single 
treaty partner varied widely, ranging from five treaty partners that 
had just one incoming or outgoing request during the period to a 
single treaty partner with 711 requests. Also, request activity is 
concentrated in a small number of countries, with the 10 most-active 
countries representing roughly 68 percent of all requests. 

IRS provided us with data about the type of information that was 
requested in 3,569 exchanges (2,971 incoming requests and 598 outgoing 
requests between 2006 and 2009).[Footnote 28] Corporate records, tax- 
return data, and third-party interviews constituted about 78 percent 
of closed incoming requests for which we received data on information 
type. For outgoing requests, corporate records, tax return data, and 
bank records accounted for 77 percent of exchanges. Requests for bank 
records made up 6 percent of incoming exchange requests, but 21 
percent of outgoing requests. Conversely, requests for third-party 
interviews were 20 percent of incoming requests, but only 6 percent of 
outgoing requests. Figure 4 shows incoming and outgoing requests by 
type of information that was requested for the 3,569 exchanges for 
which we received data on information type. 

Figure 4: Distribution of Information Types Requested for 3,569 
Requests with Available Data, 2006-2009: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 2 pie-charts] 

2,971 incoming requests (foreign-Initiated): 
Real estate records: 1% (25); 
Records from security brokers: 1% (35); 
Other: 5% (134); 
Bank records: 6% (184); 
Public records: 9% (277); 
Third-party interviews: 20% (599); 
Tax return data: 27% (798); 
Corporate records: 31% (919). 

598 outgoing requests (U.S.-initiated): 
Real estate records: 2% (13); 
Records from security brokers: 0% (1); 
Other: 9% (52); 
Bank records: 21% (125); 
Public records: 6% (36); 
Third-party interviews: 6% (37); 
Tax return data: 32% (192); 
Corporate records: 24% (142). 

Source: GAO analysis of IRS data. 

Note: Outgoing specific information exchange requests are a portion of 
IRS’s international enforcement presence; IRS also uses other tools to 
obtain information about U.S. persons’ offshore financial activity. 

[End of figure] 

IRS also receives and provides information through automatic and 
spontaneous exchanges. According to EOI/OO officials, the United 
States is currently engaged in the automatic exchange of information 
with 25 countries, transmitting approximately 2.5 million records 
annually to other countries and receiving approximately 2.1 million 
records from its treaty partners. Through automatic exchange of 
information, the United States provides some treaty partners with 
information on taxable income and federal tax withholding related to 
certain types of income received by U.S. nonresidents.[Footnote 29] 
IRS officials told us that the information that the United States 
receives through automatic exchange of information varies by treaty 
partner and includes data on wages, interest, dividends, and other 
forms of income. 

Regarding spontaneous exchanges, the United States sends about 10 
spontaneous exchanges of information to its treaty partners annually, 
according to EOI/OO officials. They also said that the United States 
receives around 300 spontaneous exchanges of information annually, 
mostly from developed countries with sophisticated tax systems, and 
that the number fluctuates widely from year to year. IRS officials 
stated that information the IRS receives spontaneously is processed by 
IRS Tax Attachés or EOI/OO staff located in one of the agency's posts 
of duty or in Washington, D.C. If the taxpayer is the subject of an 
ongoing examination, the information is forwarded to the appropriate 
IRS staff for possible action. If the taxpayer is not the subject of 
an ongoing examination, the information is evaluated to determine if 
there are tax consequences and whether or not a recommendation for 
action should be made to the appropriate field staff. Although Tax 
Attachés and EOI/OO staff evaluate and forward information to the 
appropriate field offices, agency officials stated that each office 
has its own business plan which may not include examinations based on 
spontaneously provided information. Consequently, these examinations 
would be worked on to the extent local offices consider them to be 
better opportunities than other cases they would work on using their 
discretionary audit authority. 

Nevertheless, officials noted that spontaneous exchanges have led to 
some significant tax assessments, including several of $100,000 or 
more. Taxpayers affected by spontaneous exchanges have at times 
alerted IRS to others who turned out to have significant additional 
tax liabilities. In at least some cases, IRS would not have known 
about the noncompliance in the absence of the spontaneously shared 
information. 

Time Taken to Process Requests for Specific Exchange of Information: 

The amount of time that the United States and its treaty partners took 
to close specific requests for information, or processing time, varied 
widely for requests made between 2006 and 2010. During this period of 
time, the number of calendar days to close both incoming and outgoing 
requests for information ranged from requests opened and closed on the 
same day to one request that took 1,442 calendar days to close. The 
United States tended to respond to requests for information faster 
than treaty partners responded to outgoing requests from the United 
States. The median number of calendar days to close U.S.-initiated 
outgoing requests was 149, compared to 108 calendar days for incoming 
requests. 

To identify factors that could explain the differences in processing 
time, we considered the possibility that the type of information 
requested may be associated with the length of time taken to close the 
request. We found that, overall, processing times varied by the type 
of information requested. For all incoming and outgoing requests, 
processing times ranged from a median of 152 calendar days for 
requests involving bank records to 31 days for public records. 
Outgoing requests made by the United States to its treaty partners 
took longer to close than incoming requests for the same types of 
information for nearly all categories of information requested. Table 
2 provides the processing times for all of the 3,569 requests where 
the type of information requested was recorded. 

Table 2: Processing Time for Closed Incoming and Outgoing Requests, by 
Information Category, 2006-2009: 

All cases where information type is known; 
Incoming requests (foreign-initiated): Percent of cases: 100; 
Incoming requests (foreign-initiated): Median time in days: 110; 
Outgoing requests (U.S.-initiated): Percent of cases: 100; 
Outgoing requests (U.S.-initiated): Median time in days: 139. 

Bank records; 
Incoming requests (foreign-initiated): Percent of cases: 6; 
Incoming requests (foreign-initiated): Median time in days: 142; 
Outgoing requests (U.S.-initiated): Percent of cases: 21; 
Outgoing requests (U.S.-initiated): Median time in days: 191. 

Corporate records; 
Incoming requests (foreign-initiated): Percent of cases: 31; 
Incoming requests (foreign-initiated): Median time in days: 142; 
Outgoing requests (U.S.-initiated): Percent of cases: 24; 
Outgoing requests (U.S.-initiated): Median time in days: 156. 

Public records; 
Incoming requests (foreign-initiated): Percent of cases: 9; 
Incoming requests (foreign-initiated): Median time in days: 24; 
Outgoing requests (U.S.-initiated): Percent of cases: 6; 
Outgoing requests (U.S.-initiated): Median time in days: 158. 

Real estate records; 
Incoming requests (foreign-initiated): Percent of cases: 1; 
Incoming requests (foreign-initiated): Median time in days: 104; 
Outgoing requests (U.S.-initiated): Percent of cases: 2; 
Outgoing requests (U.S.-initiated): Median time in days: 207. 

Records from security brokers; 
Incoming requests (foreign-initiated): Percent of cases: 1; 
Incoming requests (foreign-initiated): Median time in days: 128; 
Outgoing requests (U.S.-initiated): Percent of cases: 0; 
Outgoing requests (U.S.-initiated): Median time in days: 103. 

Tax-return data; 
Incoming requests (foreign-initiated): Percent of cases: 27; 
Incoming requests (foreign-initiated): Median time in days: 46; 
Outgoing requests (U.S.-initiated): Percent of cases: 32; 
Outgoing requests (U.S.-initiated): Median time in days: 100. 

Third-party interviews; 
Incoming requests (foreign-initiated): Percent of cases: 20; 
Incoming requests (foreign-initiated): Median time in days: 141; 
Outgoing requests (U.S.-initiated): Percent of cases: 6; 
Outgoing requests (U.S.-initiated): Median time in days: 147. 

Other; 
Incoming requests (foreign-initiated): Percent of cases: 5; 
Incoming requests (foreign-initiated): Median time in days: 34; 
Outgoing requests (U.S.-initiated): Percent of cases: 9; 
Outgoing requests (U.S.-initiated): Median time in days: 129. 

Source: GAO analysis of IRS data. 

Because request processing times for different information types 
varies, we developed a statistical model to estimate the amount of 
time that a new request will take to close, holding the type of 
information requested constant. When controlling for information type, 
incoming requests to the United States are processed an estimated 
seventeen percent faster on average than outgoing requests from the 
United States to its treaty partners. As shown in Figure 5, our model 
estimates that most information exchange requests are likely to close 
about 50 to 200 days after being opened, but some can take much longer. 

[End of table] 

Figure 5: Estimated Probability That a Request Will Close at a Certain 
Time, 2006-2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Days since opening: 1; 
Estimated probability that request closes, Outgoing requests: 0.001615; 
Estimated probability that request closes, Incoming requests: 0.003656. 

Days since opening: 100; 
Estimated probability that request closes, Outgoing requests: 0.003472; 
Estimated probability that request closes, Incoming requests: 0.003254. 

Days since opening: 200; 
Estimated probability that request closes, Outgoing requests: 0.002226; 
Estimated probability that request closes, Incoming requests: 0.001597; 

Days since opening: 400; 
Estimated probability that request closes, Outgoing requests: 0.000705; 
Estimated probability that request closes, Incoming requests: 0.000581. 

Days since opening: 600; 
Estimated probability that request closes, Outgoing requests: 0.000179; 
Estimated probability that request closes, Incoming requests: 0.000165. 

Days since opening: 800; 
Estimated probability that request closes, Outgoing requests: 0.000127. 

Source: GAO analysis of IRS data. 

[End of figure] 

We also explored whether certain treaty-partner characteristics were 
associated with processing times for incoming and outgoing requests. 
Assuming that treaty partners who share characteristics would respond 
to requests similarly, we developed five groups of treaty partners 
that shared a particular set of characteristics. These characteristics 
included (1) the type of agreements authorizing exchange of 
information with the United States, (2) the existence of active 
automatic exchange of information with the United States, (3) 
membership in the OECD, (4) implementation of OECD standards for 
improving transparency and establishing effective exchange of 
information in tax matters, and (5) trade volume with the United 
States. Descriptions of the treaty-partner groupings that we 
identified and our hypotheses concerning potential factors that could 
explain differences in request processing times are summarized as 
follows:[Footnote 30] 

* Agreement type--Tax treaties have multiple purposes, including 
preventing double taxation and improving tax-law compliance through 
information exchange, while TIEAs are focused primarily on the 
exchange of information. Because a TIEA represents a particular 
commitment to information exchange, we considered the possibility that 
information-exchange requests involving TIEA partners may be addressed 
more quickly than exchanges with partners with whom the United States 
does not have a TIEA. 

* Treaty partners that actively engage in automatic exchange of 
information with the United States--As noted previously, the United 
States engages in automatic information exchange with 25 partners. The 
presence of an active automatic exchange-of-information arrangement 
with these countries signifies an agreement between the United States 
and its treaty partners to exchange information on a routine basis. 
Given the potential for IRS to leverage relationships established 
through the automatic exchange of information and the nature of 
information exchanged, we considered the possibility that specific- 
exchange requests may be addressed more quickly between the United 
States and these partners than with partners with whom the United 
States does not currently share information automatically. We also 
considered the possibility that automatic exchange may obviate the 
need for requests for information that IRS or treaty-partner tax 
authorities have readily on hand, leaving a larger percentage of 
requests for information that take more time to obtain. 

* OECD Members and Nonmembers--OECD member countries have established 
and committed to principles and standards of transparency and 
information exchange for tax purposes, as reflected in the 2002 OECD 
Model Agreement on Exchange of Information on Tax Matters and Article 
26 of the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital. We 
considered the possibility that these shared principles related to 
information exchange, including standards for information availability 
and access, have contributed to faster request processing times 
between the United States and treaty partners who are members of the 
OECD than with partners who are not members of the OECD. 

* Trade Volume--We considered the possibility that higher trade volume 
with the United States (imports and exports) could reduce the amount 
of time that it takes to address requests for information. Higher 
volumes of cross-border trade can present more opportunities for 
taxpayers in the United States and abroad to generate foreign-source 
income, and could indicate an established relationship between the 
United States and a treaty partner. Given these factors, we examined 
differences in specific exchange-request processing times between the 
top 25 U.S. trade partners (among U.S. treaty partners) and all other 
treaty partners. 

* Treaty Partner Implementation of International Tax Standards Related 
to Transparency and Effective Exchange of Information--The 
international tax standards for improving transparency and 
establishing effective exchange of information in tax matters were 
developed by the OECD in cooperation with non-OECD countries and have 
been endorsed by other organizations in the international community 
(the United Nations and the Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and 
Central Bank Governors). The standards require jurisdictions to 
exchange information on-request in all tax matters for the purposes of 
administering and enforcing domestic tax law without regard to 
domestic tax interest or bank secrecy.[Footnote 31] We considered the 
possibility that substantial implementation of these standards could 
contribute to faster request-processing times, comparing request-
processing times for treaty partners that had substantially 
implemented these standards with those that either had not 
substantially implemented these standards or were not included in the 
OECD review of transparency and exchange of information standards as 
of 2006 (the beginning of our evaluation period). 

Using statistical models, and controlling for information type, we 
compared how processing times for both incoming and outgoing requests 
differed across the previously described treaty-partner groupings. 
Table 3, below, provides estimates of the percentage difference in 
average processing time between incoming and outgoing requests, 
adjusted for information type, along with 95 percent confidence 
intervals. After adjusting for the type of information requested, we 
found no statistically significant difference in processing times for 
outgoing requests. For example, our model estimates that countries 
with TIEAs responded to outgoing U.S. requests 5 percent faster than 
countries without TIEAs, but the difference could range between 14 
percent slower and 28 percent faster. This indicates that there is no 
observable difference between countries with and without TIEAs. The 
relatively smaller number of outgoing requests tends to increase our 
uncertainty about the differences across groupings. Fewer 
opportunities to observe the processing of requests typically produces 
larger confidence intervals. 

Our analysis of the time it takes the United States to respond to 
incoming requests found that, adjusted for information type, 
statistically meaningful differences were present among the country 
groupings, as shown in table 3. The United States responds to 
information requests from treaty partners with TIEAs significantly 
faster than to countries without TIEAs, suggesting that the focus on 
tax information exchange represented by the signing of a TIEA may make 
a difference in processing time. Response times by the United States 
for requests from countries with which automatic information exchange 
is taking place are significantly slower than response times for 
incoming requests from countries with which automatic information 
exchange is not taking place. This suggests that automatic exchange 
may be taking care of simpler requests leaving a larger body of more 
complicated, time consuming requests to be handled through specific 
exchange cases. The United States also responds more quickly to 
requests from OECD members than to other countries, suggesting that 
the explicit commitment and common standards between the United States 
and these countries may make a difference in the time it takes the 
United States to respond to requests from OECD countries. 

For countries that have implemented the international transparency and 
information exchange standards, we considered the possibility that 
response times would be faster for countries that have implemented the 
standards, but instead we found that the U.S. response time to 
incoming requests from these countries was between 25 and 57 percent 
slower than the U.S. response to countries that had either not 
substantially implemented the standards or had not been evaluated. In 
analyzing the time it takes the United States to respond to requests 
from the top 25 U.S. trading partners, we considered the possibility 
that higher volumes of trade would indicate more established 
relationships between the United States and these countries and faster 
response times, but instead we found that the U.S. response time to 
requests from top trading partners was significantly slower. U.S. 
response times were between 63 and 96 percent slower for requests from 
top trading partners than from other countries, after adjusting for 
information type. 

Table 3: Model Estimates of Country Group Differences in Average 
Request Processing Time for Closed Cases, 2006-2010: 

Treaty partner group: Treaty partners that have a TIEA in force with 
the United States; 
Compared to: Treaty partners that do not have a TIEA in force with the 
United States; 
Percent difference in processing time and confidence intervals, 
controlling for information type: Incoming requests (foreign 
initiated): 44 percent faster; [-50, -38]; 
Percent difference in processing time and confidence intervals, 
controlling for information type: Outgoing requests (U.S.-initiated): 
5 percent faster; [-14, 28]. 

Treaty partner group: Treaty partners with an active automatic 
exchange agreement; 
Compared to: Treaty partners that do not have an active automatic 
exchange agreement; 
Percent difference in processing time and confidence intervals, 
controlling for information type: Incoming requests (foreign 
initiated): 45 percent slower; [29,60]; 
Percent difference in processing time and confidence intervals, 
controlling for information type: Outgoing requests (U.S.-initiated): 
7 percent faster; [-24,12]. 

Treaty partner group: Treaty partners that are members of the OECD; 
Compared to: Treaty partners that are not members of the OECD; 
Percent difference in processing time and confidence intervals, 
controlling for information type: Incoming requests (foreign 
initiated): 24 percent faster; [-33,-15]; 
Percent difference in processing time and confidence intervals, 
controlling for information type: Outgoing requests (U.S.-initiated): 
4 percent faster; [-22, 18]. 

Treaty partner group: Treaty partners that had implemented the 
international tax standards, as of 2006; 
Compared to: Treaty partners that had not implemented the 
international tax standards, as of 2006 or those partners that were 
not reviewed; 
Percent difference in processing time and confidence intervals, 
controlling for information type: Incoming requests (foreign 
initiated): 41 percent slower; [25,57]; 
Percent difference in processing time and confidence intervals, 
controlling for information type: Outgoing requests (U.S.-initiated): 
15 percent faster; [-31,6]. 

Treaty partner group: Treaty partners that are among the top 25 U.S. 
trade partners; 
Compared to: Treaty partners that are not among the top 25 U.S. trade 
partners; 
Percent difference in processing time and confidence intervals, 
controlling for information type: Incoming requests (foreign 
initiated): 80 percent slower; [63, 96]; 
Percent difference in processing time and confidence intervals, 
controlling for information type: Outgoing requests (U.S.-initiated): 
16 percent slower; [-4, 42]. 

Source: GAO analysis of IRS data. 

Note: 95 percent confidence intervals are in brackets. If we analyzed 
many additional samples of IRS data, the estimated group differences 
would range from the smaller number in each bracket to the larger 
number 95 percent of the time. Bold text indicates that the difference 
between groupings is statistically distinguishable from zero. Also, 
the estimated differences between treaty-partner groupings in this 
table reflect factors that we could not analyze, such as the 
prevalence of request activity for specific countries in any of the 
groupings. These unmeasured factors may contribute to the differences 
in processing times. 

[End of table] 

The unavailability of certain data to us for this analysis, 
particularly the details of specific requests, means that we are 
unable to analyze why the U.S. response time to requests might be 
slower for some types of countries. While the factors that we analyzed 
may contribute to differences in processing times amongst groups of 
treaty partners, other factors that we cannot analyze may be at work. 
For example, if a single country involved in a large portion of 
exchange activity had especially short or long response times, the 
presence of that country in any of the treaty-partner groupings we 
analyzed could have a disproportionate influence on the estimated 
differences. 

Also, with respect to the processing time differences across the 
treaty-partner groupings, IRS officials noted that country specific 
factors, such as the sophistication or complexity of a country's tax 
rules and the existence of administrative arrangements such as 
automatic exchange arrangements, can influence the nature of the 
information requested and the amount of time required to obtain it. 
For example, developed countries (like many major U.S. trade partners) 
tend to have tax systems that are administered through a complex set 
of tax rules. Under these rules, taxpayers can use intricate tax 
avoidance or tax evasion strategies, which can lead to examinations of 
elaborate business relationships, involving one or more entities under 
the direct or indirect control of a taxpayer. Examinations of this 
nature can require large volumes of detailed information that can be 
difficult and time consuming to obtain. Conversely, the information 
needs for countries with less complex tax rules tend to be 
straightforward, uncomplicated and require much less processing time 
for information requests. Similarly, officials stated that processing 
times for requests from countries with which the United States 
exchanges information automatically may take longer because the 
information requested is more complex and difficult to obtain than the 
information that is exchanged on a routine basis. 

Fluctuations in Time to Fulfill Specific Exchange Requests and the 
Number of Requests Can Occur for a Variety of Reasons: 

Similar to processing time across groups of treaty partners, the time 
required to process a specific exchange varies by individual request. 
According to IRS and DOJ officials that we interviewed, some of these 
differences are attributable to factors such as the complexity of the 
information requested, whether requested information is already on-
hand at the tax authority, and whether legal processes must be invoked 
to secure the requested information. Examples of factors raised in the 
interviews that can affect the time it takes another country to 
respond to U.S.-initiated requests are listed below. Officials we 
spoke to noted that some of these factors may also influence the 
length of time it takes the United States to respond to requests from 
other countries. 

* Requests for complex information take more time to fulfill than 
requests for less complex information. 

* Narrowly focused requests for information already reported to the 
tax authority of the treaty partner are usually quickly addressed 
because that information is readily available, while requests that 
require the government agency responding to the request to go to third-
party record keepers often take more time and effort to address. 

* Requests that appear to officials in the foreign country to be 
inadequately supported or to not demonstrate "foreseeable relevance" 
to a case can require extensive follow-up between IRS and the exchange 
partner. 

* The laws of other jurisdictions have a big influence on the time 
required to fulfill a request. For instance, some jurisdictions' bank 
secrecy rules involve a lengthy court process and possibly a petition 
to a national banking commission to secure information. Officials also 
told us that some jurisdictions may give priority to criminal matters, 
and may view tax matters as civil (as opposed to criminal) in nature. 

* The organizational structure of a partner jurisdiction's exchange 
office can also influence response times, such as when requests are 
passed through multiple employees and levels of review. 

* Translation issues can also slow down the amount of time it takes to 
secure requests if officials in the requested country have to 
translate the request into or from English before it can be assigned 
to appropriate staff. 

The volume of information exchange activity, especially outgoing 
requests from the United States, can be influenced by the time it 
takes for partner countries to respond to requests. We were told that 
officials consider the costs and benefits of making information 
exchange requests, including their expectations about the amount of 
time it will take the treaty partner to respond to the request. Over 
time, the IRS field staff and others who make requests for foreign 
information become more willing to request information where they 
expect to get the information they need in a timely manner. This is 
particularly true in cases where information has to be secured quickly 
because, for example, the statute-of-limitations period is coming to a 
close. 

The relationship between competent authorities of the United States 
and a treaty partner can also influence the volume of exchange 
activity. An IRS official described a situation in which a country 
that received information from the United States subsequently made 
that information public, in violation of the agreement confidentiality 
provisions. When an IRS field staff person inquired about making a new 
request to the country that had not protected U.S. taxpayer privacy, 
he was told that his request could not be processed at that time 
because the disclosure issue had not yet been resolved. In another 
case, an official was informed by an EOI/OO point of contact that one 
of several requested countries was unlikely to comply with the request 
and therefore the request was not pursued with that country. 

Improved Collection of Balanced Performance Data Could Help IRS 
Improve Administrative Processes and Program Outcomes for Exchange of 
Information: 

GAO guidance on internal control[Footnote 32]s and numerous other GAO 
reports say that reliable performance information is a critical tool 
for managers to use to understand how well processes are working and 
to identify opportunities to improve those processes. Government 
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPR[Footnote 33]A) guidance also 
states that balanced performance information can help managers measure 
or monitor program accomplishments and progress toward preestablished 
goals. The collection of balanced performance information should, 
amongst other things, address both program outputs (product or service 
delivery) and program outcomes (results of the product or services 
delivered). 

Currently, the IRS collects performance information on the specific 
exchange of information program in two ways. For IRS, much of the 
performance information related to exchange of information is 
collected through an electronic information system called the Issue 
Management System (IMS). Implemented in October of 2009, IMS is a 
consolidated database that combines case-management data from multiple 
programs within the Large Business and International (LB&I) division 
to (1) support revenue agents in remote locations; (2) improve issue 
identification; (3) improve information tracking, reporting and 
sharing; and (4) capture data in support of performance assessment. 
According to EOI/OO officials, the information exchange-related data 
collected in IMS is used primarily as an inventory-management tool. 
They said that managers use the system routinely as new cases come in 
to make decisions about dividing up the new exchange request cases 
among the staff based on the staff members' inventory of open cases. 
The information collected in IMS also allows managers to monitor 
program output information such as how much program activity is 
occurring and the length of time it takes to close requests. 

EOI/OO, however, does not currently use the system to collect 
performance outcome information such as whether IRS actually secured 
information from or was successful in providing information to U.S. 
treaty partners. An earlier system used by EOI/OO had a data field for 
noting that the requested information was provided. Managers told us, 
however, that it was not useful because it had a default setting of 
"no," meaning that negative responses included cases where the staff 
person entering the data did not make any entry in that field. While 
the IMS system now in use does not include a field for noting if the 
requested information was obtained, IRS has deemed the collection of 
such information worthwhile in the past. Because the primary 
obligation of the competent authority is to exchange information for 
tax purposes, collecting information on the extent to which requests 
are fulfilled would provide managers with valuable information on 
program outputs. 

IRS officials also said that they are not currently capturing or 
analyzing data on the type of information being requested in their 
information system which, as our analysis shows, may influence the 
time that it takes the United States and its treaty partners to 
respond to requests. Consequently, IRS managers may be missing 
opportunities to determine why certain countries are much slower than 
other countries to respond to some kinds of information requests and 
possibly take steps to work with those countries to improve response 
times. For instance, IRS might need to explain its requests 
differently for some countries or may have a basis for encouraging 
another country to streamline inefficient processes. 

IRS also collects data on program performance from agency personnel 
who make requests for information through the Foreign Information 
Assistance Request Appraisal Questionnaire (Appraisal Questionnaire), 
though only rarely. The Appraisal Questionnaire includes a series of 
questions about the quality of their interactions with EOI/OO staff, 
usefulness of the information received, and other program outcomes. 
However, EOI/OO officials told us that fewer than 25 questionnaires 
were returned between 2006 and 2010. They said that the questionnaires 
are distributed to program customers with the bundle of information 
obtained by EOI/OO from the treaty partner, but that they do not 
usually follow up with customers when questionnaires are not returned. 

In order to get a sense of how IRS and DOJ field staff perceive the 
process of obtaining information from other countries, we interviewed 
27 such staff who made specific requests for foreign information in 
recent years.[Footnote 34] They described a variety of experiences 
with the process. Some of these officials told us about problems they 
encountered or ways that the program could have better helped their 
audits, investigations, collections activities, or court cases. For 
example, several said that they would have liked to have known more 
about the program and its operations prior to preparing their 
requests. Given the amount of time required to prepare information 
requests, other program users expressed interest in receiving more up-
front guidance on how to prepare a request. Others expressed concern 
about the length of time required to obtain the information requested 
or the completeness and utility of the information received. Several 
of the staff we interviewed also noted how helpful and informative the 
Tax Attachés, RSRs, or EOI/OO staff that facilitated the process were. 

Though collected infrequently, the use of the Appraisal Questionnaire 
by EOI/OO demonstrates that IRS has judged the collection of such 
performance information to be worthwhile. If EOI/OO routinely obtained 
information such as the usefulness of its instructions to field staff 
or the timeliness of responses, managers would know how common such 
concerns may be among program users and might be able improve the 
exchange of information. 

Furthermore, currently available data do not provide important outcome 
information on the program as a whole, such as the usefulness of 
specific exchanges to IRS tax compliance enforcement efforts. Such 
information could help identify opportunities to, for instance, better 
train IRS personnel on when and how to request foreign information and 
what types of information are most useful in resolving cases. To the 
extent that IRS would like to minimize the cost of collecting and 
analyzing information on program outcomes, the agency could consider 
using a sampling approach that would allow program managers to 
generalize the information collected from a smaller population of 
program users to the overall population of program users. 

Conclusions: 

The United States has developed a broad information exchange network. 
While agreements have many similar features, the specific parameters 
under which information can be exchanged are unique to the legal and 
administrative arrangements negotiated by the United States and each 
separate treaty partner. The volume of information exchanges under 
these agreements and the amount of time required to process those 
exchanges varies, and may be influenced by several factors. 

Although the IRS collects data on exchanges between the United States 
and its treaty partners, the agency does not assemble or make use of 
information such as the extent to which requests for information are 
fulfilled or the type of information requested, and does not 
consistently collect customer feedback. Without reliable and 
consistent data like these, IRS managers may be missing opportunities 
to identify and address possible problems with the information 
exchange program and improvements that could make the program more 
successful. Such information could tell program managers how well IRS 
is meeting its obligations as the U.S. competent authority and whether 
administrative processes and procedures need to be examined for ways 
to improve the transmission of information. Better performance 
information could not only help improve administrative operations, but 
could also enhance the usefulness of this important tax law 
enforcement tool. 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

To identify opportunities to improve the administrative processes and 
procedures that the IRS uses to exchange information between the 
United States and its treaty partners, we recommend that the 
Commissioner of Internal Revenue determine the key types of 
information that exchange program managers could use to ensure the 
program is working as well as possible. The commissioner should 
specifically require the collection of (1) consistent and accurate 
data on specific tax information exchange cases, such as the extent to 
which requests for information are satisfied and the type of 
information requested, and (2) feedback from information exchange 
program users on how well the program is working and how it might be 
improved. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of the Treasury, 
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Secretary of State, and the 
Assistant Attorney General for Administration Department of Justice. 
We received written comments from the Commissioner of Internal 
Revenue; his comments are reprinted in appendix X. The Secretary of 
the Treasury, the Secretary of State, and the Assistant Attorney 
General for Administration Department of Justice did not provide 
written comments. The Department of the Treasury and the Internal 
Revenue Service (IRS) also suggested several technical changes to the 
report, which we incorporated where appropriate. 

The IRS agreed with our observation that opportunities exist to 
improve information exchange between the United States and its treaty 
partners through improved collection of performance data and 
information exchange program user feedback. The IRS also agreed with 
our recommendation that the IRS identify key types of information that 
exchange program managers could use to ensure that the program is 
working as well as possible, including consistent and accurate data on 
specific tax information exchange cases and feedback from information 
exchange program users. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of the Treasury, 
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Attorney General, the 
Secretary of State and other interested parties. This report will also 
be available at no charge on GAO's website at http://www.gao.gov. If 
you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-9110 or brostekm@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are 
listed in appendix VIII. 

Michael Brostek:
Director, Tax Issues:
Strategic Issues Team: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

This report (1) identifies all bilateral income tax treaties, TIEAs, 
and MLATs between the United States and other countries in force, 
proposed, or signed as of April 30, 2011, and describes the legal 
framework and administrative processes that the United States uses to 
exchange information with its treaty partners; (2) describes the 
volume and types of information exchanged between the United States 
and its treaty partners and the time to process requests for 
information; and (3) identifies opportunities to improve the 
effectiveness of current U.S. information exchange processes and 
procedures. 

To develop a comprehensive list of countries with which the United 
States has entered income tax treaties, TIEAs, and MLATs, we examined 
information obtained from a combination of government and commercially 
available data to identify agreements that were in force, proposed, or 
signed as of April 30, 2011. Specifically, we relied on information 
obtained from Treaties in Force--a compilation of international 
agreements between the United States and other countries published by 
the U.S. Department of State, U.S. Tax Treaties (Publication 901) 
published by the IRS, the Government Printing Office (GPO) website, 
Thomson Reuters's Checkpoint, and Lexis Nexis. For each agreement, we 
identified the name of the country with which the United States 
entered into the agreement, the year the agreement was signed, the 
year the agreement entered into force, and the date the provisions of 
the agreement were made effective (when provided). For tax treaties, 
we identified the article within the agreement authorizing information 
exchange. Where applicable, we also recorded the year of any revisions 
made to the original agreement, and the effective date of the most 
recent protocol or other such amendment to the agreement. We consulted 
with knowledgeable officials at the U.S. Department of State, 
Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the 
Department of Justice to ensure the completeness and accuracy of the 
consolidated list we developed from these sources. 

