Overall Belgium received a score of 59, putting it 15th among all of the places studied in the report.
Belgium Score Breakdown
Based on the information provided, the report assesses the secrecy indicators for Belgium and determines whether each indicator was failed or passed.
1. Banking secrecy: Failed
Belgium does not adequately curtail banking secrecy, indicating a lack of transparency in this area. The domestic provisions governing bank secrecy prevent the tax administration from investigating accounts of non-residents at the request of foreign administrations, only allowing the release of client information in cases of serious tax fraud.
2. Trust and Foundations Register: Failed
Belgium does not put details of trusts on public record, indicating a lack of transparency in the registration of trusts and foundations.
3. Recorded Company Ownership: Failed
Belgium does not maintain company ownership details in official records, suggesting a lack of transparency in this aspect.
4. Public Company Ownership: Failed
Belgium does not require that ownership of companies is put on public record, indicating a lack of transparency in this area.
5. Public Company Accounts: Passed
Belgium requires that company accounts be available on public record, demonstrating a level of transparency in this aspect.
6. Country-by-Country Reporting: Failed
Belgium does not require country-by-country financial reporting by companies, indicating a lack of transparency in this reporting requirement.
7. Fit for Information Exchange: Failed
Belgium does not require resident paying agents to report to the domestic tax authorities about payments to non-residents, suggesting a lack of transparency in this information exchange.
8. Efficiency of Tax Administration: Passed (Partly)
Belgium partly uses appropriate tools for effectively analyzing tax-related information, indicating some level of transparency in tax administration.
9. Avoids Promoting Tax Evasion: Passed (Partly)
Belgium partly avoids promoting tax evasion via a tax credit system, indicating some level of transparency in this regard.
10. Harmful Legal Vehicles: Passed (Partly)
Belgium partly allows harmful legal vehicles, suggesting some level of transparency in regulating these vehicles.
11. Anti-Money Laundering: Passed (Partly)
Belgium partly complies with international anti-money laundering standards, indicating some effort towards improving transparency in this area.
12. Automatic Information Exchange: Passed
Belgium participates fully in automatic information exchange, demonstrating transparency in this aspect.
13. Bilateral Treaties: Failed
Belgium had few tax information sharing agreements complying with basic OECD requirements as of June 30, 2010, indicating a lack of transparency in this area.
14. International Transparency Commitments: Passed (Partly)
Belgium has partly ratified relevant international treaties relating to financial transparency, suggesting some effort towards transparency.
15. International Judicial Cooperation: Passed (Partly)
Belgium partly cooperates with other states on money laundering and other criminal issues, indicating some level of transparency in international cooperation.
Overall, Belgium’s secrecy indicators reveal a mixed performance on financial transparency. While it demonstrates some level of transparency in certain areas, such as public company accounts and participation in automatic information exchange, there are significant shortcomings in aspects like banking secrecy, trust and foundations registration, recorded company ownership, and bilateral treaties on information exchange.
About Taxation and Finance Transparency
Financial transparency refers to the clarity and openness with which financial institutions, including countries, reveal information related to their financial activities. It encompasses aspects such as public access to information about banking secrecy, company ownership, public company accounts, and other related financial dealings. The significance of financial transparency lies in its potential to curb illicit financial activities, including tax evasion, money laundering, and other corrupt practices. Without transparency, these opaque financial environments can inadvertently or intentionally support the concealment of funds, leading to lost revenues for governments and skewing economic fairness. The assessment of financial transparency is typically based on a set of Key Financial Secrecy Indicators. These indicators serve as benchmarks to evaluate how well a jurisdiction adheres to international transparency standards, shedding light on areas of strength and pointing out facets that need improvement.