Ireland: Guidance published on secondary reporting mechanism for CbC reporting

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Ireland: Guidance published on secondary reporting mechanism for CbC reporting

duffy.jpg
hogan.jpg

Joe Duffy

Shane Hogan

During June 2016, the Irish Revenue Commissioners (Irish Revenue) published guidance on the secondary reporting mechanism included in Ireland's legislation implementing the OECD's recommendations on country-by-country (CbC) reporting.

While the legislation primarily provides for the filing of CbC reports by Irish headquartered multinationals, in certain circumstances multinationals operating in Ireland that are headquartered elsewhere will also be required to make CbC filings in Ireland.

The secondary reporting mechanism is particularly relevant for multinational groups headquartered in jurisdictions that have not implemented CbC reporting for financial years beginning on or after January 1 2016 (e.g. the US) and have Irish operations.

Ireland's secondary reporting mechanism

Under the Taxes (Country-by Country Reporting) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations), multinationals operating in Ireland that are headquartered elsewhere are obliged to file an 'equivalent CbC report' if:

  • the multinational group is not required to file a CbC report in its headquarter jurisdiction and the group has not appointed a surrogate parent to file a CbC report elsewhere;

  • the CbC report that has been filed in the headquarter jurisdiction (or, as the case may be, the surrogate parent jurisdiction) will not be provided to Irish Revenue as no exchange of information arrangements have been agreed by Ireland with that jurisdiction; or

  • there is systemic failure in the headquarter jurisdiction (or, as the case may be, the surrogate parent jurisdiction) in respect of its obligations under exchange of information arrangements agreed with Ireland.

As noted in guidance issued by the Irish Revenue, Ireland's secondary reporting mechanism differs from the recommendations made by the OECD under Action 13 of the BEPS project.

The report issued under Action 13 anticipated that full CbC reports would be filed under the secondary reporting mechanism, whereas the Irish rules require an 'equivalent CbC report'.

Irish Revenue has explained that the reason for the difference in approach is that an entity in a multinational group that is neither the headquarter company nor a surrogate parent "may be limited in its capacity to provide a complete CbC Report with information for the full MNE Group".

Equivalent CbC report

An equivalent CbC report must include the same information as should be included in a CbC report but only to the extent that:

  • The information is within the custody or possession of the Irish entity; or

  • The Irish entity has the power to obtain that information.

In the guidance, Irish Revenue confirms that that equivalent CbC reports must "include inter alia information relating to the Irish tax resident constituent entity and its subsidiaries". Outside of that, Irish Revenue considers that the Irish entity "is best placed to determine what information it can provide" in the equivalent CbC report. Irish Revenue expects that those filing equivalent CbC reports will take a "reasonable, practical and consistent approach" to their obligations under the Regulations noting that the onus is on the taxpayer to ensure that the equivalent CbC report is complete and accurate.

The guidance also confirms that the penalty for failure to file an equivalent CbC report is €19,045 plus a daily fine for each day the failure continues (almost €1 million annually). The penalty for filing an incomplete or inaccurate equivalent CbC report is €19,045.

Exchange of equivalent CbC reports

Interestingly, the guidance confirms that as the requirement to file an equivalent CbC report is a local filing requirement only, Irish Revenue is not required to exchange those reports with other tax authorities.

Timing

The Regulations will apply for financial years beginning on or after January 1 2016. An equivalent CbC report must be filed within 12 months of the end of the financial year to which it relates (i.e. equivalent CbC reports in respect of financial years commencing on January 1 2016 must be filed by December 31 2017).

Joe Duffy (joseph.duffy@matheson.com) and Shane Hogan (shane.hogan@matheson.com)

Matheson

Tel: +353 1 232 2688 and +353 1 232 2453

Website: www.matheson.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

SF: Germany has forgotten to think about digital reporting requirements, a WTS partner claimed at ITR’s Indirect Tax Forum 2025
E-invoicing is currently characterised by dynamism, with fragmentation acting as a key catalyst for increasing interoperability, says Aida Cavalera of the International Observatory on eInvoicing
Pillar two and the US tax system ‘could work in harmony’, Scott Levine tells ITR in an exclusive interview to mark his arrival at Baker McKenzie
Peter White, who has a tax debt of A$2 million, has been banned for five years from seeking registration with Australia’s Tax Practitioners Board (TPB)
Wopke Hoekstra’s comments followed US measures aimed against ‘unfair foreign taxes’; in other news, Grant Thornton and Holland & Knight made key tax partner hires
An Administrative Review Tribunal ruling last month in Australia v Alcoa represents a 'concerning trend' for the tax authority, one expert tells ITR
A recent decision underlines that Indian courts are more willing to look beyond just legal compliance and examine whether foreign investment structures have real business substance
Following his Liberal Party’s election victory, one source expects Mark Carney to follow the international consensus on pillar two, as experts assess the new administration
A German economics professor was reportedly ‘irritated’ by how the Finnish ministry of finance used his data
Countries that care about the fair taxation of tech multinationals and equitable global distribution of wealth should back the UN’s tax framework, writes economist Abdelmalek Riad
Gift this article