To describe the legal framework for information exchange, including 
the types of information covered and limitations on information, we 
systematically analyzed the information exchange provisions contained 
in all of the income tax treaties, TIEAs, and MLATs that were in force 
as of April 30, 2011. For income tax treaties, we compared the 
information exchange provisions in each agreement to key information 
exchange provisions contained in the 2006 U.S. Model Tax Convention of 
November 15, 2006.[Footnote 35] We conducted similar content analysis 
for TIEAs, by analyzing similarities and differences in the 
information exchange provisions across the agreements identified. We 
analyzed each MLAT to determine the extent to which the agreements 
permit assistance in investigations involving criminal tax matters and 
limitations on such assistance. 

To describe the administrative processes that the United States uses 
to exchange information with its treaty partners, we reviewed guidance 
contained in policy documents such as the IRS Internal Revenue Manual 
and the Department of Justice Criminal Tax Manual. From this guidance 
we also identified the general procedures that the United States uses 
to exchange information, including the U.S. departments and agencies 
involved and paperwork requirements. We also examined user guides for 
the information systems used to collect data on information requests. 
We interviewed knowledgeable officials in the Department of the 
Treasury, the IRS, and the Department of Justice to further understand 
the role of these agencies and any process or procedural requirements 
for administering information exchange between the United States and 
its treaty partners. 

To develop summary information on the volume of incoming and outgoing 
requests for information, processing times, and other characteristics 
of requested exchanges under the authority of income tax treaties and 
TIEAs, we analyzed IRS data on all exchange requests that were 
initiated and completed between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 
2010. The information developed only applies to exchanges occurring 
during this period and cannot be generalized to exchanges occurring 
outside of this time frame. Because the information exchanged under 
income tax treaty, TIEA, and MLAT authority is protected by 
confidentiality provisions contained in the agreements and by U.S. 
domestic law, we did not have access to data that could reveal the 
identity of individual taxpayers or individual treaty partners. 
Therefore, we relied on anonymous country codes assigned by IRS and 
treaty-partner groupings that we developed in consultation with IRS to 
examine the exchange activity between the United States and its treaty 
partners. To assess the reliability of these data, we interviewed 
knowledgeable officials, reviewed system documentation, and examined 
the data for obvious errors. We determined the data to be sufficiently 
reliable for this report. 

We used statistical models to estimate the difference in closing times 
among various groups of requests, holding constant the type of 
information requested. These "duration" models apply only to requests 
initiated and closed between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2010. 
Our data exclude requests that were open at the end of this period, 
and IRS could not provide the type of information requested for 1,542 
out of 5,111 requests. Our models assumed that most requests close 
quickly, while a few requests remain open for longer periods of time. 
This assumption was reasonable, given the actual number of requests 
that closed at various times in this period.[Footnote 36] The models 
made different assumptions about how the mean closing time varied 
across the groups of interest, such as incoming versus outgoing 
requests for various types of information.[Footnote 37] This allowed 
us to estimate the proportional differences across groups while 
holding constant the type of information requested, along with the 
statistical certainty of the estimates. 

To identify ways in which the United States can enhance the 
effectiveness of its administrative practices for sharing information 
with foreign jurisdictions, we interviewed and collected information 
from IRS, Justice, and OECD officials and assessed the information 
obtained against criteria contained in GAO guidance on internal 
controls and performance measurement. IRS and the Department of 
Justice provided us the names of officials who had requested 
information in 2009 and 2010 for use in criminal and civil 
investigations or cases, and we interviewed 6 IRS and 12 DOJ officials 
identified in this way. We also selected 11 additional IRS officials 
to interview using a nonprobability sampling technique, through which 
we randomly selected at least one exchange case from each of the 
exchange groupings discussed in the section of this report titled 
"Volume, Type and Processing Time of Requests Varies," and asked 
EOI/OO to provide contact information for the officials involved in 
the cases. The staff person responsible for two of our randomly 
selected cases was also on the list of names that IRS had previously 
provided to us. The total number of IRS and DOJ staff who had made 
information exchange requests that we interviewed was 27. The 
information obtained through these interviews is only applicable to 
the experiences of the officials interviewed and cannot be generalized 
to the entire population of IRS and DOJ officials making requests 
through the IRS specific exchange of information program. 

We conducted this audit from January 2010 to August 2011 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings 
and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the 
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Article 26 (Exchange of Information and Administrative 
Assistance) of 2006 U.S. Model Tax Convention: 

The provisions of Article 26 of the 2006 U.S. Model Tax Convention 
serve as the basis for information exchange in new tax treaties. The 
article's provisions are reprinted below. 

Table 4: Article 26 of 2006 U.S. Model Tax Convention: 

Art. 26 (1); 
The competent authorities of the Contracting States shall exchange 
such information as may be relevant for carrying out the provisions of 
this Convention or of the domestic laws of the Contracting States 
concerning taxes of every kind imposed by a Contracting State to the 
extent that the taxation thereunder is not contrary to the Convention, 
including information relating to the assessment or collection of, the 
enforcement or prosecution in respect of, or the determination of 
appeals in relation to, such taxes. The exchange of information is not 
restricted by paragraph 1 of Article 1 (General Scope) or Article 2 
(Taxes Covered). 

Art. 26 (2); 
Any information received under this Article 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) 
involved in the assessment, collection, or administration of, the 
enforcement or prosecution in respect of, or the determination of 
appeals in relation to, the taxes referred to above, or the oversight 
of such functions. 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. 

Art. 26 (3) (a); In no case shall the provisions of the preceding 
paragraphs be construed so as to impose on a Contracting State the 
obligation: to carry out administrative measures at variance with the 
laws and administrative practice of that or of the other Contracting 
State. 

Art. 26 (3) (b); 
In no case shall the provisions of the preceding paragraphs be 
construed so as to impose on a Contracting State the obligation: to 
supply information that is not obtainable under the laws or in the 
normal course of the administration of that or of the other 
Contracting State. 

Art. 26 (3) (c); 
In no case shall the provisions of the preceding paragraphs be 
construed so as to impose on a Contracting State the obligation: to 
supply information that 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). 

Art. 26. 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 purposes. 
The obligation contained in the preceding sentence is subject to the 
limitations of paragraph 3 but in no case shall such limitation be 
construed to permit a Contracting State to decline to supply 
information because it has no domestic interest in such information. 

Art. 26 (5); 
In no case shall the provisions of paragraph 3 be construed to permit 
a Contracting State to decline to supply information requested by the 
other Contracting State 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. 

Art. 26 (6); 
If specifically requested by the competent authority of a Contracting 
State, the competent authority of the other Contracting State shall 
provide information under this Article in the form of depositions of 
witnesses and authenticated copies of unedited original documents 
(including books, papers, statements, records, accounts, and writings). 

Art. 26 (7); 
Each of the Contracting States shall endeavor to collect on behalf of 
the other Contracting State such amounts as may be necessary to ensure 
that relief granted by the Convention from taxation imposed by that 
other State does not inure to the benefit of persons not entitled 
thereto. This paragraph shall not impose upon either of the 
Contracting States the obligation to carry out administrative measures 
that would be contrary to its sovereignty, security, or public policy. 

Art. 26 (8); 
The requested State shall allow representatives of the requesting 
State to enter the requested State to interview individuals and 
examine books and records with the consent of the persons subject to 
examination. 

Art. 26 (9); 
The competent authorities of the Contracting States may develop an 
agreement upon the mode of application of this Article, including 
agreement to ensure comparable levels of assistance to each of the 
Contracting States, but in no case will the lack of such agreement 
relieve a Contracting State of its obligations under this Article. 

Source: Department of the Treasury. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Administrative Processes for Addressing Outgoing and 
Incoming Specific Requests for Information: 

Outgoing Requests: 

Step 1: IRS Revenue Agent or Examiner[A]; A need for information is 
identified, a justification for the request is prepared, and a cover 
memorandum and attachment are sent to the U.S. competent authority. 

Outgoing memorandum must contain: 
* Name of taxpayer in question; 
* Requester's name and phone number; 
* Address of fax number where response should be sent; 
* Any background information that should not be sent to foreign 
competent authority; 
* Any statute, court, or other dates by which the information is 
required; 
* Whether the request includes grand jury information; 

Outgoing attachment must contain: 
* Name and address of taxpayer in question; 
* Type of tax and tax years involved (fiscal/calendar); 
* Evidence that an investigation is being conducted; -identification 
of location of information and why the United States believes it is in 
that location; 
* Specific information needed; 
* How information is relevant to the investigation; 
* Any statute, court, or other dates by which the information is 
required; 
* Any documentation certification requirements. 

Step 2: U.S. Competent Authority; 
A formal request letter is prepared and sent to foreign competent 
authority. 

Step 3: Foreign Competent Authority; 
A formal request letter is received and a formal response is prepared 
and sent back to the U.S. competent authority. A formal response may 
contain partial or complete information, or an explanation of why 
material cannot be obtained. 

Step 4: U.S. Competent Authority; Information results are sent to IRS 
Revenue Agent or Examiner[A]. 

Incoming Requests: 

Step 1: Foreign Competent Authority; 
A request for information is sent to the U.S. competent authority; 
Outgoing memorandum must contain: 
* Specific identification of the taxpayer; 
* Itemized list of specific information requested; 
* A detailed narrative identifying the tax nexus of the relevance of 
the information sought to the taxpayer and the issues examined; 
* An explanation of how the request for transactions, facts, or 
documents pertains to a tax or a tax liability covered by a tax treaty 
or a TIEA. 

Step 2: U.S. Competent Authority; 
A request is evaluated and the case is assigned to the appropriate 
division. 

Step 3: IRS Revenue Agent or Examiner[A]; 
If feasible, the requested information is obtained within 60 days and 
sent to the U.S. competent authority. Information results may consist 
of partial or complete information, or an explanation of why material 
cannot be obtained. If necessary, a status update is provided every 60 
days until resolved. 

Step 4: U.S. Competent Authority; 
A formal response is sent to the foreign competent authority. 

Source: GAO analysis of IRS data. 

[A] In some cases, participant may be Department of Justice (DOJ) 
Prosecutor or Investigator. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: TIEA, MLAT, and MLAA between the United States and 
Foreign Jurisdictions as of April 30, 2011: 

Algeria: 
Instrument type: Potential MLAT[A]; 
Signed: 2010; 
Entered into force: n/a[B]; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Anguilla*; 
Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: Extended to Anguilla; 
Entered into force: 1990; 
Exchange of information: No. 

Note: Anguilla is an insular area of the United Kingdom (U.K.). The 
U.S.-U.K./Cayman Islands MLAT was extended to Anguilla in 1990. See 
Cayman Islands MLAT for additional details. 

Antigua & Barbuda: 
Instrument type: TIEA; 
Signed: 2001; 
Entered into force: 2003; 
Exchange of information: Yes, 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1996; 
Entered into force: 1999; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: Antigua & Barbuda is a signatory of the Four Eastern Caribbean 
States MLAT. 

Argentina: 
Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1990; 
Entered into force: 1993; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A U.S.-Argentina income tax treaty was signed in 1981 that is 
not in force. 

Armenia*: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1973; 
Entered into force: 1976; 
Exchange of information: No. 

Note: The income tax treaty with the former Union of Soviet Socialist 
Republics (USSR), signed in 1973, remains in effect between the United 
States and Armenia. 

Aruba: 
Instrument type: TIEA; 
Signed: 2003; 
Entered into force: 2004; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

See Kingdom of the Netherlands MLAT, which covers Aruba. It may not be 
used for assistance related to fiscal offenses requested of Aruba. 

Note: Aruba is an insular area of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. A 
tax treaty was signed in 1986 with the Netherlands regarding Aruba 
that is not in force. 

Australia: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1982; 
Entered into force: 1983; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1997; 
Entered into force: 1999; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed in 2001 that entered into force 
in 2003. The protocol does not amend tax information exchange. The 
Ashmore and Cartier, Christmas, Cocos (Keeling), Coral Sea, and 
Norfolk Islands are covered by the U.S.-Australia tax treaty. 

Austria: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1996; 
Entered into force: 1998; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1995; 
Entered into force: 1998; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A bilateral MLAT pursuant to the U.S. -European Union (E.U.) 
MLAT was signed in 2005 that entered into force in 2010. This MLAT is 
entitled a protocol. The U.S.-E.U MLAT does not contain sweeping 
authority to exchange tax information, but does provide for the 
exchange of certain bank information and mutual legal assistance to 
administrative authorities. 

Azerbaijan*: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1973; 
Entered into force: 1976; 
Exchange of information: No. 

Note: The income tax treaty with the former USSR, signed in 1973, 
remains in effect between the United States and Azerbaijan. 

Bahamas: 
Instrument type: TIEA; 
Signed: 2002; 
Entered into force: 2003; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1987; 
Entered into force: 1990; 
Exchange of information: No. 

Note: The MLAT does not apply to tax information unless it pertains to 
other crimes. 

Bangladesh: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 2004; 
Entered into force: 2006; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Barbados: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1984; 
Entered into force: 1986; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: TIEA; 
Signed: 1984; 
Entered into force: 1984; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1996; 
Entered into force: 2000; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed in 2004 that went into force in 
2004. The protocol does mention tax information exchange. 

Belarus*: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1973; 
Entered into force: 1976; 
Exchange of information: No. 

Note: The income tax treaty with the former USSR, signed in 1973, 
remains in effect between the United States and Belarus. 

Belgium: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 2006; 
Entered into force: 2007; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1988; 
Entered into force: 2000; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A bilateral MLAT pursuant to the U.S.-E.U. MLAT was signed in 
2004 that entered into force in 2010. This MLAT is entitled an 
instrument and contains text integrating new (U.S.-E.U.) and existing 
(U.S.-Belgium MLAT) obligations. The U.S.-E.U. MLAT does not contain 
sweeping authority to exchange tax information, but does provide for 
the exchange of certain bank information and mutual legal assistance 
to administrative authorities. 

Belize: 
Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 2000; 
Entered into force: 2003; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Bermuda: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1986; 
Entered into force: 1988; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: TIEA; 
Signed: 1986; 
Entered into force: 1988; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: Potential MLAT[A]; 
Signed: 2009; 
Entered into force: n.a.[B]; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: Bermuda is an insular area of the U.K. The U.S.-Bermuda tax 
treaty, entitled a Convention on the Taxation of Insurance Enterprises 
and Mutual Assistance in Tax Matters, does not have an information 
exchange article, but it does allow for mutual assistance in criminal 
tax matters. 

Brazil: 
Instrument type: Potential TIEA[A]; 
Signed: 2007; 
Entered into force: n.a.[B]; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1997; 
Entered into force: 2001; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A U.S.-Brazil income tax treaty was signed in 1967 that is not 
in force. 

British Virgin Islands (BVI): 
Instrument type: TIEA; 
Signed: 2002; 
Entered into force: 2006; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: Extended to BVI; 
Entered into force: 1990; 
Exchange of information: No. 

Note: BVI is an insular area of the United Kingdom. A U.S.-BVI tax 
treaty was signed in 1981 that is not in force. The U.S.-U.K./Cayman 
Islands MLAT was extended to BVI in 1990. See Cayman Islands MLAT for 
additional details. 

Bulgaria: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 2007; 
Entered into force: 2008; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: Partial MLAT (E.U.); 
Signed: 2007; 
Entered into force: 2010; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed in 2008 that went into force in 
2008. The protocol does not amend tax information exchange. Bulgaria 
has entered into a bilateral agreement pursuant to the U.S.-E.U. MLAT 
that functions as a partial MLAT allowing for the exchange of certain 
bank information and mutual legal assistance to administrative 
authorities. 

Canada: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1980; 
Entered into force: 1984; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1985; 
Entered into force: 1990; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed in 2007 that went into force in 
2008. The protocol does mention tax information exchange. 

Cayman Islands: 
Instrument type: TIEA; 
Signed: 2001; 
Entered into force: 2006; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1986; 
Entered into force: 1990; 
Exchange of information: No. 

Note: The Cayman Islands is an insular area of the U.K. The U.S.-
U.K./Caymans MLAT extends to other areas as specified. The MLAT 
specifically excludes providing assistance in any matter which relates 
directly or indirectly to the regulation, including the imposition, 
calculation, and collection of taxes. A protocol to the U.S.-
U.K./Caymans MLAT was signed in 1986 that went into force in 1990. The 
protocol does not amend tax information exchange. 

Chile*: 
Instrument type: Potential tax treaty[A]; 
Signed: 2010; 
Entered into force: n.a.[A]; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: 
Signed: 
Entered into force: 
Exchange of information: 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed along with the treaty in 2010. 
The protocol does mention tax information exchange. 

China: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1984; 
Entered into force: 1986; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAA; 
Signed: 2000; 
Entered into force: 2001; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed in 1986 that went into force in 
1986. The protocol does not amend tax information exchange. 

Colombia*: 
Instrument type: Potential TIEA[A]; 
Signed: 2001; 
Entered into force: n.a.[B]; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A U.S.-Colombia MLAT was signed in 1980 that is not in force. 

Costa Rica: 
Instrument type: TIEA; 
Signed: 1989; 
Entered into force: 1991; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Cyprus: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1984; 
Entered into force: 1985; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1999; 
Entered into force: 2002; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A bilateral MLAT pursuant to the U.S.-E.U. MLAT was signed in 
2006 that entered into force in 2010. This MLAT is entitled an 
instrument and contains text integrating new (U.S.-E.U.) and existing 
(U.S.-Cyprus MLAT) obligations. The U.S.-E.U. MLAT does not contain 
sweeping authority to exchange tax information, but does provide for 
the exchange of certain bank information and mutual legal assistance 
to administrative authorities. 

Czech Republic: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1993; 
Entered into force: 1993; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1998; 
Entered into force: 2000;
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A bilateral MLAT pursuant to the U.S.-E.U. MLAT was signed in 
2006 that entered into force in 2010. This MLAT is entitled a 
supplemental treaty to the 1998 U.S.-Czech Republic MLAT. The U.S.-
E.U. MLAT does not contain sweeping authority to exchange tax 
information, but does provide for the exchange of certain bank 
information and mutual legal assistance to administrative authorities. 

Denmark: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1999; 
Entered into force: 2000; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: Partial MLAT (E.U.); 
Signed: 2005; 
Entered into force: 2010; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: The U.S.-Denmark tax treaty excludes the Faroe Islands and 
Greenland. A tax treaty protocol was signed in 2006 that went into 
force in 2007. The protocol does not amend tax information exchange. 
Denmark has entered into a bilateral agreement pursuant to the U.S.- 
E.U. MLAT that functions as a partial MLAT allowing for the exchange 
of certain bank information and mutual legal assistance to 
administrative authorities. 

Dominica: 
Instrument type: TIEA; 
Signed: 1987; 
Entered into force: 1988; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1996; 
Entered into force: 2000; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: Dominica is a signatory of the Four Eastern Caribbean States 
MLAT. 

Dominican Republic: 
Instrument type: TIEA; 
Signed: 1989; 
Entered into force: 1989; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Egypt: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1980; 
Entered into force: 1981; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1998; 
Entered into force: 2001; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Estonia: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1998; 
Entered into force: 1999; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1998; 
Entered into force: 2000; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A bilateral MLAT pursuant to the U.S.-E.U. MLAT was signed in 
2006 that entered into force in 2010. This MLAT is entitled an 
instrument and contains text integrating new (U.S.-E.U.) and existing 
(U.S.-Estonia MLAT) obligations. The U.S.-E.U. MLAT does not contain 
sweeping authority to exchange tax information, but does provide for 
the exchange of certain bank information and mutual legal assistance 
to administrative authorities. 

Finland: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1989; 
Entered into force: 1990; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: Partial MLAT (E.U.); 
Signed: 2004; 
Entered into force: 2010; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed in 2006 that went into force in 
2007. The protocol does mention tax information exchange. Finland has 
entered into a bilateral agreement pursuant to the U.S.-E.U. MLAT that 
functions as a partial MLAT allowing for the exchange of certain bank 
information and mutual legal assistance to administrative authorities. 

France: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1994; 
Entered into force: 1995; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1998; 
Entered into force: 2001; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed in 2009 that went into force in 
2009. The protocol does mention tax information exchange. Guadeloupe, 
Guyana, Martinique, and Reunion are covered by the U.S.-France tax 
treaty. Guadeloupe, French Guiana, French Polynesia, St. Pierre, and 
Miquelon are covered by the U.S.-France MLAT. A bilateral MLAT 
pursuant to the U.S.-E.U. MLAT was signed in 2004 that entered into 
force in 2010. This MLAT is entitled an instrument. The U.S.-E.U. MLAT 
does not contain sweeping authority to exchange tax information, but 
does provide for the exchange of certain bank information and mutual 
legal assistance to administrative authorities. 

Georgia*: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1973; 
Entered into force: 1976; 
Exchange of information: 
Instrument type: 
Signed: 
Entered into force: 
Exchange of information: No. 

Note: The income tax treaty with the former USSR, signed in 1973, 
remains in effect between the United States and Georgia. 

Germany: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1989; 
Entered into force: 1991; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 2003; 
Entered into force: 2009; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed in 2006 that went into force in 
2007. The protocol does mention tax information exchange. A bilateral 
MLAT pursuant to the U.S.-E.U. MLAT was signed in 2006 that entered 
into force in 2010. This MLAT is entitled a supplemental treaty to the 
2003 U.S.-Germany MLAT. The U.S.-E.U. MLAT does not contain sweeping 
authority to exchange tax information, but does provide for the 
exchange of certain bank information and mutual legal assistance to 
administrative authorities. 

Gibraltar: 
Instrument type: TIEA; 
Signed: 2009; 
Entered into force: 2009; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: Gibraltar is an insular area of the U.K. 

Greece: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1950; 
Entered into force: 1953; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1999; 
Entered into force: 2001; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed in 1964 that went into force in 
1967. The protocol does not amend tax information exchange. A 
bilateral MLAT pursuant to the U.S.-E.U. MLAT was signed in 2006 that 
entered into force in 2010. This MLAT is entitled a protocol. The U.S.-
E.U. MLAT does not contain sweeping authority to exchange tax 
information, but does provide for the exchange of certain bank 
information and mutual legal assistance to administrative authorities. 

Grenada: 
Instrument type: TIEA; 
Signed: 1986; 
Entered into force: 1987; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1996; 
Entered into force: 1999; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 
[Empty]; 

Note: Grenada is a signatory of the Four Eastern Caribbean States MLAT. 

Guernsey: 
Instrument type: TIEA; 
Signed: 2002; 
Entered into force: 2006; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: Guernsey is an insular area of the British Crown. 

Guyana: 
Instrument type: TIEA; 
Signed: 1992; 
Entered into force: 1992; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Honduras: 
Instrument type: TIEA; 
Signed: 1990; 
Entered into force: 1991; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Hong Kong: 
Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1997; 
Entered into force: 2000; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Hungary: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1979; 
Entered into force: 1979; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1994; 
Entered into force: 1997; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A new U.S.-Hungary income tax treaty was signed in 2010 that is 
not yet in force. A bilateral MLAT pursuant to the U.S.-E.U. MLAT was 
signed in 2005 that entered into force in 2010. This MLAT functions as 
a protocol. The U.S.-E.U. MLAT does not contain sweeping authority to 
exchange tax information, but does provide for the exchange of certain 
bank information and mutual legal assistance to administrative 
authorities. 

Iceland: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 2007; 
Entered into force: 2008; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed in 2007 that went into force in 
2008. The protocol does mention tax information exchange. 

India: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1989; 
Entered into force: 1990; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 2001; 
Entered into force: 2005; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed along with the treaty in 1989 
that went into force in 1990. The protocol does not amend tax 
information exchange. 

Indonesia: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1988; 
Entered into force: 1990; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed in 1996 that went into force in 
1996. The protocol does not amend tax information exchange. 

Ireland: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1997; 
Entered into force: 1997; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 2001; 
Entered into force: 2009; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed in 1999 that went into force in 
2000. The protocol does not amend tax information exchange. A 
bilateral MLAT pursuant to the U.S.-E.U. MLAT was signed in 2005 that 
entered into force in 2010. This MLAT is entitled an instrument and 
contains text integrating new (U.S.-E.U.) and existing (U.S.-Ireland 
MLAT) obligations. The U.S.-E.U. MLAT does not contain sweeping 
authority to exchange tax information, but does provide for the 
exchange of certain bank information and mutual legal assistance to 
administrative authorities. 

Isle of Man: 
Instrument type: TIEA; 
Signed: 2002; 
Entered into force: 2006; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: Extended to Isle of Man; 
Entered into force: 2003; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: The Isle of Man is an insular area of the British Crown. 

Israel: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1975; 
Entered into force: 1994; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1998; 
Entered into force: 1999; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed in 1993 that went into force in 
1994. The protocol does mention tax information exchange. 

Italy: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1999; 
Entered into force: 2009; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1982; 
Entered into force: 1985; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed along with the tax treaty in 
1999 that went into force in 2009. The protocol does mention tax 
information exchange. A bilateral MLAT pursuant to the U.S.-E.U. MLAT 
was signed in 2006 that entered into force in 2010. This MLAT is 
entitled an instrument and contains text integrating new (U.S.-E.U.) 
and existing (U.S.-Italy MLAT) obligations. The U.S.-E.U. MLAT does 
not contain sweeping authority to exchange tax information, but does 
provide for the exchange of certain bank information and mutual legal 
assistance to administrative authorities. 

Jamaica: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1980; 
Entered into force: 1981; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: TIEA; 
Signed: 1986; 
Entered into force: 1986; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1989; 
Entered into force: 1995; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed in 1981 that went into force in 
1981. The protocol does not amend tax information exchange. 

Japan: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 2003; 
Entered into force: 2004; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 2003; 
Entered into force: 2006; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed along with the treaty in 2003 
that went into force in 2004. The protocol does mention tax 
information exchange. 

Jersey: 
Instrument type: TIEA; 
Signed: 2002; 
Entered into force: 2006; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: Jersey is an insular area of the British Crown. 

Kazakhstan: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1993; 
Entered into force: 1996; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed along with the treaty in 1993 
that went into force in 1996. The protocol does not amend tax 
information exchange. 

Kyrgyz Republic*: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1973; 
Entered into force: 1976; 
Exchange of information: No. 

Note: The income tax treaty with the former USSR, signed in 1973, 
remains in effect between the United States and the Kyrgyz Republic. 

Latvia: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1998; 
Entered into force: 1999; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1997; 
Entered into force: 1999; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A bilateral MLAT pursuant to the U.S.-E.U. MLAT was signed in 
2005 that entered into force in 2010. This MLAT is entitled a 
protocol. The U.S.-E.U. MLAT does not contain sweeping authority to 
exchange tax information, but does provide for the exchange of certain 
bank information and mutual legal assistance to administrative 
authorities. 

Liechtenstein: 
Instrument type: TIEA; 
Signed: 2008; 
Entered into force: 2009; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 2002; 
Entered into force: 2003; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Lithuania: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1998; 
Entered into force: 1998; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: 
Signed: 1998; 
Entered into force: 1998; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A bilateral MLAT pursuant to the U.S.-E.U. MLAT was signed in 
2005 that entered into force in 2010. This MLAT is entitled a protocol 
and contains text integrating new (U.S.-E.U.) and existing (U.S.- 
Lithuania MLAT) obligations. The U.S.-E.U. MLAT does not contain 
sweeping authority to exchange tax information, but does provide for 
the exchange of certain bank information and mutual legal assistance 
to administrative authorities. 

Luxembourg: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1996; 
Entered into force: 2000; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: 
Signed: 1997; 
Entered into force: 2001; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed in 2009 that is not in force. 
The protocol does mention tax information exchange. A bilateral MLAT 
pursuant to the U.S.-E.U. MLAT was signed in 2005 that entered into 
force in 2010. This MLAT is entitled an instrument. The U.S.-E.U. MLAT 
does not contain sweeping authority to exchange tax information, but 
does provide for the exchange of certain bank information and mutual 
legal assistance to administrative authorities. 

Malaysia: 
Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 2006; 
Entered into force: 2009; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Malta: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 2008; 
Entered into force: 2010; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: 
Signed: 2006; 
Entered into force: 2010; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: Malta has entered into a bilateral agreement pursuant to the 
U.S.-E.U. MLAT that functions as a partial MLAT allowing for the 
exchange of certain bank information and mutual legal assistance to 
administrative authorities. 

Marshall Islands: 
Instrument type: TIEA; 
Signed: 1991; 
Entered into force: 1991; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Mexico: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1992; 
Entered into force: 1993; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: TIEA; 
Signed: 1989; 
Entered into force: 1990; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1987; 
Entered into force: 1991; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed in 2002 that entered into force 
in 2003. The protocol does not amend tax information exchange. A TIEA 
protocol was signed in 1994 that entered into force in 1995. The 
protocol does mention tax information exchange. 

Monaco: 
Instrument type: TIEA; 
Signed: 2009; 
Entered into force: 2010; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Moldova*: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1973; 
Entered into force: 1976; 
Exchange of information: No. 

Note: The income tax treaty with the former USSR, signed in 1973, 
remains in effect between the United States and Moldova. 

Montserrat*: 
Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: Extended to Montserrat; 
Entered into force: 1991; 
Exchange of information: No. 

Note: Montserrat is an insular area of the United Kingdom (U.K.). The 
U.S.-U.K./Cayman Islands MLAT was extended to Montserrat in 1991. See 
Cayman Islands MLAT for additional details. 

Morocco: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1977; 
Entered into force: 1981; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1983; 
Entered into force: 1993; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Kingdom of the Netherlands; 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1992; 
Entered into force: 1993; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1981; 
Entered into force: 1983; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed in 2004 that went into force in 
2004. The protocol does mention tax information exchange. The U.S.- 
Netherlands income tax treaty and the U.S.-E.U. MLAT exclude Aruba and 
the Netherlands Antilles. A bilateral MLAT pursuant to the U.S.-E.U. 
MLAT was signed in 2004 that entered into force in 2010. This MLAT is 
entitled an agreement. The U.S.-E.U. MLAT does not contain sweeping 
authority to exchange tax information, but does provide for the 
exchange of certain bank information and mutual legal assistance to 
administrative authorities. 

Former Netherlands Antilles (Curaçao and St. Maarten); 
Instrument type: TIEA; 
Signed: 2002; 
Entered into force: 2007; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: Extended to Antilles; 
Entered into force: 1983; 
Exchange of information: No. 

Note: An income tax treaty was signed in 1986 that is not in force. 
Netherlands Antilles dissolved in October 2010. Curaçao and St. 
Maarten are now autonomous territories of the Kingdom of the 
Netherlands. Bonaire, Saba, and St. Eustatius are now under the direct 
administration of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Kingdom of the 
Netherlands MLAT, which was extended to the Netherlands Antilles, may 
not be used for assistance related to fiscal offenses requested of 
Netherlands Antilles. 

New Zealand; 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1982; 
Entered into force: 1983; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed in 2008 that went into force in 
2010. The protocol does mention tax information exchange. The U.S.-New 
Zealand income tax treaty excludes the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. 

Nigeria; 
Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1989; 
Entered into force: 2003; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Norway; 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1971; 
Entered into force: 1972; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed in 1980 that went into force in 
1981. The U.S.-Norway income tax treaty excludes the Spita Bergen, Jan 
Mayen, and other dependencies outside of Europe. 

Pakistan; 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1957; 
Entered into force: 1959; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Panama; 
Instrument type: TIEA; 
Signed: 2010; 
Entered into force: 2011; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1991; 
Entered into force: 1995; 
Exchange of information: No. 

Note: The MLAT does not apply to tax information unless it pertains to 
other crimes. 

Peru; 
Instrument type: TIEA; 
Signed: 1990; 
Entered into force: 1993; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Philippines: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1976; 
Entered into force: 1982; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1994; 
Entered into force: 1996; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Poland: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1974; 
Entered into force: 1976; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1996; 
Entered into force: 1999; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A bilateral MLAT pursuant to the U.S.-E.U. MLAT was signed in 
2006 that entered into force in 2010. This MLAT is entitled an 
agreement and contains text integrating new (U.S.-E.U.) and existing 
(U.S.-Poland MLAT) obligations. The U.S.-E.U. MLAT does not contain 
sweeping authority to exchange tax information, but does provide for 
the exchange of certain bank information and mutual legal assistance 
to administrative authorities. 

Portugal: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1994; 
Entered into force: 1995; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: Partial MLAT (E.U.); 
Signed: 2005; 
Entered into force: 2010; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed in 1994 that went into force in 
1995. The protocol does mention tax information exchange. The U.S.- 
Portugal income tax treaty covers the Azores and Madeira archipelagos. 
Portugal has entered into a bilateral agreement pursuant to the U.S.- 
E.U. MLAT that functions as a partial MLAT allowing for the exchange 
of certain bank information and mutual legal assistance to 
administrative authorities. 

Republic of Korea: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty;
Signed: 1976; 
Entered into force: 1979; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1993; 
Entered into force: 1997; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Romania: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1973; 
Entered into force: 1976; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1999; 
Entered into force: 2001; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A bilateral MLAT pursuant to the U.S.-E.U. MLAT was signed in 
2007 that entered into force in 2010. This MLAT is entitled a 
protocol. The U.S.-E.U. MLAT does not contain sweeping authority to 
exchange tax information, but does provide for the exchange of certain 
bank information and mutual legal assistance to administrative 
authorities. 

Russia: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1992; 
Entered into force: 1993; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1999; 
Entered into force: 2002; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed along with the treaty in 1992 
that went into force in 1993. The protocol does not amend tax 
information exchange. 

Slovak Republic: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1993; 
Entered into force: 1993; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: Partial MLAT (E.U.); 
Signed: 2006; 
Entered into force: 2010; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: Slovak Republic has entered into a bilateral agreement pursuant 
to the U.S.-E.U. MLAT that functions as a partial MLAT allowing for 
the exchange of certain bank information and mutual legal assistance 
to administrative authorities. 

Slovenia: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1999; 
Entered into force: 2001; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: Partial MLAT (E.U.); 
Signed: 2005; 
Entered into force: 2010; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: Slovenia has entered into a bilateral agreement pursuant to the 
U.S.-E.U. MLAT that functions as a partial MLAT allowing for the 
exchange of certain bank information and mutual legal assistance to 
administrative authorities. 

South Africa: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1997; 
Entered into force: 1997; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1999; 
Entered into force: 2001; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Spain: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1990; 
Entered into force: 1990; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1990; 
Entered into force: 1993; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed along with the treaty in 1990 
that went into force in 1990. The protocol does mention tax 
information exchange. A bilateral MLAT pursuant to the U.S.-European 
Union (E.U.) MLAT was signed in 2004 that entered into force in 2010. 
This MLAT is entitled an instrument and contains text integrating new 
(U.S.-E.U.) and existing (U.S.-Spain MLAT) obligations. The U.S.-E.U. 
MLAT does not contain sweeping authority to exchange tax information, 
but does provide for the exchange of certain bank information and 
mutual legal assistance to administrative authorities. 

Sri Lanka: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1985; 
Entered into force: 2004; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed in 2002 that went into force in 
2004. The protocol does not amend tax information exchange. 

St. Kitts and Nevis: 
Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1997; 
Entered into force: 2000; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

St. Lucia: 
Instrument type: TIEA; 
Signed: 1987; 
Entered into force: 1991; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1996; 
Entered into force: 2000; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: St. Lucia is a signatory of the Four Eastern Caribbean States 
MLAT. IRS lists the St. Lucia TIEA as "nominally in force" because 
implementing legislation has not been enacted by the St. Lucia 
government. 

St. Vincent and Grenadines: 
Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1998; 
Entered into force: 1999; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: An MLAT protocol was signed along with the MLAT in 1998 that 
went into force in 1999. The protocol does mention tax information 
exchange. 

Sweden: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1994; 
Entered into force: 1995; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 2001; 
Entered into force: 2009; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed in 2005 that went into force in 
2006. The protocol does mention tax information exchange. A bilateral 
MLAT pursuant to the U.S.-European Union (E.U.) MLAT was signed in 
2004 that entered into force in 2010. This MLAT is entitled an 
instrument and contains text integrating new (U.S.-E.U.) and existing 
(U.S.-Sweden MLAT) obligations. The U.S.-E.U. MLAT does not contain 
sweeping authority to exchange tax information, but does provide for 
the exchange of certain bank information and mutual legal assistance 
to administrative authorities. 

Switzerland: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1996; 
Entered into force: 1997; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1973; 
Entered into force: 1977; 
Exchange of information: No. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed in 2009 that is not in force. 
The protocol does mention tax information exchange. In general, the 
MLAT does not apply to violations with respect to taxes, although it 
provides for several exceptions where assistance would be provided in 
tax cases. 

Taiwan: 
Instrument type: MLAA; 
Signed: 2002; 
Entered into force: 2002; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Tajikistan*: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1973; 
Entered into force: 1976; 
Exchange of information: No. 

Note: The income tax treaty with the former USSR, signed in 1973, 
remains in effect between the United States and Tajikistan. 

Thailand: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1996; 
Entered into force: 1997; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1986; 
Entered into force: 1993; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Trinidad and Tobago: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1970; 
Entered into force: 1970; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: TIEA; 
Signed: 1989; 
Entered into force: 1990; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1996; 
Entered into force: 1999; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Tunisia: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1985; 
Entered into force: 1990; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed in 1989 that entered into force 
in 1990. The protocol does not amend tax information exchange. 

Turkey: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1996; 
Entered into force: 1997; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: Extradition & MLAT; 
Signed: 1979; 
Entered into force: 1981; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed along with the treaty in 1996 
that entered into force in 1997. The protocol does not amend tax 
information exchange. The U.S.-Turkey MLAT is entitled an Extradition 
and Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters treaty. 

Turkmenistan*: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1973; 
Entered into force: 1976; 
Exchange of information: No. 

Note: The income tax treaty with the former USSR, signed in 1973, 
remains in effect between the United States and Turkmenistan. 

Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI): 
Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: Extended to TCI; 
Entered into force: 1990; 
Exchange of information: No. 

Note: The Turks and Caicos Islands is an insular area of the U.K. The 
U.S.-U.K./Cayman Islands MLAT was extended to TCI in 1990. See Cayman 
Islands MLAT for additional details. 

Ukraine: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1994; 
Entered into force: 2000; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1998; 
Entered into force: 2001; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed along with the treaty in 1994 
that entered into force in 2000. The protocol does not amend tax 
information exchange. 

United Kingdom (U.K.): 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 2001; 
Entered into force: 2003; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1994; 
Entered into force: 1996; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: The U.K. includes England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and 
Wales. A tax treaty protocol was signed in 2002 that entered into 
force in 2003. The protocol does not amend tax information exchange. 
The U.S.-U.K. tax treaty excludes the Channel Islands. A bilateral 
MLAT pursuant to the U.S.-European Union (E.U.) MLAT was signed in 
2004 that entered into force in 2010. This MLAT is entitled an 
instrument. The U.S.-E.U. MLAT does not contain sweeping authority to 
exchange tax information, but does provide for the exchange of certain 
bank information and mutual legal assistance to administrative 
authorities. 

Uruguay*: 
Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1991; 
Entered into force: 1994; 
Exchange of information: No. 

Note: The MLAT does not apply to tax information unless it pertains to 
other crimes. 

Uzbekistan*: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1973; 
Entered into force: 1976; 
Exchange of information: No. 

Note: The income tax treaty with the former USSR, signed in 1973, 
remains in effect between the United States and Uzbekistan. 

Venezuela: 
Instrument type: Income tax treaty; 
Signed: 1999; 
Entered into force: 1999; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Instrument type: MLAT; 
Signed: 1997; 
Entered into force: 2004; 
Exchange of information: Yes. 

Note: A tax treaty protocol was signed along with the treaty in 1999 
that entered into force in 1999. The protocol does mention tax 
information exchange. 

Source: GAO analysis of data from Thomson Reuters, Government Printing 
Office (GPO), LexisNexis, and the Department of State. 

* Jurisdiction is not currently a tax information exchange partner. 

[A] Instruments signed after 2000 that are not yet in force are 
included with current instruments as potential instruments. 
Instruments that were signed prior to 2000 that did not enter into 
force are included as notes. 

[B] n.a. is Not Applicable. Potential agreements that have not entered 
into force do not have an entry into force date. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Catalog and Key Characteristics of Information Exchange 
Agreements: 

Table 5: Presence of Provisions Included in Article 26 of 2006 U.S. 
Model Tax Convention in Most Recent U.S. Tax Treaties in Force 
(Chronological): 

1; 
Country: Malta; 
Year signed: 2008; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: Y; 
Art. 26 (2): O[B]; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): Y; 
Art. 26 (6): Y; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): Y; 
Art. 26 (9): Y; 
Additional provisions: N. 

2; 
Country: Bulgaria; 
Year signed: 2007; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: 2007; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: Y; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): Y; 
Art. 26 (6): Y; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

3; 
Country: Iceland; 
Year signed: 2007; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: 2007; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: Y; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): Y; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): Y; 
Art. 26 (8): O[D]; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

4; 
Country: Belgium; 
Year signed: 2006; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: 2006; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: Y; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): Y; 
Art. 26 (6): Y; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): O[E]; 
Art. 26 (9): O[F]; 
Additional provisions: Y. 

5; 
Country: Bangladesh; 
Year signed: 2004; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): Y; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

6; 
Country: Japan; 
Year signed: 2003; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: 2003; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: Y; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): Y; 
Art. 26 (6): O[G]; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

7; 
Country: United Kingdom; 
Year signed: 2001; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): Y; 
Art. 26 (8): O[D]; 
Art. 26 (9): O[H]; 
Additional provisions: N. 

8; 
Country: Denmark; 
Year signed: 1999; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: Y; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): Y; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

9; 
Country: Italy; 
Year signed: 1999; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: 1999; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: Y; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): N; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): N; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

10; 
Country: Slovenia; 
Year signed: 1999; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: Y; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

11; 
Country: Venezuela; 
Year signed: 1999; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: 1999; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: Y; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): Y; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

12; 
Country: Estonia; 
Year signed: 1998; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: Y; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): Y; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): Y; 
Art. 26 (8): O[I]; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

13; 
Country: Latvia; 
Year signed: 1998; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: Y; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): Y; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): Y; 
Art. 26 (8): O[I]; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

14; 
Country: Lithuania; 
Year signed: 1998; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: Y; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): Y; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): Y; 
Art. 26 (8): O[J]; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

15; 
Country: Ireland; 
Year signed: 1997; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: 1997; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): N; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): Y; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

16; 
Country: South Africa; 
Year signed: 1997; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: Y; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): Y; 
Art. 26 (8): Y; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

17; 
Country: Austria; 
Year signed: 1996; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: Y; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): O[K]; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: Y. 

18; 
Country: Luxembourg; 
Year signed: 1996; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): O[K]; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

19; 
Country: Switzerland; 
Year signed: 1996; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: 1996; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): O[L]; 
Art. 26 (4): N; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): N; 
Art. 26 (7): O[M]; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

20; 
Country: Thailand; 
Year signed: 1996; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): N; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): N; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

21; 
Country: Turkey; 
Year signed: 1996; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: Y; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): O[N]; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

22; 
Country: France; 
Year signed: 1994; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: 2009; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: Y; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): Y; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): O[O]; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

23; 
Country: Portugal; 
Year signed: 1994; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: 1994; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: Y; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): O[P]; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

24; 
Country: Sweden; 
Year signed: 1994; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: Y; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): Y; 
Additional provisions: N. 

25; 
Country: Ukraine; 
Year signed: 1994; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: Y; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

26; 
Country: Czech Republic; 
Year signed: 1993; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: Y; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

27; 
Country: Kazakhstan; 
Year signed: 1993; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: Y; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

28; 
Country: Slovak Republic; 
Year signed: 1993; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: Y; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

29; 
Country: Mexico; 
Year signed: 1992; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: 1994; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: O[Q]; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): N; 
Art. 26 (4): N; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): N; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

30; 
Country: Netherlands; 
Year signed: 1992; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: 2004; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): O[R]; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): Y; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: Y. 

31; 
Country: Russian Federation; 
Year signed: 1992; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: Y; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

32; 
Country: Spain; 
Year signed: 1990; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: 1990; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): N; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): N; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

33; 
Country: Finland; 
Year signed: 1989; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: 2006; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: Y; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): Y; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): Y; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

34; 
Country: Germany; 
Year signed: 1989; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: 2006; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: O[S]; 
Art. 26 (2): O[T]; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): Y; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): Y; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

35; 
Country: India; 
Year signed: 1989; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): O[U]; 
Additional provisions: N. 

36; 
Country: Indonesia; 
Year signed: 1988; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: Y; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: Y. 

37; 
Country: Bermuda[HH]; 
Year signed: 1986; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): N[II]; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): N; 
Art. 26 (4): N; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): N; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

38; 
Country: Sri Lanka; 
Year signed: 1985; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): Y; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

39; 
Country: Tunisia; 
Year signed: 1985; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): N; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

40; 
Country: Barbados; 
Year signed: 1984; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: 2004; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): Y; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): O[U]; 
Additional provisions: Y. 

41; 
Country: China; 
Year signed: 1984; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): N; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): N; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

42; 
Country: Cyprus; 
Year signed: 1984; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): O[V]; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: Y. 

43; 
Country: Australia; 
Year signed: 1982; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): O[V]; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): O[W]; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): O[W]; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Ox; 
Art. 26 (4): N; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): O[Y]; 
Art. 26 (7): Y; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

44; 
Country: New Zealand; 
Year signed: 1982; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: 2008; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: Y; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): Y; 
Art. 26 (6): Y; 
Art. 26 (7): Y; 
Art. 26 (8): Y; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

45; 
Country: Canada; 
Year signed: 1980; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: 2007; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: O[Z]; 
Art. 26 (2): O[AA]; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): Y; 
Art. 26 (6): Y; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): Y; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: Y. 

46; 
Country: Egypt; 
Year signed: 1980; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): O[BB]; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): O[X]; 
Art. 26 (4): N; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: Y. 

47; 
Country: Jamaica; 
Year signed: 1980; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: Y; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): Y; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

48; 
Country: Hungary; 
Year signed: 1979; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

49; 
Country: Morocco; 
Year signed: 1977; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): O[V]; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): N; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): N; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: Y. 

50; 
Country: Philippines; 
Year signed: 1976; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): O[BB]; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): O[X]; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

51; 
Country: South Korea; 
Year signed: 1976; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): O[AA]; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): O[X]; 
Art. 26 (4): N; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: Y. 

52; 
Country: Israel; 
Year signed: 1975; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: 1993; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): O[V]; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): N; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): N; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

53; 
Country: Poland; 
Year signed: 1974; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): O[BB]; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): O[X]; 
Art. 26 (4): N; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

54; 
Country: Romania; 
Year signed: 1973; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): O[BB]; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): O[X]; 
Art. 26 (4): N; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: Y. 

55; 
Country: Armenia; 
Year signed: 1973; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): N; 
Art. 26 (4): N; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): N; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

56; 
Country: Azerbaijan; 
Year signed: 1973; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): N; 
Art. 26 (4): N; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): N; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

57; 
Country: Belarus; 
Year signed: 1973; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): N; 
Art. 26 (4): N; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): N; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

58; 
Country: Georgia; 
Year signed: 1973; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): N; 
Art. 26 (4): N; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): N; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

59; 
Country: Kyrgyz Republic; 
Year signed: 1973; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): N; 
Art. 26 (4): N; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): N; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

60; 
Country: Moldova; 
Year signed: 1973; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): N; 
Art. 26 (4): N; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): N; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

61; 
Country: Tajikistan; 
Year signed: 1973; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): N; 
Art. 26 (4): N; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): N; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

62; 
Country: Turkmenistan; 
Year signed: 1973; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): N; 
Art. 26 (4): N; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): N; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

63; 
Country: Uzbekistan; 
Year signed: 1973; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): N; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): N; 
Art. 26 (4): N; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): N; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

64; 
Country: Norway; 
Year signed: 1971; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: 1980; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): O[V]; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): Y; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): Y; 
Art. 26 (4): Y; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): O[C]; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: Y. 

65; 
Country: Trinidad & Tobago; 
Year signed: 1970; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): O[V]; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): O[CC]; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): O[CC]; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): O[DD]; 
Art. 26 (4): N; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): N; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

66; 
Country: Pakistan; 
Year signed: 1957; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): O[V]; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): O[EE]; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): O[EE]; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): O[DD]; 
Art. 26 (4): N; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): N; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

67; 
Country: Greece; 
Year signed: 1950; 
Year most recent protocol with information exchange signed: [Empty]; 
Art. 26 (1)[A]: N; 
Art. 26 (2): O[V]; 
Art. 26 (3)(a): O[FF]; 
Art. 26 (3)(b): O[FF]; 
Art. 26 (3)(c): O[GG]; 
Art. 26 (4): N; 
Art. 26 (5): N; 
Art. 26 (6): N; 
Art. 26 (7): N; 
Art. 26 (8): N; 
Art. 26 (9): N; 
Additional provisions: N. 

Source: GAO Analysis of Thomson Reuters data. 

Notes: "Y" signifies provision is present; "N" signifies provision is 
not present, and "O" signifies that a provision could not be 
definitively classified either way and is categorized as "other." 

[A] Paragraph 1 was considered to be present if all taxes were covered. 

[B] Disclosure is permitted for purposes allowed under Mutual Legal 
Assistant Treaty (MLAT). 

[C] Under the treaty, the form of information is restricted to what 
can be obtained under laws of requested state. 

[D] Treaty does not explicitly permit such visits. Also, the treaty 
includes a notification requirement to the Competent Authority of 
intent to visit. 

[E] Treaty allows for the interviews and examinations subject to 
conditions and limits agreed to by the contracting states, but does 
not explicitly require the consent of the person subject to 
examination. 

[F] Treaty provides that the parties shall agree upon the mode of 
application, rather than just permitting them to develop an agreement. 

[G] Treaty does not cover depositions and does not specify "unedited" 
original documents. 

[H] Treaty says treaty partners will consult for purposes of 
cooperating and advising on implementation. 

[I] Treaty says that examining officials need the consent of the other 
state as well as the persons being examined. 

[J] Treaty says that examining officials need the consent of the 
examined and the presence of the other state. 

[K] Treaty says "States shall undertake to lend each other support and 
assistance in the collection of taxes" as opposed to "endeavor to 
collect taxes" as stated in the Model. 

[L] Treaty does not state that disclosure is not allowed in cases of 
commercial secrets and when disclosure would be contrary to public 
policy. 

[M] Under the treaty, the contracting states "may" collect taxes 
imposed by the other state to ensure that exemptions or reduced rates 
under certain articles are not enjoyed by persons not entitled to them. 

[N] Treaty states that to the maximum extent possible under the laws 
and administrative practices and procedures of the requested state, it 
shall provide information in a form consistent with the purposes of 
the request. 

[O] Representatives are allowed entry only with the consent of the 
person examined and the Competent Authority, who may be present or 
represented if desired. This is also only allowed if the contracting 
states agree to such inquiries on a reciprocal basis. 

[P] Protocol states that information to be exchanged includes records 
of financial institutions, records relating to third parties, and 
records relating to persons referenced in Art 17 (6). Protocol states 
an understanding that treaty partners are empowered by their domestic 
law to obtain bank information. 

[Q] Treaty as amended by the protocol says that the Competent 
Authorities are authorized to exchange information in accordance with 
another agreement, presumably a TIEA. 

[R] Treaty states that information exchanged may be used as evidence 
in a criminal case only if prior authorization by the requested 
state's Competent Authority has been given or Competent Authorities 
have mutually waived this provision. 

[S] Information to be exchanged is limited to taxes covered by the 
Convention, however, contracting states may exchange notes under which 
information may be exchanged for purposes of taxes not covered. 

[T] Under the treaty, information may be disclosed in public court 
proceedings or judicial decisions unless the requested state raises an 
objection. 

[U] Treaty states that "the Competent Authorities shall through 
consultation develop appropriate conditions, methods, and techniques 
concerning the matters in respect of which such exchange of 
information shall be made including where appropriate exchange of 
information regarding tax avoidance." 

[V] Treaty says information shall be treated as secret, in contrast to 
the Model, which says information shall be treated as secret in the 
same manner as information obtained under the domestic laws of that 
state. Treaty does not state that information may be disclosed in 
public court proceedings or in judicial decisions. 

[W] Treaty provides that information to be exchanged must be of a 
class that can be obtained under the laws and administrative practices 
of each state with respect to its own taxes. 

[X] Blanket public policy provision that does not specifically speak 
to trade, business, professional, etc. secrets. 

[Y] Treaty does not contain a provision for depositions. 

[Z] Treaty applies to all taxes imposed by a contracting state and to 
other taxes that any other provision of the Convention applies, but 
only to the extent that the information may be relevant for the 
purposes of the application of that provision. 

[AA] Treaty allows for disclosure of information in relation to taxes 
imposed by a political subdivision or local authority that are 
substantially similar to taxes covered by the Convention. 

[BB] Treaty says "information shall be treated as secret," in contrast 
to the Model, which says "information shall be treated as secret in 
the same manner as information obtained under the domestic laws of 
that state." Treaty provides that information may be disclosed to any 
"person," rather than "persons or authorities" concerned with taxes. 
Treaty provides that information may be made part of the public record. 

[CC] Under the treaty, information is not exchanged unless the 
information would be available under the laws and administrative 
procedures of the requested state if the tax of the requesting state 
was being imposed by the requested state. 

[DD] Treaty does not mention commercial secrets, trade processes, or 
"contrary to public policy" as reasons not to disclose. 

[EE] Treaty contemplates only information that is available under the 
respective taxation laws of the contracting states in the normal 
course of administration. 

[FF] Treaty contemplates exchange of information only when the 
authorities have the information at their disposal. 

[GG] Treaty lists technical secrets and processes related to trade, 
industry, business, or a profession as reasons not to disclose. Treaty 
does not list "contrary to public policy" as reason not to disclose. 

[HH] The Bermuda treaty document itself does not contain an 
information exchange article, but it does contain an article for 
mutual assistance in tax matters. 

[II] Article 6 of the Bermuda treaty, "Confidentiality," states that 
"any matters subject to assistance under Article 5 [Mutual Assistance 
in Tax Matters] shall be treated as confidential in the same manner as 
such matters or items would be under the domestic laws of the Covered 
Jurisdiction requesting the assistance..." 

[End of table] 

Table 6: Description of Key Features Included in U.S. TIEAs 
(Chronological): 

1; 
Country: Panama; 
Year signed: 2010; 
All U.S. federal taxes covered: Y; 
Ways information can be provided[A]: R; 
Specificity requirements[B]: Y; 
Reasons request cannot be denied[C]: J, T, L, B, D; 
Declining a request[D]: M, C, X, I, R, V, U, Z. 

2; 
Country: Gibraltar; 
Year signed: 2009; 
All U.S. federal taxes covered: Y; 
Ways information can be provided[A]: R; 
Specificity requirements[B]: Y; 
Reasons request cannot be denied[C]: J, T, L, B, E, D; 
Declining a request[D]: M, C, X, I, V, U, Z. 

3; 
Country: Monaco; 
Year signed: 2009; 
All U.S. federal taxes covered: Y; 
Ways information can be provided[A]: R; 
Specificity requirements[B]: Y; 
Reasons request cannot be denied[C]: J, T, L, B, E, D; 
Declining a request[D]: M, C, X, I, R, V, U, Z. 

4; 
Country: Liechtenstein; 
Year signed: 2008; 
All U.S. federal taxes covered: Y; 
Ways information can be provided[A]: R; 
Specificity requirements[B]: Y; 
Reasons request cannot be denied[C]: J, T, L, B, E, D; 
Declining a request[D]: M, C, X, I, V, U, Z. 

5; 
Country: Aruba; 
Year signed: 2003; 
All U.S. federal taxes covered: Y[E]; 
Ways information can be provided[A]: R; 
Specificity requirements[B]: P^; 
Reasons request cannot be denied[C]: J, T, L, B, E; 
Declining a request[D]: C, I, R, V, U, Z. 

6; 
Country: Jersey; 
Year signed: 2002; 
All U.S. federal taxes covered: Y[E]; 
Ways information can be provided[A]: R; 
Specificity requirements[B]: Y; 
Reasons request cannot be denied[C]: J, T, B, E, D; 
Declining a request[D]: M, C, X, I, V, U, Z. 

7; 
Country: Bahamas; 
Year signed: 2002; 
All U.S. federal taxes covered: Y; 
Ways information can be provided[A]: R; 
Specificity requirements[B]: P^; 
Reasons request cannot be denied[C]: L, B; 
Declining a request[D]: M, C, X, I, V, Z,. 

8; 
Country: Guernsey; 
Year signed: 2002; 
All U.S. federal taxes covered: Y; 
Ways information can be provided[A]: R; 
Specificity requirements[B]: Y; 
Reasons request cannot be denied[C]: J, T, B, E, D; 
Declining a request[D]: M, C, X, I, V, U, Z. 

9; 
Country: Isle of Man; 
Year signed: 2002; 
All U.S. federal taxes covered: Y; 
Ways information can be provided[A]: R; 
Specificity requirements[B]: P^; 
Reasons request cannot be denied[C]: J, T, B, E, D; 
Declining a request[D]: M, C, X, I, R, U. 

10; 
Country: Netherlands Antilles; 
Year signed: 2002; 
All U.S. federal taxes covered: Y; 
Ways information can be provided[A]: R; 
Specificity requirements[B]: N; 
Reasons request cannot be denied[C]: J, T, L, B, E,; 
Declining a request[D]: C, I, R, V, U, Z. 

11; 
Country: British Virgin Islands; 
Year signed: 2002; 
All U.S. federal taxes covered: Y; 
Ways information can be provided[A]: R; 
Specificity requirements[B]: P^; 
Reasons request cannot be denied[C]: J, T, B, E, D; 
Declining a request[D]: C, X, I, U. 

12; 
Country: Antigua & Barbuda; 
Year signed: 2001; 
All U.S. federal taxes covered: Y; 
Ways information can be provided[A]: R; 
Specificity requirements[B]: N; 
Reasons request cannot be denied[C]: J, T, L, B, E; 
Declining a request[D]: C, I, R, V, U, Z. 

13; 
Country: Cayman Islands; 
Year signed: 2001; 
All U.S. federal taxes covered: Y; 
Ways information can be provided[A]: R; 
Specificity requirements[B]: P^; 
Reasons request cannot be denied[C]: J, T, B, E, D; 
Declining a request[D]: M, C, X, I, U. 

14; 
Country: Guyana; 
Year signed: 1992; 
All U.S. federal taxes covered: Y[E]; 
Ways information can be provided[A]: R; 
Specificity requirements[B]: N; 
Reasons request cannot be denied[C]: J, L, B; 
Declining a request[D]: C, I, R, V, U. 

15; 
Country: Marshall Islands; 
Year signed: 1991; 
All U.S. federal taxes covered: Y[E]; 
Ways information can be provided[A]: A, S, R; 
Specificity requirements[B]: N; 
Reasons request cannot be denied[C]: J, L, B, E; 
Declining a request[D]: C, I, R, V, U, Z. 

16; 
Country: Honduras; 
Year signed: 1990; 
All U.S. federal taxes covered: Y[E]; 
Ways information can be provided[A]: A, S, R; 
Specificity requirements[B]: N; 
Reasons request cannot be denied[C]: J, L, B, E; 
Declining a request[D]: C, I, R, V, U, Z. 

17; 
Country: Peru; 
Year signed: 1990; 
All U.S. federal taxes covered: Y[E]; 
Ways information can be provided[A]: A, S, R; 
Specificity requirements[B]: N; 
Reasons request cannot be denied[C]: J, L, B, E; 
Declining a request[D]: C, I, R, V, U, Z. 

18; 
Country: Costa Rica; 
Year signed: 1989; 
All U.S. federal taxes covered: Y[E]; 
Ways information can be provided[A]: S, R; 
Specificity requirements[B]: N; 
Reasons request cannot be denied[C]: J, L, B; 
Declining a request[D]: C, I, R, V, U, Z. 

19; 
Country: Dominican Republic; 
Year signed: 1989; 
All U.S. federal taxes covered: Y[E]; 
Ways information can be provided[A]: A, S, R; 
Specificity requirements[B]: N; 
Reasons request cannot be denied[C]: J, L, E; 
Declining a request[D]: V, U, Z. 

20; 
Country: Mexico; 
Year signed: 1989; 
All U.S. federal taxes covered: Y[E]; 
Ways information can be provided[A]: A, S, R; 
Specificity requirements[B]: N; 
Reasons request cannot be denied[C]: J, L; 
Declining a request[D]: C, I, R, V, U, Z. 

21; 
Country: Trinidad & Tobago; 
Year signed: 1989; 
All U.S. federal taxes covered: Y[E]; 
Ways information can be provided[A]: R; 
Specificity requirements[B]: N; 
Reasons request cannot be denied[C]: J, L, B, E; 
Declining a request[D]: C, I, R, V, U, Z. 

22; 
Country: Bermuda; 
Year signed: 1988; 
All U.S. federal taxes covered: Y[E]; 
Ways information can be provided[A]: R; 
Specificity requirements[B]: N; 
Reasons request cannot be denied[C]: J, L; 
Declining a request[D]: C, X, I, R, V, U, Z. 

23; 
Country: Dominica; 
Year signed: 1987; 
All U.S. federal taxes covered: Y[E]; 
Ways information can be provided[A]: R; 
Specificity requirements[B]: N; 
Reasons request cannot be denied[C]: J, L, B, E; 
Declining a request[D]: C, I, R, V, U, Z. 

24; 
Country: St. Lucia; 
Year signed: 1987; 
All U.S. federal taxes covered: Y[E]; 
Ways information can be provided[A]: A, S, R; 
Specificity requirements[B]: N; 
Reasons request cannot be denied[C]: J, L; 
Declining a request[D]: C, I, R, V, U, Z. 

25; 
Country: Grenada; 
Year signed: 1986; 
All U.S. federal taxes covered: Y[E]; 
Ways information can be provided[A]: A, S, R; 
Specificity requirements[B]: N; 
Reasons request cannot be denied[C]: J, L, B, E; 
Declining a request[D]: C, I, R, V, U, Z. 

26; 
Country: Jamaica; 
Year signed: 1986; 
All U.S. federal taxes covered: Y[E]; 
Ways information can be provided[A]: R; 
Specificity requirements[B]: N; 
Reasons request cannot be denied[C]: J, L, B; 
Declining a request[D]: C, I, R, V, U, Z. 

27; 
Country: Barbados; 
Year signed: 1984; 
All U.S. federal taxes covered: Y[E]; 
Ways information can be provided[A]: R; 
Specificity requirements[B]: N; 
Reasons request cannot be denied[C]: J, L, B; 
Declining a request[D]: C, I, R, V, U, Z. 

Source: GAO analysis of Thomson Reuters data. 

[A] "A" indicates the competent authorities shall automatically 
transmit information to each other; "S" indicates the competent 
authorities shall spontaneously transmit certain information; and "R" 
indicates the competent authorities shall provide information to each 
other upon request. Marshal Islands TIEA states that the "competent 
authorities of the Contracting States may provide for the automatic 
transmission of information." Peru TIEA states that "contracting 
states shall transmit to each other information which has come to 
their attention which is likely to be relevant to and contribute 
significantly to accomplishment of the purposes of the TIEA." Peru 
TIEA also does not use the word "spontaneous" but describes 
spontaneous exchanges. Bermuda TIEA does not specifically say 
"information will be exchanged upon request," but does say assistance 
will be provided where appropriate in matters relating to the 
prevention of tax fraud and evasion of taxes. Context implies 
providing information upon request. 

[B] "Y" signifies that the TIEA includes a list of nine items that the 
requesting party provides (see below); "N" signifies that the TIEA 
does not include this list; and "P" signifies the list of nine items 
is partially present. TIEAs marked "P^" include the provision 
requiring the identity of the taxpayer be included in the request. In 
the case of the British Virgin Islands, the TIEA also contains an 
extra provision requiring the name of the authority seeking 
information. The list of items that the requesting party provides is 
as follows: 

1. the identity of the taxpayer whose tax or criminal liability is at 
issue; 

2. the period of time with respect to which the information is 
requested; 

3. the nature of the information requested and the form in which the 
requesting party would prefer to receive it; 

4. the matter under the requesting party's tax law with respect to 
which the information is sought; 

5. the reasons for believing that the information requested is 
foreseeably relevant to tax administration and enforcement of the 
requesting party, with respect to the person identified in 
subparagraph (a) of this paragraph; 

6. grounds for believing that the information requested is present in 
the requested party or is in the possession or control of a person 
within the jurisdiction of the requested party; 

7. to the extent known, the name and address of any person believed to 
be in possession or control of the information requested; 

8. a statement that the requesting party would be able to obtain and 
provide the requested information if a similar request were made by 
the requested party; 

9. a statement that the requesting party has pursued all reasonable 
means available in its own territory to obtain the information, except 
where that would give rise to disproportionate difficulty. 

[C] There are several reasons common in TIEAs that are not sufficient 
for denying an information request. These are as follows: 

"J"--Information to be exchanged without regard to whether the person 
to whom the information relates is, or whether the information is held 
by, a resident of the party, or a requested party is not obliged to 
provide information that is neither held by its authorities nor in the 
possession or control of persons within its territorial jurisdiction, 
or both. (Bermuda TIEA requires when a requesting state asks for 
information (1) relating to a nonresident or (2) relating to a matter 
that is not criminal or tax fraud, the requesting state shall certify 
that the request is relevant and necessary for the determination of a 
tax liability. If information is requested on a nonresident in either 
jurisdiction, the requested state must be satisfied that the 
information is necessary for the proper administration and enforcement 
of fiscal law.) 

"T"--Information to be exchanged without regard to whether the 
requested party needs such information for its own tax purposes, or 
information to be exchanged without regard to whether the conduct 
being investigated would constitute a crime under the laws of the 
requested party, or both. 

"L"--Privileges under the law of the requesting party shall not apply 
to the execution of a request by the requested party. (Under Bahamas 
TIEA, information is not to be exchanged that constitutes or would 
reveal a privileged communication, but each contracting party has the 
exclusive right to determine what constitutes privilege under its own 
laws.) 

"B"--Each party shall ensure that it has the authority to obtain and 
provide information held by banks, other financial institutions, and 
any person, including nominees and trustees, acting in an agency or 
fiduciary capacity, or information regarding (beneficial) ownership, 
or both. (Costa Rica TIEA states that when Costa Rica is the requested 
state, it will provide bank information only with the authorization of 
the Judge of Administrative Trials, which is granted in matters 
related to the enforcement of laws relating to tax fraud as defined by 
Costa Rican law.) 

"E"--Allow officials of the requesting party to enter the territory of 
the requested party to interview individuals and examine records or 
attend a tax examination, or both. 

"D"--Request is not to be declined because the taxpayer disputes the 
tax liability. 

[D] A request can be denied for several reasons: 

"M"--Where the requesting party has not pursued all means available in 
its own territory to obtain the information, except where such 
recourse would give rise to disproportionate difficulty. 

"C"--Where the disclosure of the information requested would be 
contrary to the public policy of the requested party. 

"X"--Information is subject to legal privilege. 

"I"--Information contains trade, business, industrial, commercial, or 
professional secret or trade process. 

"R"--For the administration or enforcement of a provision of tax law 
of the requesting state that discriminates against nationals of the 
requested state. 

"V"--That would result in taking administrative measures at variance 
with the requested party's laws and administrative practices, provided 
there is compliance with the Exchange-of-Information article. 

"U"--The requested party shall not be required to obtain and provide 
information that the requesting party would be unable to obtain in 
similar circumstances under its own laws. 

"Z"--The statute of limitations applies to the requesting party. (Peru 
TIEA does not mention statute of limitations, but does say that the 
TIEA does not apply to the extent that an action or proceeding is 
barred by the requesting state's laws.) 

[E] TIEAs specify U.S. federal taxes by stating the agreement covers 
U.S. federal income taxes, federal taxes on self-employment income, 
federal estate and gift taxes, federal excise taxes, and transfers to 
avoid income tax. 

[End of table] 

Table 7: Description of Key Features Included in Bilateral U.S. MLATs 
(Chronological): 

1; 
Country: Bulgaria[C]; 
Year signed: 2007; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: Y; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: L; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D. 

2; 
Country: Malaysia; 
Year signed: 2006; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: Y; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D, F, H, 
two more. 

3; 
Country: Germany; 
Year signed: 2003; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: Y; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: L; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: C. 

4; 
Country: Japan; 
Year signed: 2003; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: L; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: B, C, D. 

5; 
Country: Liechtenstein; 
Year signed: 2002; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: Y; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: L; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D. 

6; 
Country: Taiwan[D]; 
Year signed: 2002; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: L; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, C, D. 

7; 
Country: Sweden; 
Year signed: 2001; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: L; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D, E. 

8; 
Country: India; 
Year signed: 2001; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: N; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D. 

9; 
Country: Ireland; 
Year signed: 2001; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: L; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D, F. 

10; 
Country: Belize; 
Year signed: 2000; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: Y; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: L; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D, G, J. 

11; 
Country: China[D]; 
Year signed: 2000; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: Y; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, F, G, H. 

12; 
Country: Cyprus; 
Year signed: 1999; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: L; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D, G, I. 

13; 
Country: South Africa; 
Year signed: 1999; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: N; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D. 

14; 
Country: Russia; 
Year signed: 1999; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: Y; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, C, D. 

15; 
Country: Romania; 
Year signed: 1999; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: Y; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: L; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D. 

16; 
Country: Greece; 
Year signed: 1999; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: L; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D. 

17; 
Country: France; 
Year signed: 1998; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: X; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: B, C. 

18; 
Country: Ukraine; 
Year signed: 1998; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: N; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D. 

19; 
Country: Egypt; 
Year signed: 1998; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: N; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, C, D. 

20; 
Country: Estonia; 
Year signed: 1998; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: N; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D. 

21; 
Country: Czech Republic; 
Year signed: 1998; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: L; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D. 

22; 
Country: Israel; 
Year signed: 1998; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: Y; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: N; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D. 

23; 
Country: Lithuania; 
Year signed: 1998; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: N; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D. 

24; 
Country: St. Vincent & the Grenadines; 
Year signed: 1998; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: Y; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: L; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D, G. 

25; 
Country: Brazil; 
Year signed: 1997; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: N; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, C, D. 

26; 
Country: Venezuela; 
Year signed: 1997; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: L; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D. 

27; 
Country: St. Kitts & Nevis; 
Year signed: 1997; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: Y; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: L; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D, G. 

28; 
Country: Latvia; 
Year signed: 1997; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: N; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D. 

29; 
Country: Australia; 
Year signed: 1997; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: X; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C. 

30; 
Country: Hong Kong; 
Year signed: 1997; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: Y; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: Y; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D, F, H. 

31; 
Country: Luxembourg; 
Year signed: 1997; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: Y; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: L; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, C, D, F. 

32; 
Country: Antigua & Barbuda; 
Year signed: 1996; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: Y; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: L; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D, G. 

33; 
Country: Dominica; 
Year signed: 1996; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: L; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D, G. 

34; 
Country: Grenada; 
Year signed: 1996; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: L; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D, G. 

35; 
Country: St. Lucia; 
Year signed: 1996; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: L; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D, G. 

36; 
Country: Trinidad & Tobago; 
Year signed: 1996; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: Y; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, C, D. 

37; 
Country: Poland; 
Year signed: 1996; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: N; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D. 

38; 
Country: Barbados; 
Year signed: 1996; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: L; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D, G. 

39; 
Country: Austria; 
Year signed: 1995; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: Y; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: L; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C. 

40; 
Country: Hungary; 
Year signed: 1994; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: N; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D. 

41; 
Country: Philippines; 
Year signed: 1994; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: N; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D. 

42; 
Country: Isle of Man; 
Year signed: 1994; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: X; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, F. 

43; 
Country: United Kingdom; 
Year signed: 1994; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: X; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, F. 

44; 
Country: South Korea; 
Year signed: 1993; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: Y; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, H. 

45; 
Country: Uruguay; 
Year signed: 1991; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: Y; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: L; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, F. 

46; 
Country: Panama; 
Year signed: 1991; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: Y; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: X; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: B, C, D, F, H, J. 

47; 
Country: Argentina; 
Year signed: 1990; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: N; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C. 

48; 
Country: Spain; 
Year signed: 1990; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: L; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, C. 

49; 
Country: Nigeria; 
Year signed: 1989; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: N; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D, G. 

50; 
Country: Jamaica; 
Year signed: 1989; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: Y; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D, G, J. 

51; 
Country: Belgium; 
Year signed: 1988; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: L; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, C, D. 

52; 
Country: Mexico; 
Year signed: 1987; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: X; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C. 

53; 
Country: Bahamas; 
Year signed: 1987; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: Y; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: Y; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D, F, H, 
J. 

54; 
Country: Anguilla; 
Year signed: 1986; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: Y; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: Y; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D, F, H, 
J. 

55; 
Country: British Virgin Islands; 
Year signed: 1986; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: Y; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: Y; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D, F, H, 
J. 

56; 
Country: Cayman Islands; 
Year signed: 1986; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: Y; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: Y; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D, F, H, 
J. 

57; 
Country: Montserrat; 
Year signed: 1986; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: Y; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: Y; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D, F, H, 
J. 

58; 
Country: Turks & Caicos Islands; 
Year signed: 1986; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: Y; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: Y; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D, F, H, 
J. 

59; 
Country: Thailand; 
Year signed: 1986; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: N; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C. 

60; 
Country: Canada; 
Year signed: 1985; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: N; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: D, contrary to 
the public interest. 

61; 
Country: Morocco; 
Year signed: 1983; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: X; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C. 

62; 
Country: Italy; 
Year signed: 1982; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: N; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C, D. 

63; 
Country: Netherlands; 
Year signed: 1981; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: Y; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: X; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: B, C, D, F. 

64; 
Country: Netherlands Antilles[E]; 
Year signed: 1981; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: Y; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: X; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: B, C, D, F. 

65; 
Country: Aruba; 
Year signed: 1983; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: Y; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: X; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: B, C, D, F. 

66; 
Country: Turkey[F]; 
Year signed: 1979; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: N; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: X; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B, C. 

67; 
Country: Switzerland; 
Year signed: 1973; 
Specifically mentions "tax" in text of treaty: Y; 
Dual criminality provision[A]: X; 
Circumstances under which requests can be denied[B]: A, B. 

Source: GAO analysis of Government Printing Office, Thomson Reuters, 
and Lexis data. 

[A] In terms of dual criminality, meaning that a person's actions are 
considered to be an offense in both the requested and requesting 
jurisdictions: 

"N"--MLAT contains a provision specifically stating that dual 
criminality is not a requirement for assistance: 

"X"--MLAT contains no discussion of dual criminality: 

"L"--MLAT contains a dual-criminality requirement in certain 
circumstances, such as requests dealing with searches and seizures and 
forfeitures: 

"Y"--MLAT contains a dual-criminality requirement for assistance: 

[B] Requests for assistance can be denied for several key reasons: 

"A"--the request relates to an offense under military law that would 
not be an offense under ordinary criminal law: 

"B"--the request relates to a political offense: 

"C"--the execution of the request would prejudice the security or 
other similar essential interests of the requested state: 

"D"--the request does not conform to the requirements of the treaty: 

"E"--the request relates to an offense for which the penalty in the 
requesting state is deprivation of liberty for a period of a year or 
less: 

"F"--the request relates to an offender who, if proceeded against 
under the law of the requested state for the offense for which 
assistance is requested, would be entitled to be discharged on the 
grounds of a previous acquittal or conviction: 

"G"--the execution of the request would violate the constitution of 
the requested state: 

"H"--there are substantial grounds leading the central authority of 
the requested state to believe that compliance would facilitate the 
prosecution or punishment of the person to whom the request refers on 
account of his race, religion, nationality, or political opinions: 

"I"--the execution of the request would violate the obligations of the 
requested state under any international multilateral treaty relating 
to human rights: 

"J"--the request does not show either that proceedings for criminal 
law enforcement purposes have been instituted in the requesting state 
or than (sic) there are reasonable grounds for believing that a 
criminal offense has been or is likely to be committed: 

[C] Bulgaria is considered to have a partial MLAT through the EU-MLAT. 

[D] Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement. 

[E] On October 10, 2010, the Netherlands Antilles dissolved and is now 
Curacao and St. Maarten. 

[F] Turkey's Extradition and Mutual Assistance Treaty contains a 
provision for mutual legal assistance. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Composition of Treaty-Partner Groupings: 

Partners with a Tax Information Exchange Agreement (TIEA): 
Aruba: 
Antigua & Barbuda:
Bahamas: 
Barbados: 
Bermuda: 
British Virgin Islands: 
Cayman Islands: 
Costa Rica: 
Curaçao[B]: 
Dominica: 
Dominican Republic:
Gibraltar: 
Grenada: 
Guernsey: 
Guyana: 
Honduras: 
Isle of Man: 
Jamaica: 
Jersey: 
Liechtenstein: 
Marshall Islands:
Mexico: 
Monaco: 
Peru: 
St. Lucia: 
St. Maarten[B]:
Trinidad & Tobago: 

Partners with a tax treaty or Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) 
and no TIEA: 
Australia: 
Argentina: 
Austria: 
Bangladesh: 
Belgium: 
Belize: 
Brazil: 
Bulgaria: 
Canada: 
China: 
Cyprus: 
Czech Republic:
Denmark: 
Egypt: 
Estonia: 
Finland: 
France: 
Germany: 
Greece: 
Hong Kong: 
Hungary: 
Iceland: 
India: 
Indonesia: 
Ireland: 
Israel: 
Italy: 
Japan: 
Kazakhstan: 
Latvia: 
Lithuania: 
Luxembourg: 
Malaysia: 
Malta: 
Morocco: 
Netherlands: 
New Zealand:
Nigeria: 
Norway: 
Pakistan:
Philippines: 
Poland: 
Portugal: 
Republic of Korea:
Romania: 
Russia: 
Slovak Republic:
Slovenia: 
South Africa: 
Spain: 
Sri Lanka: 
St. Kitts & Nevis:
St. Vincent & Grenadines:
Sweden: 
Switzerland: 
Taiwan: 
Thailand: 
Tunisia: 
Turkey: 
Ukraine: 
United Kingdom: 
Venezuela: 

Partners with OECD membership: 
Australia: 
Austria: 
Belgium: 
Canada: 
Czech Republic:
Denmark: 
Estonia: 
Finland: 
France: 
Germany: 
Greece: 
Hungary: 
Iceland: 
Ireland: 
Israel: 
Italy: 
Japan: 
Luxembourg: 
Mexico: 
Netherlands: 
New Zealand: 
Norway: 
Poland: 
Portugal: 
Republic of Korea:
Slovak Republic:
Slovenia: 
Spain: 
Sweden: 
Switzerland: 
Turkey: 
United Kingdom: 

Partners without OECD membership: 
Antigua & Barbuda:
Argentina: 
Aruba: 
Bahamas: 
Bangladesh: 
Barbados: 
Belize: 
Bermuda: 
Brazil: 
British Virgin Islands:
Bulgaria: 
Cayman Islands:
China: 
Costa Rica: 
Curaçao[B]: 
Cyprus: 
Dominica: 
Dominican Republic: 
Egypt: 
Gibraltar: 
Grenada: 
Guernsey: 
Guyana: 
Honduras: 
Hong Kong: 
India: 
Indonesia: 
Isle of Man: 
Jamaica: 
Jersey: 
Kazakhstan: 
Latvia: 
Liechtenstein: 
Lithuania: 
Malaysia: 
Malta: 
Marshall Islands:
Monaco: 
Morocco: 
Nigeria:
Pakistan: 
Peru: 
Philippines: 
Romania: 
Russia: 
South Africa: 
Sri Lanka: 
St. Kitts & Nevis:
St. Lucia St. Maarten[B]: 
St. Vincent & Grenadines:
Taiwan: 
Thailand: 
Trinidad & Tobago:
Tunisia: 
Ukraine: 
Venezuela: 

Partners that are among the United States’ top 25 trade partners: 
Australia: 
Belgium: 
Brazil: 
Canada: 
China: 
France: 
Germany: 
Hong Kong: 
India: 
Ireland: 
Israel: 
Italy: 
Japan: 
Malaysia: 
Mexico: 
Netherlands: 
Nigeria: 
Republic of Korea:
Russia: 
Spain: 
Switzerland: 
Taiwan: 
Thailand: 
United Kingdom:
Venezuela: 

Partners that are not among the United States’ top 25 trade partners: 
Antigua & Barbuda:
Argentina: 
Aruba: 
Austria: 
Bahamas: 
Bangladesh: 
Barbados: 
Belize: 
Bermuda: 
British Virgin Islands:
Bulgaria: 
Cayman Islands:
Costa Rica: 
Cyprus: 
Czech Republic:
Denmark: 
Dominica: 
Dominican Republic:
Egypt: 
Estonia: 
Finland: 
Gibraltar: 
Greece: 
Grenada: 
Guernsey: 
Guyana: 
Honduras: 
Hungary: 
Iceland: 
Indonesia: 
Isle of Man: 
Jamaica: 
Jersey:
Kazakhstan:
Latvia:
Liechtenstein:
Lithuania:
Luxembourg:
Malta:
Marshall Islands:
Monaco:
Morocco:
Netherlands:
Antilles[B]: 
New Zealand:
Norway:
Pakistan:
Peru:
Philippines:
Poland:
Portugal:
Romania:
Slovak Republic:
Slovenia:
South Africa:
Sri Lanka:
St. Kitts & Nevis:
St. Lucia:
St. Vincent & Grenadines:
Sweden:
Trinidad & Tobago:
Tunisia:
Turkey:
Ukraine: 

Partners that had substantially implemented the tax standard: 
Argentina: 
Australia: 
Barbados: 
Canada: 
China: 
Cyprus: 
Czech Republic:
Denmark: 
Finland: 
France: 
Germany: 
Greece: 
Hungary: 
Iceland: 
Ireland: 
Italy: 
Japan: 
Malta:
Mexico: 
Netherlands: 
New Zealand: 
Norway: 
Poland: 
Portugal: 
Republic of Korea:
Russia: 
Slovak Republic:
South Africa: 
Spain:
Sweden:
Turkey:
United Kingdom: 

Partners that had not substantially implemented the tax standard[A]: 
Antigua & Barbuda:
Aruba: 
Austria: 
Bahamas: 
Belgium: 
Belize: 
Bermuda: 
British Virgin Islands:
Cayman Islands:
Costa Rica: 
Dominica: 
Gibraltar: 
Grenada: 
Guernsey: 
Hong Kong: 
Isle of Man: 
Jersey: 
Liechtenstein:
Luxembourg: 
Malaysia: 
Marshall Islands:
Monaco: 
Netherlands:
Antilles[B]: 
Philippines: 
St. Lucia: 
St. Kitts & Nevis:
St. Vincent & Grenadines:
Switzerland: 

Partners that were not included in OECD’s 2006 review: 
Bangladesh:
Brazil:
Bulgaria:
Dominican:
Republic:
Egypt:
Estonia:
Guyana:
Honduras:
India:
Indonesia:
Israel:
Jamaica:
Kazakhstan:
Latvia:
Lithuania:
Morocco:
Nigeria:
Pakistan:
Peru:
Romania:
Slovenia:
Sri Lanka:
Taiwan:
Thailand:
Trinidad & Tobago:
Tunisia:
Ukraine:
Venezuela: 

Source: GAO analysis of data from Thompson Reuters, Government 
Printing Office (GPO), LexisNexis, U.S. Department of State, OECD, and 
the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 

Notes: Panama was not included in the treaty partner groupings. 

[A] Treaty partners that appeared on OECD's 2009 "Progress Report on 
the Jurisdictions Surveyed by the OECD Global Forum in Implementing 
the Internationally Agreed Tax Standard" as having agreed to but not 
yet substantially implemented the international tax standards were 
placed in this category. The remaining treaty partners in this 
category were listed in OECD's 2006 report Tax Co-operation: Towards a 
Level Playing Field as having fewer than 12 double taxation agreements 
and tax information exchange agreements in force. 

[B] The Netherlands Antilles dissolved in 2010. Curacao and St. 
Maarten were formerly part of the Netherlands Antilles. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: Comments from the Internal Revenue Service: 

Department Of The Treasury: 
Internal Revenue Service: 
Deputy Commissioner: 
Washington, D.C. 20224: 

August 18, 2011: 

Mr. Michael Brostek: 
Director, Tax Issues: 
Strategic Issues Team: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Brostek: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) draft report titled, "Tax Administration: IRS's 
Information Exchanges with Other Countries Could Be Improved through 
Better Performance Information" (GA0-11-730). Information Exchange is 
essential to combating tax evasion, and ensuring timely and effective 
exchanges is important to the Internal Revenue Service. 

The Internal Revenue Service and other tax authorities around the 
world have been working together to improve and enhance our 
information exchange programs. The recommendation made in the draft 
report concerning the potential use of performance information brings 
to light additional steps that should be taken. The Internal Revenue
Service intends to implement the recommendation as described in a 
separate enclosure. 

If you have any questions, please contact me. Alternatively, you or a 
member of your staff may contact Michael Danilack, Deputy 
Commissioner, International (LB&I) at (202) 435-5000. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Steven T. Miller: 
Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement: 

Enclosure: 

[End of letter] 

Enclosure: 

Recommendation: 

To identify opportunities to improve the administrative processes and 
procedures that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses to exchange 
information between the U.S. and its treaty partners, GAO recommends 
that the Commissioner of the IRS determine the key types of 
information that exchange program managers could use to ensure the 
program is working as well as possible. The Commissioner should 
specifically require the collection of (1) consistent and accurate 
data on specific tax information exchange cases, such as the extent to 
which requests for information are satisfied and the type of 
information requested, and (2) feedback from information exchange 
program users on how well the program is working and how it might be 
improved. 

IRS Response: 

The IRS collects performance information and feedback regarding the 
Exchange of Information program and uses this information to make 
changes and/or improvements as necessary. We agree, however, that 
opportunities exist to improve the exchange of information between the 
United States and our treaty/Tax Information Exchange Agreements 
partners by utilizing more consistent and systemic ways to capture 
performance data and user feedback. 

We concur with the recommendation set forth in the report and are 
taking steps to implement the collection of relevant performance data 
to improve our Information Exchange program. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Michael Brostek, (202) 512-9110 or brostekm@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, David Lewis, Assistant 
Director; LaKeshia Allen, analyst-in-charge; Gezu Bekele; Nicole Dery; 
Anna Draganova; Michele Fejfar; Robert Gebhart; Emily Gruenwald; Donna 
Miller; John Mingus; Ellen Rominger; Andrew Stephens; Jessica Thomsen; 
and Jeff Tessin made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Throughout this report, the term "tax treaties" is used to refer 
to income tax treaties. The United States also has estate tax treaties 
with several countries, but they are not the subject of this report. 
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Department of the Treasury 
officials told us that information exchange under these treaties is 
rare. 

[2] Joint Committee on Taxation, "Disclosure Report for Public 
Inspection Pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 6103(p)(3)(C)," 
JCX-26-11 (Washington, D.C.: May 5, 2011). 

[3] The instruments governing exchanges with China and Taiwan are 
Mutual Legal Assistance Agreements (MLAA) rather than treaties, but 
are similar in scope and legal effect. For the purposes of this 
report, MLATs refer to both MLATs and MLAAs. 

[4] Multilateral agreements (agreements between the United States and 
multiple parties) may also authorize exchange of information for tax 
purposes. The United States has ratified several multilateral treaties 
including but not limited to the Hague Convention on the Taking of 
Evidence, the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax 
Matters, and the Inter-American Convention on Mutual Assistance in 
Criminal Matters. 

[5] Under certain circumstances, information may be exchanged outside 
of the bounds of formal agreement or when there is no obligation to 
provide the information. For example, the Department of the Treasury's 
Financial Crimes and Enforcement Network (FinCEN) may coordinate with 
financial intelligence agencies in other countries to facilitate 
exchange of information for certain financial crimes. 

[6] For income taxes, double taxation occurs when two or more 
countries levy taxes on the same income. 

[7] The U.S. treaty with the former Union of Soviet Socialist 
Republics (USSR) does not contain exchange of information provisions. 
Currently, this treaty covers tax matters between the United States 
and Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, 
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Similarly, the U.S. treaty 
with Bermuda does not contain an information exchange article. The 
agreement does, however, contain an article for mutual assistance in 
tax matters that permits the exchange of information for criminal tax 
matters. The U.S. also has a TIEA with Bermuda. 

[8] Article 26 (Exchange of Information and Administrative Assistance) 
of the 2006 U.S. Model Tax Convention can be found in appendix II. 

[9] For purposes of this report, we refer to countries and other 
foreign jurisdictions with which the United States has any type of 
agreement to exchange information as "treaty partners." 

[10] Information exchanged under tax treaties and TIEAs may be used in 
either criminal or civil tax matters. 

[11] 26 U.S.C. § 6105. See also, Tax Analysts v. Internal Revenue 
Service, 217 F. Supp. 2d 23, 28 (D.D.C. 2002) (citing Tax Analysts v. 
Internal Revenue Service, 152 F. Supp. 2d 1, 11 [D.D.C. 2001]). 

[12] The term taxpayer refers to any person or ascertainable group of 
persons under examination or investigation. This applies to both 
incoming and outgoing requests. How persons or groups of persons are 
identified in information exchange requests is discussed in more 
detail in the section of this report titled, "Tax Treaties and TIEAs 
Have Common Principles, but Many Also Have Unique Provisions." 

[13] In most cases, the law gives IRS 3 years from the date a taxpayer 
files a tax return to complete an examination and make an assessment 
of any additional tax. This statute of limitations for assessments is 
in effect for all examinations with exceptions allowing longer periods 
for certain taxpayer actions or omissions such as fraud or substantial 
understatement of gross income (in excess of 25 percent of the amount 
of gross income stated on the return). In 2010, the statute of 
limitations was extended to 6 years for certain assessments with 
respect to assets held outside the United States. 26 U.S.C. § 6501. 

[14] The procedures to be following by IRS personnel are set forth in 
a section of the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM). Treasury Department 
officials noted, however, that that section has not been updated since 
2002 and does not reflect some recent procedural changes, including 
changes to the specificity of the information identifying the taxpayer 
under examination. 

[15] Partial MLATs, which are bilateral agreements implementing the 
terms of the U.S.-European Union MLAT, provide for the exchange of 
certain bank information and mutual assistance to administrative 
authorities. 

[16] Agreements do not enter into force until they are properly 
ratified, which may require additional steps by the treaty partners 
beyond signature, such as obtaining the advice and consent of the 
Senate in the case of treaties for the United States. 

[17] In addition to the MLAT, the United States has also concluded 
TIEAs with Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, and St. Lucia. IRS 
lists the St. Lucia TIEA as "nominally in force" because implementing 
legislation has not been enacted by the St. Lucia government. 

[18] As previously discussed, the number of agreements and the number 
of partners does not match. 

[19] Section 7602 of the Internal Revenue Code authorizes IRS to 
examine any books, papers, records, or other data that may be relevant 
or material to an audit. 

[20] United States v. Arthur Young & Co., 465 U.S. 805, 814 (1984) 
(applying the "may be relevant" standard of section 7602 of the 
Internal Revenue Code in a domestic context). 

[21] For the purposes of this report, we refer to all amendments to 
existing agreements as protocols. 

[22] Cyprus, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Morocco, Norway, the 
Philippines, Poland, Romania, and South Korea, (the U.S.-Norway treaty 
only says that exchange of information shall be on a routine basis or 
upon request with reference to particular cases). 

[23] Specific mention of automatic or spontaneous information 
exchanges does not appear in TIEAs signed after 1991. 

[24] According to the IRS, the United States has a policy of not 
carrying out administrative measures at variance with the laws and 
administrative practice of either contracting state, not supplying 
information that contracting states would not be able to obtain under 
their own laws, and not providing information that would disclose 
trade, business, industrial, commercial, or professional secret or 
trade process, or information that would be contrary to the public 
policy of either contracting state. 

[25] The 67 tax treaties referred to here include the 58 treaties with 
information exchange provisions discussed earlier in this section and 
the treaty with the former Soviet Union, which now covers nine 
countries and does not include an information exchange provision. 

[26] A treaty partner may still provide information in the absence of 
such a provision even if the information is not needed for its own 
purposes. 

[27] Requests counted in this analysis, and in the remainder of this 
section, are incoming or outgoing requests made under tax treaty or 
TIEA authority that were initiated and closed between January 1, 2006, 
and December 31, 2010. We did not count requests that were initiated 
prior to 2006 but closed in 2006 or later. "Closed" means that either 
the requested information was received by EOI/OO and sent to the 
requestor (either domestic or foreign), or EOI/OO determined that the 
information could not be obtained. We also did not count requests 
initiated in the 2006-2010 period but still open at the end of 2010. 

[28] According to EOI/OO officials, data on the type of information 
was captured in an earlier information system, but not captured in the 
system that came on-line in 2009. Although IRS recorded more than more 
type of information requested for a particular exchange, for this 
analysis, we used only data on the information type that IRS recorded 
first for each exchange. 

[29] Information automatically provided by the United States is from 
IRS Form 1042-S, Annual Withholding Tax Return for U.S. Source Income 
of Foreign Persons. 

[30] The countries in the groupings listed here below are found in 
appendix VI. Automatic exchange partners are not listed because that 
information is confidential. 

[31] We identified 32 U.S. treaty partners that had substantially 
implemented the OECD international tax standards, as of 2006. An 
additional 29 jurisdictions had committed to but had not substantially 
implemented the standards, as of 2006. Twenty-eight U.S. treaty 
partners were not part of the OECD survey. 

[32] GAO, Internal Control: Standards for Internal Control in the 
Federal Government, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] (Washington, D.C.: 
November 1999). 

[33] Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993). GPRA was recently 
amended by the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-352, 
124 Stat. 3866 (2011). 

[34] Some IRS officials were identified by randomly selecting exchange 
cases; the remaining IRS and DOJ officials were identified by their 
respective agencies. The information obtained through these interviews 
is only applicable to the experiences of the officials interviewed and 
cannot be generalized to the entire population of IRS and DOJ 
officials making requests through the IRS specific exchange of 
information program. 

[35] According to Department of the Treasury officials, the 2006 model 
was the most recently published model income tax convention or treaty 
in existence for the United States when we did our review. 

[36] Specifically, the models assumed that the closing times were 
gamma-distributed, consistent with nonparametric estimates of the 
density and survival functions showing that the distribution was 
single-peaked and positively skewed. 

[37] One model assumed that the expected closing time was equal to a 
linear combination of variables indicating membership in the group of 
interest, such as incoming versus outgoing, and the type of 
information requested. Another model estimated the interactive linear 
combination of these variables to examine how the difference in 
closing time between groups varied by type of information. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: