The OECD adopted the CRS in February 2014 as a Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information in Tax Matters. It requires a participating jurisdiction's financial institutions to identify account holders who are tax residents of other participating jurisdictions and report those accounts annually to the local tax authority, which then automatically exchanges the data with the account holder's home country. As of the OECD's own commitment table dated May 22, 2026, 113 jurisdictions have committed to a first-exchange date, with broader counts of 116 to 120+ participating jurisdictions appearing across secondary sources depending on how "participating" is defined (committed but not yet exchanging, versus actively exchanging). A 2022 amendment expanded CRS scope to cover electronic money products and central bank digital currencies, and indirect crypto-asset investments through derivatives and investment vehicles. Real estate, physical cash, precious metals, art, and properly structured discretionary trusts generally sit outside CRS's own scope (though settlors, trustees, protectors, and identifiable beneficiaries of a trust are themselves reportable where the underlying account is captured). The United States does not participate in CRS at all for individual account holders, relying instead on FATCA, described below - a genuinely important asymmetry, since it means the US does not automatically send equivalent account information back to CRS partner countries the way those countries send information to each other.
FATCA is US domestic legislation (enacted 2010) that requires foreign financial institutions worldwide to report accounts held by US persons to the IRS, either directly or through an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the account holder's home government. The US Treasury's own IGA list identifies approximately 113 FATCA IGA jurisdictions. IGAs come in two models: Model 1 (the foreign financial institution reports to its own government, which then forwards the data to the IRS, available in both reciprocal and non-reciprocal versions) and Model 2 (the foreign financial institution reports directly to the IRS). In practice, the United States' own reciprocal exchange back to Model 1 partner countries has been limited relative to what those countries send to the US, which is the central reason FATCA is described as broadly non-reciprocal and structurally different from CRS despite CRS having been explicitly modeled on FATCA's basic design. A jurisdiction can have no CRS first-exchange date and no FATCA IGA listed by the US Treasury at all; FATCA itself can still apply directly to foreign financial institutions in such a jurisdiction even without a signed IGA, since FATCA is unilateral US law rather than a treaty requiring the counterparty's consent.
Developed jointly by the OECD and the Council of Europe, originally signed in 1988 and substantially broadened by a 2010 amending protocol that opened it to any state (not just OECD and Council of Europe members), this Convention is the broadest tax-cooperation instrument of the four covered on this page. Per the OECD's own current tracking, over 150 jurisdictions participate, including 17 covered through territorial extension by a parent state (for example, the United Kingdom's ratification extends to several of its dependent territories, including Jersey). Uniquely among the frameworks on this page, the United States is a full party. The Convention is not itself an automatic-exchange mechanism like CRS; rather, it is the broad legal foundation that enables multiple forms of administrative cooperation between its parties, including exchange of information on request, spontaneous exchange, simultaneous tax examinations, and (where a country also signs the CRS Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement, a narrower instrument built on top of this Convention's legal base) automatic exchange under CRS specifically. A jurisdiction can be a Convention party without being a CRS participating jurisdiction, and vice versa in principle, though in practice most CRS participants use this Convention as their underlying legal basis for CRS exchange.
Pillar Two is the second half of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework's Two-Pillar Solution (Pillar One, addressing taxing rights over large digital and consumer-facing businesses, remains substantially unresolved and is not covered in detail on this page). Over 130 to 140+ jurisdictions have joined the Inclusive Framework and support the Pillar Two concept. It sets a 15% global minimum effective tax rate for multinational groups with consolidated annual revenue above EUR 750 million, implemented through an Income Inclusion Rule (IIR, imposing top-up tax on a parent entity where a foreign subsidiary's effective rate falls below 15%) and an Undertaxed Profits Rule (UTPR, a backstop allowing other jurisdictions to collect the shortfall where the IIR does not apply); many jurisdictions have also introduced a Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax (QDMTT), letting the low-tax jurisdiction itself collect the top-up rather than ceding that revenue to another country. Implementation varies significantly and is ongoing: most EU member states and a large number of other jurisdictions have enacted at least one of the corresponding rules, while China and India had not yet finalized implementation steps as of mid-2026. The United States has not adopted the IIR or UTPR domestically; instead, a Side-by-Side System negotiated with the OECD and taking effect from 2026 exempts US-parented groups from IIR and UTPR application by other countries, while US-parented groups remain independently subject to Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-up Taxes where other jurisdictions have introduced them, and to the US's own pre-existing GILTI minimum-tax regime (a similar but not identical mechanism, currently below the 15% Pillar Two rate). First GloBE information returns under the new global filing and exchange framework are due by the end of June 2026 for many in-scope groups.
CRS and FATCA both address individual account-level transparency (does a tax authority know an account exists and who holds it), while the Multilateral Convention is the broader legal plumbing that makes CRS and other cooperation possible, and Pillar Two is a substantive tax rate floor rather than an information-exchange mechanism at all. A jurisdiction can participate in some of these frameworks without participating in others: the United States is a full Convention party and enforces FATCA but does not participate in CRS; a small, low-income jurisdiction might have no FATCA IGA and no CRS commitment while still being a Convention signatory in principle; a jurisdiction with genuinely no income tax system at all (several are covered elsewhere in this directory) may have joined CRS and FATCA for account-transparency purposes even though a 15% minimum tax has no practical application to it locally. Each country's own page in this directory states its individual CRS participation status and, where relevant, notes FATCA and CRS status together in its Foreign Bank Account / Foreign Financial Asset Reporting section; this page is the place to understand the mechanics and current state of the four frameworks themselves rather than a specific country's individual status.
This page summarizes four major multilateral frameworks at a mechanics-and-participation level, not an exhaustive country-by-country participation table (each country's own directory page is the place for that) and not detailed technical guidance on GloBE computations, QDMTT safe harbors, or FATCA withholding mechanics, which are specialist compliance topics beyond this page's scope. The OECD's Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF), a related but distinct 2026-launching automatic exchange regime specifically for crypto-asset service providers, is mentioned above only briefly and is not covered in full detail here. Pillar One (reallocation of taxing rights over large digital and consumer-facing businesses) remains substantially unresolved at the OECD level and is intentionally not covered in depth on this page.