39–119 

113TH CONGRESS EXEC. REPT. " ! SENATE 2d Session 113–8 

PROTOCOL AMENDNG MULTILATERAL CONVENTION ON 

MUTUAL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANCE IN TAX MATTERS 

APRIL 29, 2014.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. MENENDEZ, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany Treaty Doc. 112–5] 

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to which was referred the 

Protocol Amending the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters, done at Paris on May 27, 2010 (the ‘‘Protocol’’) (Treaty Doc. 112–5), having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with one declaration, as indicated in the resolution 

of advice and consent, and recommends that the Senate give its advice and consent to ratification thereof, as set forth in this report 

and the accompanying resolution of advice and consent. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Purpose ........................................................................................................... 1 

II. Background .................................................................................................... 2 

III. Major Provisions ............................................................................................ 2 

IV. Entry Into Force ............................................................................................ 3 

V. Implementing Legislation ............................................................................. 3 

VI. Committee Action .......................................................................................... 3 

VII. Committee Comments ................................................................................... 3 

VIII. Text of Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification .......................... 4 

IX. Annex 1.—Technical Explanation ................................................................ 5 

I. PURPOSE

The purpose of the Protocol is to bring the Convention on Mutual 

Administrative Assistance on Tax Matters into conformity with 

current international standards regarding the exchange of information. The internationally agreed standard, which was developed by 

the Organization for Economic Cooperation Development (‘‘OECD’’) 

and non-OECD countries working together in the OECD’s Global 

Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information, is generally 

consistent with the current U.S. Model Income Tax Convention and 

the 2008 OECD Model Tax Convention. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

II. BACKGROUND

The existing multilateral convention entered into force for the 

United States on January 4, 1995. The Protocol was negotiated to 

bring the existing convention into conformity with current OECD 

standards on transparency and effective exchange of information, 

which is generally consistent with the U.S. Model Income Tax Convention. The Protocol was negotiated to bring the existing convention into conformity with current international standards and 

thereby promote increased cooperation in tax administration and 

enforcement among parties to the agreement. 

III. MAJOR PROVISIONS

A detailed article-by-article analysis of the Convention may be 

found in the Technical Explanation Published by the Department 

of the Treasury on February 26, 2014, which is included in Annex 

1 of this report. The staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation prepared an analysis of the Protocol, JCX-9-14 (February 26, 2014), 

which was of great assistance to the committee in reviewing the 

Protocol. A summary of the key provisions of the Protocol is set 

forth below. 

The Protocol is intended to bring the existing Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters into conformity with 

current international standards regarding the exchange of information. Through amendments to Article 4 of the Convention, the Protocol requires treaty countries to exchange any information that is 

‘‘foreseeably relevant’’ to the administration or enforcement of the 

domestic tax laws of the requesting treaty country, similar to the 

standard found in the OECD Model and U.S. Model treaties. The 

scope of information exchange is broadened to permit use of exchanged information for both criminal and civil proceedings, removing a previous requirement that mandated separate authorization 

for the disclosure of exchanged information in a criminal proceeding. 

Amendments to Article 18 of the existing Convention allow for 

requests to be made for the purpose of ascertaining the identity of 

persons where there is a reasonable basis to believe that taxes 

have been avoided (‘‘John Doe’’ summonses under U.S. law). Revisions to Article 21 of the existing Convention clarify the scope of 

limitations on obligations imposed by the Convention. In addition, 

two new paragraphs are added to: (1) require a requested country 

to use its information gathering powers regardless of whether it 

has need for such information under its domestic law; and (2) prohibit a requested State from declining requests because information 

is held by a bank, other financial institution, nominee, or persons 

acting in an agency or fiduciary capacity, or because the information relates to ownership interests in a person. Therefore, bank secrecy laws are not a basis for rejecting information requests. 

The Protocol strengthens the confidentiality requirements of Article 22 of the Convention and brings them into conformity with the 

current OECD and U.S. Model treaties. The proposed Protocol also 

amends the Convention to permit States that are neither members 

of the Council of Europe nor of the OECD to accede to the convention. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

IV. ENTRY INTO FORCE

The proposed Protocol entered into force on January 6, 2011, for 

the five countries that signed and ratified it prior to that date. For 

the United States, the proposed Protocol will enter into force on the 

first day of the month following the expiration of a three month period after the date of deposit of the instrument of ratification. 

V. IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION

As is the case generally with income tax treaties, the Protocol is 

self-executing and does not require implementing legislation for the 

United States. 

VI. COMMITTEE ACTION

The committee held a public hearing on the Convention on February 26, 2014. Testimony was received from Robert Stack, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary (International Tax Affairs) at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Thomas Barthold, Chief of Staff of the Joint 

Committee on Taxation, William Reinsch, President of the National 

Foreign Trade Council, Paul Nolan, Vice President, Tax for McCormick & Company, Inc., and Nancy McLernon, President & CEO of 

the Organization for International Investment. A transcript of the 

hearing is included in Annex 2 of Executive Report 113–??. 

On April 1, 2014, the committee considered the Protocol and ordered it favorably reported by voice vote, with a quorum present 

and without objection. 

VII. COMMITTEE COMMENTS

The Committee on Foreign Relations believes that the Protocol 

will stimulate trade and investment, strengthen provisions regarding the exchange of tax information, and promote closer co-operation between the United States and parties to the Protocol. The 

committee therefore urges the Senate to act promptly to give advice 

and consent to ratification of the Protocol, as set forth in this report and the accompanying resolution of advice and consent. 

A. EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION

The proposed Protocol would replace the existing Convention’s 

tax information exchange provisions with updated rules that are 

consistent with current U.S. tax treaty practice. The Protocol would 

allow the tax authorities of each country to exchange information 

relevant to carrying out the provisions of the Convention or the domestic tax laws of either country, including information that would 

otherwise be protected by the bank secrecy laws of either country. 

It would also enable the United States to obtain information (including from financial institutions) from a Party whether or not the 

Party needs the information for its own tax purposes. Article VI of 

the proposed Protocol strengthens the confidentiality requirements 

of Article 22 of the Convention and brings them into conformity 

with the current OECD and U.S. Model treaties. 

B. DECLARATION ON THE SELF-EXECUTING NATURE OF THE PROTOCOL

The committee has included one declaration in the recommended 

resolution of advice and consent. The declaration states that the 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

Protocol is self-executing, as is the case generally with income tax 

treaties. Prior to the 110th Congress, the committee generally included such statements in the committee’s report, but in light of 

the Supreme Court decision in Medellin v. Texas, 128 S. Ct. 1346 

(2008), the committee determined that a clear statement in the 

Resolution is warranted. A further discussion of the committee’s 

views on this matter can be found in Section VIII of Executive Report 110–12. 

VIII. TEXT OF RESOLUTION OF ADVICE AND CONSENT TO

RATIFICATION

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein), 

SECTION 1. SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT SUBJECT TO A DECLARATION 

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the Protocol Amending the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters, done at Paris May 27, 2010 (the ‘‘Protocol’’) 

(Treaty Doc. 112–5), subject to the declaration of section 2. 

SECTION 2. DECLARATION 

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is subject 

to the following declaration: 

The Convention is self-executing. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(5) 

IX. ANNEX 1.—TECHNICAL EXPLANATION

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY TECHNICAL EXPLANATION OF THE

PROTOCOL AMENDING THE CONVENTION ON MUTUAL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANCE IN TAX MATTERS

This is a Technical Explanation of the Protocol signed on May 27, 

2010 (the ‘‘Protocol’’) to the Convention on Mutual Administrative 

Assistance in Tax Matters (the ‘‘existing Convention’’), which was 

signed by the United States in 1989 and ratified in 1991. The Explanatory Report accompanying the existing Convention was drafted by the Council of Europe and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (the ‘‘OECD’’). At the time of signature 

of the Protocol, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, 

Iceland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, the 

United Kingdom, and Ukraine, along with the United States, were 

parties to the existing Convention. Canada, Germany, and Spain 

had signed the existing Convention but had not ratified it. Drafting 

of the Protocol was carried out by the Coordinating Body of the 

Convention, consisting of Parties to the Convention, in joint session 

with an Ad Hoc Committee for Revision of the Convention open to 

the member states of the Council of Europe and of the OECD. The 

United States was actively involved in the process of drafting the 

Protocol and its accompanying Explanatory Report. 

This Technical Explanation is the United States Treasury Department’s official guide to the Protocol. It reflects the United 

States’ understanding of the meaning and application of particular 

provisions of the Protocol. The United States accepts the Protocol’s 

accompanying Explanatory Report. 

Neither the Protocol nor the existing Convention affects substantive rules of taxation. They are solely concerned with mutual 

assistance in the administration of the tax laws of signatory States. 

The Protocol is currently in force for the countries that have signed 

and ratified it. As of January 16, 2014, a total of sixty-three countries, including the United States, have signed the Protocol. The 

process of ratification has been completed in thirty-four countries. 

The amendments contained in the Protocol bring the existing 

Convention into closer conformity with current internationally 

agreed standards, which are also reflected in the OECD’s Model 

Tax Convention on Income and Capital (the ‘‘OECD Model’’) and 

the 2006 U.S. Model Income Tax Convention (the ‘‘U.S. Model’’). 

The amendments also open the existing Convention to countries 

which are not members of the OECD or of the Council of Europe 

and specify the level of detail to be provided in a request for information. Finally, two procedural issues are addressed in the Protocol: the entry into force and date of effect of the amendments; 

and the relationship between the Protocol and the existing Convention. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

ARTICLE I

Article I amends the Preamble of the existing Convention. Paragraph 1 deletes the reference in the Preamble of the existing Convention providing that States should not carry out measures or 

supply information except in conformity with their domestic law 

and practice. Paragraph 2 adds a recital to the Preamble of the existing Convention noting that a new cooperative international information exchange environment has emerged, and that in this 

context it is desirable for a multilateral instrument for information 

exchange to be made available to the widest number of States to 

obtain the benefits of this new environment. 

ARTICLE II

Article II amends Article 4 (General provisions) of the existing 

Convention. New paragraph 1 of Article 4 requires the Parties to 

exchange any information that is foreseeably relevant for the administration or enforcement of their domestic laws concerning the 

taxes covered by the existing Convention. Article II deletes paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the existing Convention, which required 

prior authorization by a jurisdiction supplying information in order 

for the information being supplied to be used as evidence before a 

criminal court. These revisions bring the existing Convention into 

closer conformity with the U.S. and OECD Models. 

ARTICLE III

Article III amends Article 18 (Information to be provided by the 

applicant state) of the existing Convention. The existing Convention specifies the details that the applicant State must provide to 

the requested State when making a request for information. In 

some situations, the name of the person under examination is not 

known to the applicant State, but other information sufficiently 

identifies the person. Paragraph 1 of Article III amends paragraph 

1.b of Article 18 to provide that a requesting State may provide the 

name, address or any other identifying particulars of the person in 

respect of whom the request is made. Paragraph 2 of Article III is 

a conforming change to the Protocol to address deletions to the existing Convention made by Article IV of the Protocol (described 

below). 

8The Explanatory Report accompanying the Protocol explains 

that the existing Convention was amended in this regard to clarify 

that the more details the applicant State can provide, the better 

the information it receives is likely to be. Paragraph 1.b of Article 

18 of the existing Convention as modified by the Protocol asks the 

applicant State to provide the requested State with all available information which can assist in identifying the person, but the details provided need not necessarily include a name and address and 

the details may identify an ascertainable group or category of persons. As noted in the Explanatory Report accompanying the Protocol, however, this provision does not mean that Parties can engage in fishing expeditions. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

ARTICLE IV

Article IV deletes Article 19 (Possibility of declining a request) of 

the existing Convention, the body of which appears in revised but 

substantially similar form at subparagraph 2(g) of Article 21 (Protection of persons and limits to the obligation to provide assistance) 

of the existing Convention as amended by Article V of the Protocol 

(described below). 

ARTICLE V

Article V deletes and replaces Article 21 (Protection of persons 

and limits to the obligation to provide assistance) of the existing 

Convention. Article 21 relates to the protection of the rights or 

safeguards of persons and the limits of a State’s obligation to provide assistance to another State. The changes bring Article 21 of 

the existing Convention into closer conformity with the U.S. and 

OECD Models. 

Paragraph 1 of Article 21 

New paragraph 1 of Article 21 is a restatement of paragraph 1 

of Article 21 of the existing Convention. This paragraph provides 

that nothing in the Convention as amended by the Protocol shall 

affect the rights and safeguards secured to persons by the laws or 

administrative practice of the requested State. 

Subparagraph 2(a) of Article 21 

New subparagraph 2(a) of Article 21 restates subparagraph 2(a) 

of Article 21 of the existing Convention, which provides that, except 

in the case of Article 14 (Time limits), the provisions of the Convention as amended by the Protocol shall not be construed so as to impose on the requested State the obligation to carry out measures 

at variance with its own laws or administrative practices (or the 

laws or administrative practices of the applicant State). This rule 

is equivalent to subparagraph 3(a) of Article 26 (Exchange of Information and Administrative Assistance) of the U.S. Model. 

Subparagraph 2(b) of Article 21 

Subparagraph 2(b) of Article 21 of the existing Convention refers 

to cases where a State considers that certain measures would be 

contrary to public policy (ordre public) or to its essential interests. 

New subparagraph 2(b) limits the exceptions to carrying out measures that would be contrary to public policy and removes the reference to ‘‘its essential interests.’’ 

Subparagraph 2(c) of Article 21 

New subparagraph 2(c) of Article 21 restates subparagraph 2(c) 

of Article 21 of the existing Convention. New subparagraph 2(c) 

provides that, except in the case of Article 14 (Time limits), the 

provisions of the Convention as amended by the Protocol shall not 

be construed so as to impose on the requested State the obligation 

to supply information which is not obtainable under its own laws 

or its administrative practices (or under the laws of the applicant 

State or its administrative practices). This rule is equivalent to 

subparagraph 3(b) of Article 26 of the U.S. Model. The Explanatory 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

Report accompanying the Protocol explains that the reciprocity provided for in subparagraphs 2(a) and 2(c) establishes a kind of minimum position whereby the requested State is not obliged to do 

more in providing assistance than the applicant State can do under 

its domestic law. Moreover, the requested State need supply no 

more information than is the normal practice for that State. 

Subparagraph 2(d) of Article 21 

New subparagraph 2(d) of Article 21 largely restates subparagraph 2(d) of Article 21 of the existing Convention. New subparagraph 2(d) provides that the provisions of the Convention as 

amended by the Protocol shall not be construed so as to impose on 

the requested State the obligation to supply information which 

would disclose any trade, business, industrial, commercial or professional secret or trade process, or information the disclosure of 

which would be contrary to public policy (ordre public). The prior 

reference to ‘‘its essential interests’’ is omitted from new subparagraph 2(d). This rule is equivalent to subparagraph 3(c) of Article 

26 of the U.S. Model. 

Subparagraph 2(e) of Article 21 

New subparagraph 2(e) of Article 21 restates subparagraph 2(e) 

of Article 21 of the existing Convention. New subparagraph 2(e) 

provides that except in the case of Article 14 (Time limits), the provisions of the Convention as amended by the Protocol shall not be 

construed so as to impose on the requested State the obligation to 

provide administrative assistance if and insofar as it considers the 

taxation in the applicant State to be contrary to generally accepted 

taxation principles, the provisions of a convention for avoidance of 

double taxation, or any other convention which the requested State 

has concluded with the applicant State. The Explanatory Report 

accompanying the Protocol suggests that consultation between the 

Parties should take place whenever there is some doubt as to 

whether the taxation in the applicant State is of such kind as to 

justify a refusal under the provisions of subparagraph 2(e). 

Subparagraph 2(f) of Article 21 

New subparagraph 2(f) of Article 21 restates subparagraph 2(f) 

of Article 21 of the existing Convention to clarify that the obligation to exchange information provided therein does not impose the 

obligation to provide administrative assistance in cases where the 

administrative assistance is requested to administer or enforce tax 

laws of the applicant State that discriminate between a national of 

the requested State and a national of the applicant State in the 

same circumstances. The Explanatory Report accompanying the 

Protocol provides that subparagraph 2(f) relates to an exceptional 

circumstance and is intended to ensure that the Convention as 

amended by the Protocol does not result in discrimination between 

nationals of the requested State and identically placed nationals of 

the applicant State. The exception for the application of Article 14 

ensures that the limitation on the exchange of information included 

by subparagraph 2(f) does not apply in a case where the requested 

State is allowed to gather and supply information to the applicant 

State even though the requested State could not do so for its own 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

tax purposes because the statute of limitations is closed for domestic tax purposes. 

Subparagraph 2(g) of Article 21 

New subparagraph 2(g) is based on the wording of Article 19 

(Possibility of declining a request) of the existing Convention. It 

clarifies that a Party need not provide administrative assistance if 

the applicant State has not pursued all reasonable measures available under its domestic laws or administrative practice prior to 

making the request, except where recourse to such measures would 

give rise to disproportionate difficulty. Paragraph 2(g) is consistent 

with paragraph 9(a) of the Commentary to Article 26 of the OECD 

Model, and is also reflected in many tax information exchange 

agreements concluded by the United States and the OECD Model 

Tax Information Exchange Agreement. 

Subparagraph 2(h) of Article 21 

New subparagraph 2(h) allows a Party to the Convention as 

amended by the Protocol to refuse to provide assistance in tax recovery in cases where the administrative burden for that Party is 

clearly disproportionate to the benefit to be derived by the applicant State. 

Paragraph 3 of Article 21 

New paragraph 3 of Article 21 provides that when information 

is requested by a Party in accordance with this Article, the requested State is obligated to use its information gathering measures to obtain the requested information as if the tax in question 

were the tax of the requested State, even if that Party has no direct tax interest in the case to which the request relates. The Explanatory Report accompanying the Protocol defines ‘‘information 

gathering measures’’ as laws and administrative or judicial procedures that enable a State to obtain and provide the requested information. In the absence of such new paragraph 3, some taxpayers 

have argued that paragraph 2(a) prevents a Party from requesting 

information from a bank or fiduciary that that Party does not need 

for its own tax purposes. This paragraph clarifies that paragraph 

2 does not impose such a restriction and that a Party is not limited 

to providing only the information that it already has in its own 

files. This new paragraph conforms to the analogous provision in 

the U.S. and OECD Models. 

Paragraph 4 of Article 21 

New paragraph 4 of Article 21 provides that a requested State 

may not decline to supply information solely because the information is held by financial institutions, nominees or persons acting in 

an agency or fiduciary capacity, or because it relates to ownership 

interests in a person. Thus, paragraph 4 effectively prevents a 

Party from relying on the provisions of the Convention, and in particular the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 21, to claim 

that its domestic bank secrecy laws (or similar legislation relating 

to disclosure of financial information by financial institutions or 

intermediaries) override its obligation to provide information under 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

paragraph 1. This new paragraph conforms to the analogous provision of the U.S. and OECD Models. 

ARTICLE VI

Article VI deletes and replaces paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 22 

(Secrecy) of the existing Convention. The purpose of these amendments is to bring the confidentiality rules of the existing Convention regarding exchanged information and the limitations regarding 

the use of such information into conformity with the U.S. and 

OECD Models. 

Paragraph 1 of Article 22 

New paragraph 1 of Article 22 provides that any information obtained by a Party under this Convention shall be treated as secret 

in the same manner as information obtained under the domestic 

laws of that Party, and, to the extent needed to ensure the necessary level of protection of personal data, in accordance with the 

safeguards which may be specified by the supplying Party (requested State) as required under its domestic law. The Explanatory 

Report accompanying the Protocol provides that respect for the confidentiality of information is a corollary of the powers of tax authorities and is necessary to protect the legitimate rights of taxpayers. Mutual assistance between tax administrations is therefore 

possible only if each administration is assured that the other administration will treat with proper confidence the information 

which it obtains in the course of their cooperation. 

The Explanatory Report accompanying the Protocol also explains 

that this provision is intended to ensure that a Party receiving information shall treat the information as secret in compliance not 

only with its own domestic law, but also with safeguards that may 

be required to ensure data protection under the domestic law of the 

supplying Party. However, specification of the safeguards may not 

be necessary if the supplying Party is satisfied that the Party receiving information ensures the necessary level of data protection 

with respect to the data being supplied. In any case, these safeguards should not go beyond what is needed to ensure data protection. 

The United States strictly observes its domestic confidentiality 

laws, which ensure high levels of protection of personal data. When 

acting as a requested State, the United States will supply information only to the extent the applicant State observes the secrecy obligations under Article 22 of the revised Convention and, to the extent needed to ensure the necessary level of protection of personal 

data, U.S. domestic confidentiality laws. 

Paragraph 2 of Article 22 

New paragraph 2 of Article 22 provides that information received 

may be disclosed only to persons, including courts and administrative or supervisory bodies, concerned with the assessment, collection, or recovery of, the enforcement or prosecution in respect of, 

or the determination of appeals in relation to, the taxes imposed 

by a Party. The information may be used only by these persons and 

only in connection with the specified functions. Information may 

also be disclosed to legislative bodies, such as, in the case of the 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

United States, the tax-writing committees of Congress and the 

Government Accountability Office, engaged in the oversight of the 

preceding activities. Information received by these bodies must be 

for use in the performance of their role in overseeing the administration of the tax law of the Party in question. Information received 

may be disclosed in public court proceedings or in judicial decisions 

relating to the taxes imposed by a Party. Paragraph 2 of Article 22 

generally conforms to the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 26 

of the U.S. and OECD Models. 

ARTICLE VII

Article VII deletes and replaces paragraph 2 of Article 27 (Other 

international agreements or arrangements) of the existing Convention. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify that Parties that 

are Member States of the European Union can apply, in their mutual relations, the possibilities of assistance provided by the Convention in so far as they allow a wider cooperation than the possibilities offered by the applicable European Union rules. This paragraph only applies between Member States of the European Union 

and in no way prejudices the application of the Convention between 

member States of the European Union and other Parties to the 

Convention. 

ARTICLE VIII

Article VIII amends Article 28 (Signature and entry into force of 

the Convention) of the existing Convention by adding four new 

paragraphs. The primary purpose of the new paragraphs is to allow 

any country to request to be invited to sign and ratify the Convention as amended by the Protocol, thereby becoming a Party thereto. 

Article VIII also makes a related amendment to Article 30 (Reservations). 

Paragraph 4 of Article 28 

New paragraph 4 of Article 28 provides that any member State 

of the Council of Europe or any member country of the OECD that 

becomes a Party to the Convention after the Protocol enters into 

force shall be considered a Party to the Convention as amended by 

the Protocol, unless they express a different intention in a written 

communication to one of the Depositaries (the Council of Europe 

and the OECD). 

Paragraph 5 of Article 28 

New paragraph 5 of Article 28 provides that after the Protocol 

has entered into force, any State that is not a member of the Council of Europe or the OECD may request to be invited to become a 

Party to the Convention as amended by the Protocol. Such requests 

shall be directed to one of the Depositaries. The decision to invite 

States that have made such a request shall be taken by consensus 

by the Parties to the Convention as amended by the Protocol 

through the Coordinating Body. 

New paragraph 5 provides that with respect to any State that, 

in accordance with this paragraph, ratifies the Convention as 

amended by the Protocol, the Protocol shall enter into force on the 

first day of the month following the expiration of a three month peVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:03 Apr 30, 2014 Jkt 039119 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\ER008.XXX ER008

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

riod after the date that that State has deposited its instrument of 

ratification with one of the Depositaries. 

Paragraph 6 of Article 28 

New paragraph 6 of Article 28 provides rules for the effective 

dates of the provisions of the Protocol. The amendments shall have 

effect for administrative assistance related to taxable periods beginning on or after January 1 of the year following the year in 

which the Convention as amended by the Protocol entered into 

force in respect of a Party, or where there is no taxable period, for 

administrative assistance related to charges to tax arising on or 

after January 1 of the year following the year in which the Convention as amended by the Protocol entered into force in respect of a 

Party. Any two or more Parties may mutually agree that the Convention as amended by the Protocol may have effect for administrative assistance related to earlier taxable periods or charges to tax. 

Paragraph 7 of Article 28 

New paragraph 7 of Article 28 provides that notwithstanding 

new paragraph 6 of that Article, for criminal tax matters, the Convention as amended by the Protocol shall have effect for any earlier 

taxable period or charge to tax, from the date of entry into force 

in respect of a Party. 

Subparagraph 1(f) of Article 30 

New subparagraph 1(f) of Article 30 (Reservations) provides that, 

in relation to new paragraph 7 of Article 28, a Party may nevertheless lodge a reservation according to which the provisions of the 

amended Convention will have effect for administrative assistance 

related to criminal tax matters only as related to taxable periods 

beginning from the third year prior to the year in which the Convention as amended by the Protocol entered into force in respect of 

that Party. 

Article 30 of the existing Convention provides that States may 

make reservations with respect to several specified aspects of the 

Convention. The United States made several reservations to the existing Convention, which were contained in its instrument of ratification deposited on February 13, 1991, with the Depositories to the 

Convention. The Protocol to the existing Convention does not affect 

the United States’ reservations to the existing Convention. 

ARTICLE IX

Article IX provides rules for the entry into force of the Protocol. 

The Protocol shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of a period of three months after the date of 

ratification by five parties to the existing Convention. A Party 

which ratifies the Protocol after the Protocol has entered into force 

will be bound by the Protocol beginning on the first day of the 

month following the expiration of a period of three months after 

the date of deposit of its instrument of ratification. 

ARTICLE X

Article X of the Protocol describes the functions of the two Depositaries of the Convention: the Council of Europe and the OECD. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

Article X provides that when an act, notification, or communication 

has been accomplished with a Depositary, that Depositary shall notify the other Depositary, the member States of the Council of Europe, the member countries of the OECD, and any Party to the 

Convention as amended by this Protocol of: any signature, the deposit of any instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval, any 

date of entry into force of the Protocol, and any other act, notification, or communication relating to the Protocol. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING