FAQs: Model Reporting Rules for Digital Platforms PDF

OECD © 2023

(First published: January 2023, last updated: October 2023)

The OECD maintains and regularly updates this list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) on the

application of the Model Reporting Rules for Digital Platforms (MRDP). The questions set out in these

FAQs were received from business and government delegates. The answers to such questions clarify

the MRDP and help to ensure consistency in their implementation. 1

Section I: Definitions

1. Related Entities of the Platform Operator and the Seller definition

Can an Entity related to the Platform Operator be a Seller on a Platform made available by the

Platform Operator?

Yes, an Entity relat ed to the Platform Operator c an be a Seller on a Platfor m made available by the

Platform Operator.

2. Reporting Platform Operator acting as counterparty and the Platform definition

In June 2021, the OECD published interpretative guidance to clarify that a business that is the

only seller on a website through which it sells its goods is not a Platform for the purpose of

subparagraph A(1) of Section I. Does the same guidance also apply to other Relevant Activities,

namely Personal Services and the rental of immovable property and means of transportation?

Yes, the 2021 guidance applies mutatis mutandis to both goods and services. In both cases, a

determination will need to be made as to whether the Platform allocates opportunities for Sellers to

provide Relevant Services/Activities to users. In this respect, it is not relevant what type of Relevant

Service/Activity is being facilitated by the Reporting Platform Operator.

3. Listing or advertising of Relevant Services/Activities combined with other

functionality and the Platform definition

Can software that facilitates the listing or advertising of Relevant Services/Activities and that

also provides a chat function or a rating system of sellers and users fall in scope of the exclusion

1 Unless otherwise specified, these FAQs apply with respect to both the original form of the Model Rules for

Reporting by Platform Operators with respect to Sellers in the Sharing and Gig Economy, as well as to the

extended scope of such Model Rules via the optional module to cover the sale of goods and rental of means of

transportation.

Model Reporting Rules for Digital

Platforms: Frequently Asked Questions

OECD © 2023

in respect of software that exclusively allows the listin g or advertising of Relevant

Services/Activities?

No, software that in addition to facilitating the listing or advertising of Relevant Services/Activities also

provides a chat function or a rating system would not fall in scope of the exclusion in respect of software

exclusively allowing the listing or advertising of Relevant Services/Activities. However, in order for

software to qualify as a Platform for purposes of the Model Rules, it will need to meet three tests. Firstly,

it must be accessible by users and allow Sellers to be connected to other users. Secondly, it must

facilitate the provision of Relevant Services/Activities and therefore, thirdly, the amount of Consideration

for such Relevant Services/Activities must be known or reasonably knowable by the Platform Operator.

In light of these criteria, a chat function or a rating system will not by itself change the qualification of a

platform as a Platform for purposes of the Model Rules.

4. The notion of “software” and the Platform definition

Is it necessary for the faithful domestic transposition of the Model Rules that the Platform is

equated with software? Specifically, would defining the term “Platform” as “any system based

on digital technology allowing Sellers to be connected to other users via the in ternet by means

of software for the purpose of carrying out a Relevant Service/Activity, directly or indirectly, to

such users”, result in the same substantive reporting outcomes as the definition of Platform

under the Model Rules?

Under subparagraph A(1) of Section I of the Model Rules, the term “Platform” means any software,

including a website or a part thereof and applications, accessible by users and allowing Sellers to be

connected to other users for the provision of Relevant Services [or the sale of Goods], directly or

indirectly, to such users.

In this respect, although a Platform cannot function in the absence of software allowing users to be

connected to other users, it is acknowledged that the architecture supporting a Platform also includes

hardware and networking technologies designed to operationalise the Platform’s business model.

Regarding the proposed definition, it is considered that it can be read in a consistent manner with and

should therefore achieve the same substantive reporting outco mes as the definition of Platform under

the Model Rules.

5. Free-text messaging and the Platform definition

Does the definition of the term “Platform” require that the software allows users to communicate

directly with each other, including by freely exchangi ng unstructured content (for example in

written form by means of an integrated chat or email function)?

Under subparagraph A(1) of Section I of the Model Rules, the term “Platform” means any software,

including a website or a part thereof and applications, accessible by users and allowing Sellers to be

connected to other users for the provision of Relevant Services [or the sale of Goods], directly or

indirectly, to such users. The definition therefore does not require that the software allows users to

communicate directly with each other, including by exchanging unstructured content, although such

functionality is a feature of many Platforms (see paragraphs 2 through 5 of the commentary to

Section I).

6. Excluded Platform Operators

How should the EUR 1 million monetary threshold be applied to determine whether a Platform

Operator is an Excluded Platform Operator for the purposes of subparagraph A(3)(a) of

Section I?

To determine whether a Platform Operator is an Excluded Platform Operator, the EUR 1 mill ion

threshold must be applied to the aggregate Consideration paid for the provision of Relevant

OECD © 2023

Services/Activities that are facilitated by such Platform Operator at the level of the Platform, not the

Relevant Services/Activities facilitated by one or more related Platform Operators.

7. Must the payor of Consideration correspond to the user?

Must the payor of Consideration in respect of a Relevant Service/Activity correspond to the user

to whom the Relevant Service/Activity is provided?

It is not required that the user to whom the Relevant Services/Activities are provided to also pays the

Consideration in respect of such transaction, whereby the definition of Consideration only requires that

it is paid to the Seller in connection with the Relevant Service/Activity.

8. Circumstances under which Consideration is considered to be known or

reasonably knowable

Under which circumstances should Consideration be considered known or reasonably

knowable by the Reporting Platform Operator?

The Model Rules work on the premise that Consideration is only to be reported if it is known by the

Reporting Platform Operator. Consequently, amounts that are not known and cannot be reasonably

knowable to the Reporting Platform Operator, in light of its business model, would not be treated as

Consideration for the purposes of subparagraph A(6) of Section I. In this respect, the notion of

“reasonably knowable” was introduced to avoid circumvention of the Model Rules in instances where

the information can be readily known by the Reporting Platform Operator.

Paragraph 40 of the Commentary to Section I illustrates that circumstances where amounts paid or

credited to a Seller in connection with Relevant Services/Activities are reasonably knowable by a

Reporting Platform Operator include those where the Reporting Platform Operator withholds or receives

a fee, commission, or taxes set in reference to the amounts paid by users in respect of Relevant

Services.

However, there are other scenarios where Consideration would be reasonably knowable to the

Reporting Platform Operator. For example, the Consideration would be reasonably knowable where the

Reporting Platform Operator assumes contractual obligations in respect of the provision of the Relevant

Service/Activity giving rise to the Consideration vis -à-vis a particular user. This would, for example,

include instances where the Reporting Platform Operator commits to providing a refund or other forms

of buyer protection in respect of the Relevant Service/Activity. Similarly, the Consideration would also

be reasonably knowable where the Platform provides a functionality which declares or communicates

to the user and Seller the terms of the agreement in respect of the Relevant Services/Activities,

including the amount of the underlying Consideration.

In each case, the test to be applied is whether the business model of the Platform is such that it provides

visibility over the Consideration to the Reporting Platform Operator. At the same time, there is no

expectation that the Reporting Platform Operator puts in place additional procedures to gain access to

information on the consideration where it is not otherwise known or reasonably knowable.

9. The timing of knowledge in respect of Consideration

Must consideration be known by the Reporting Platform Operator at the time the underlying

Relevant Service/Activity is provided in order to be Consideration?

The Model Rules do not specify that the Consideration must be known by the Platform Operator at the

time the underlying Relevant Service/Activity is provided. Indeed, there may be instances where the

Reporting Platform Operator only has visibility over the Consideration at the time the pursuant payment

is made. Equally, there can be cases where the amo unt of the Consideration is calculated after the

Relevant Services/Activities are provided. The Model Rules were designed to ensure reporting in both

OECD © 2023

such scenarios and other instances where the Consideration may not be reasonably knowable before

or at the time the Relevant Services/Activities are provided.

10. The coverage of intangible assets and goods under the Goods definition

Does the definition of Goods under the optional expansion module of the Model Rules cover

intangible assets or goods, such as energy rights or vouchers?

Subparagraph C(10) of Section I (i.e. the definition of Goods within the optional expansion module)

defines Goods as any tangible property. Consequently, the sale of intangible assets or goods, such as

energy rights or vouchers, would not be captured by the term Goods.

11. The coverage of pre-recorded digital content and pre-scheduled activities under

the Personal Services definition (revised October 2023)

Does the definition of Personal Services under the Model Rules cover the provision of non -

customised pre- recorded digita l content (such as online courses or videos) as well as pre-

scheduled group activities (such as language classes or city tours)?

The definition of Personal Service requires that the service is carried out at the request of a user, which

implies that the service is, at least to some extent, adapted to the specific requirements of such user.

Giving access to non-customised pre-recorded digital content (such as online courses, videos or music)

is not “time or task -based work performed by one or more individual s at the request of a user” and

would therefore not be considered a Personal Service.

Similarly, as outlined in the paragraph 17 of the commentary to Section I, publicly -accessible

transportation services operated in accordance with a predetermined timetab le, such as coach, train

and airplane services also do not constitute a Personal Service. The same conclusion would also extend

to other services that operate according to a predetermined timetable, independent from the request of

one or more users, including pre- scheduled group activities such as language classes or city tours. A

Reporting Platform Operator may presume that any time- or task-based services facilitated through its

Platform are Personal Services. Such presumption may be rebutted by establishing that the services

cannot be adapted to the specific time or content requirements of a user.

Consistent with paragraphs 28 through 30 of the Commentary to Section I of the MRDP, in instances

where a service contains elements of a Personal Service and other services, and such elements cannot

be split or identified, the entire service should be subject to reporting, unless the Personal Service

component is purely ancillary to the non-reportable element of the service.

12. The coverage of leasing and usufruct under the rental of immovable property

Does the rental of immovable property cover leasing and usufruct?

Yes, paragraph 16 of the Commentary to Section I clarifies that Relevant Services include both short

and long-term rentals of immovable property, irrespective of the nature of the rights (freehold, leasehold,

rental, usufruct, or other).

13. Reporting Platform Operator acting as counterparty (buyer) and the Platform

definition (added October 2023)

In June 2021, the OECD published interpretative guidance to clarify that a business that is the

only seller on a website through which it sells its goods is not a Platform for the purpose of

subparagraph A(1) of Section I. Does the same guidance also apply to instances where a

business is the only buyer on a website, or where a Platform Operator (also) buys -in goods or

services from users via its Platform?

OECD © 2023

Yes, the 2021 guidance also applies to instances where a business is the only buyer on a website. In

this respect, the determination that needs to be made is whether the Platform allocates opportunities

for Sellers to provide Relevant Activities to users. Therefore, a website of a business that exclusively

facilitates the buying- in of goods or services fro m users, is not a Platform for the purpose of

subparagraph A(1) of Section I.

On the other hand, where the Reporting Platform Operator purchases goods or services from a Seller

with the aim of fulfilling the existing request of another user (i.e., the Platform has matched the demand

of its user with the Goods or Relevant Services of a Seller), such transaction would be reportable as an

“indirect” Relevant Activity pursuant to paragraph 3 of the Commentary to Section I.

14. Circumstances under which Consideration is considered to be known or

reasonably knowable (added October 2023)

Is Consideration known or reasonably knowable by the Reporting Platform Operator where it

subcontracts the processing of payments to a third party?

Yes, paragraph 39 of the Commentary to Section I of the MRDP provides that the “reasonably

knowable” notion requires that the knowledge of any service providers and other Platform Operators of

the Platform is also considered when determining the Consideration in respect of Relevan t Activities

facilitated by the Platform. This includes instances where the IT -systems of the Reporting Platform

Operator or its subcontractor capture information on the amount of the payment agreed between the

Reportable Seller and the user.

When does a price listed by a Seller on a Platform constitute knowable Consideration?

Consideration is defined as compensation in any form paid or credited to a Seller in connection with

Relevant Activities, the amount of which is known, or reasonably knowable, by the Reporting Platform

Operator. Similarly, Paragraph B of Section III requires Reporting Platform Operators to report the total

Consideration paid or credited during each quarter of the Reportable Period in respect of Relevant

Activities. Therefore, the list price posted by a Seller would constitute Consideration if the Reporting

Platform Operator has knowledge of the execution of the transaction and it is known or reasonably

knowable by the Reporting Platform Operator that the list price is also the price that has been paid in

respect of the Relevant Activity.

15. Indirect rental of immovable property as a Relevant Activity (added October 2023)

Paragraph 3 of the Commentary to the Platform definition provides that the definition of

“Platform” requires that the allocation of opportunities for Sellers to provide Relevant Activities

to users is supported by an application or other platform technology, irrespective of whether

such Relevant Activities are provided directly by third party sellers to such users or whether the

platform first purchases such services and then offers these services in its own name to users.

For example, a food delivery platform that “buys-in” the services of third-party sellers to deliver

food to its users in its own name, would be consider ed a Platform. Would the same outcome

also arise in relation to other types of Relevant Activities, particularly the rental of immovable

property?

Yes, an accommodation rental platform that makes available immovable property in its own name on

behalf of th ird-party sellers, would be considered a Platform and such rentals of immovable property

would be treated as Relevant Activities, to the extent all of the other components of the Platform

definition are met. In such instances, the Reporting Platform Operat or would be required to report the

Consideration received by the Sellers registered on the Platform in respect of such Relevant Activities.

OECD © 2023

16. E-commerce service providers and the Platform definition (added October 2023)

Is software that facilitates the desig n, maintenance and operation of merchant websites and

offers a suite of associated services, including payment functions and back -office support, a

Platform?

No, such software is not a Platform to the extent it is not allocating opportunities for Sellers to be

connected to other users for the provision of Relevant Activities.

Section II: Due diligence procedures

1. Change of Primary Address during Reportable Period

How should a change of a Seller’s Primary Address during the Reportable Period be treated for

reporting purposes? Is it possible to report on the basis of two separate Primary Addresses?

Unless relying upon a Government Verification Service to confirm the Seller’s identity and tax residence,

the Reporting Platform Operator must consider the Seller resident in the jurisdiction of the Seller’s

Primary Address (as described in subparagraph D(1) of Section II).

In this respect, the Model Rules do not foresee the possibility to report more than one Primary Address.

Paragraph 35 of the Commentary to Section II provides, however, that in case an information item is to

be found not or no longer reliable, the information will need to be obtained afresh and verified. This

would include instances where the Seller provides to the Reporting Platform Operator a new Primary

Address before 31 December of the Reportable Period (i.e. the date by whi ch a Reporting Platform

Operator must ensure that it has completed the full set of due diligence procedures with respect to a

Seller), whereby in such instances reporting should take place on the basis of such new Primary

Address.

2. Reporting on the basis of the Seller’s tax residence, where different from the

Primary Address jurisdiction

Do the Model Rules foresee the option for Reporting Platform Operators to also report on the

basis of the Seller’s tax residence jurisdiction, if known and where different from the jurisdiction

of the Seller’s Primary Address?

No, the information is to be reported on the basis of the jurisdiction of the Primary Address of the Seller.

Such information may only be relied upon once confirmed in application of paragraph C of Sect ion II.

3. Verification of Seller information (added October 2023)

How should a Reporting Platform Operator verify the identifying information of a Seller for the

purposes of subparagraph C(1) of Section II?

Paragraph 20 of the Commentary to Section II provides that, for the purposes of determining whether

information is reliable, all information available to the Reporting Platform Operator conducting the due

diligence procedures and other Platform Operators of the Platform, as well as any third- party service

providers, as well as any governmental service to electronically validate TINs, should be taken into

account.

Specifically, with respect to TINs of its Sellers, the Reporting Platform Operators should not only make

use of its own records (or electronically searchable records for Sellers documented pursuant to

subparagraph F(2) of Section II), but also any publicly available automatic checking tools that permit

the validation of the TIN or its structure. However, there is no expectation that the Reporting Platform

Operator further verifies the reliability of the TIN by collecting additional information or documents that

OECD © 2023

are not already available to the Reporting Platform Operator in its own records or that of its third- party

service providers.

Section III: Reporting requirements

1. The treatment of refunds and cancellations for reporting purposes

Should refunds or cancellations be deducted from the amount of Consideration reported in

respect of a Reportable Seller? How should a refund in respect of Consideration paid or credited

in a previous Reportable Period be treated?

Yes, the amount of Consideration to be reported should be the net amount of Consideration that is

received by the Seller. As such, refunds should be deducted from the amount of Consideration. Where

a refund is received in resp ect of Consideration paid or credited in a previous Reportable Period (i.e.

after the reporting deadline in respect of such period), paragraph 3 of the Commentary to Section III

provides that it is expected that the Reporting Platform Operator submits a corrected report, reflecting

any relevant changes in relation to the Consideration paid or credited to the affected Reportable Sellers.

2. Valuation methods in respect of Consideration

What valuation method should be applied in respect of Consideration that is paid or credited to

a Seller in any form other than fiat currency?

The Model Rules do not prescribe a specific methodology for valuing the Consideration received by the

Seller, and leave the decision in this respect to the Reporting Platform Operator, prov ided that the

methodology is applied in a consistent manner.

3. Reporting in respect of Relevant Activities and underlying Consideration

straddling two Reportable Periods

When should Consideration be reported in instances where it is paid or credited to the Seller in

a Reportable Period subsequent to the one during which the corresponding Relevant

Services/Activities are provided?

Under Section III, Consideration must be reported in respect of the Reportable Period during which it

was paid or credited, rather than the Reportable Period during which the corresponding Relevant

Services/Activities were provided. Notwithstanding, a Reporting Platform Operator may complete the

due diligence procedures under Section II in respect of Active Sellers who have not been paid or

credited Consideration during the Reportable Period.

4. Reporting in respect of mixed transactions involving both Relevant Services and

sales of Goods

How should Reporting Platform Operators report in respect of a mixed transaction involving

both Relevant Services and sales of Goods?

Paragraphs 24- 30 of the Commentary to Section I provide guidance on the treatment of a mixed

transaction for reporting purposes. In this respect, pursuant to paragraphs 26 and 27, if a transaction

involves elements of both Relevant Services and sales of goods, and both elements can be split or

identified by the Reporting Platform Operator, both elements should be reported upon separately.

Where the elements cannot be split or identified, paragraph 28 prov ides that the entire transaction

should be subject to reporting (i.e. as a Relevant Service or, in jurisdictions that implement the

expanded scope, as a Relevant Activity).

OECD © 2023

5. Applying the Property Listing notion

How should the Property Listing notion be appl ied for the purposes of the reporting

requirements in respect of the rental of immovable property as well as the exclusion in respect

of large commercial providers of hotel accommodation?

Under the Model Rules, a Property Listing includes all immovable property units located at the same

street address and offered for rent on a Platform by the same Seller. In this respect, paragraph 71 of

the commentary to Section I clarifies that separate apartment units rented in a building with a single

street address by the same Seller are also treated as a Property Listing. Therefore, where a landlord

owns a building complex containing multiple apartments, the building would be treated as a single

Property Listing for the purposes of the reporting requirements, whereby the number of days each sub-

unit was rented should be aggregated to determine the number of days each Property Listing was

rented during the Reportable Period. Similarly, the definition of Excluded Seller is also linked to the

definition of Property Listing and the same aggregation rules therefore apply to determine whether a

Platform Operator facilitated more than 2,000 Relevant Services for the rental of immovable property in

respect of a Property Listing during the Reportable Period (see paragraph 46 of t he commentary to

Section I).

6. Treatment of vouchers for reporting purposes (added October 2023)

How should transactions involving vouchers reflecting rights to redeem goods or services that

are Relevant Activities be treated for reporting purposes?

A Relevant Activity is defined as a Relevant Service or the sale of Goods for Consideration, i.e.,

compensation in any form that is paid or credited to a Seller in connection with Relevant Activities, the

amount of which is known or reasonably knowable by the Platform Operator. FAQ 7 to Section I clarifies

that it is not required that the user to whom the Relevant Activities are provided (for example, the

voucher holder) also pays the Consideration in respect of such transaction. Consequently, the issuance

of a voucher reflecting the commitment of the Seller to provide a Relevant Activity (similar to a receipt

or booking confirmation) should be treated as the provision of a Relevant Activity, the Consideration in

respect of which is reportable at the time of payment for the voucher.

Further, there may be instances where vouchers are issued by a Reporting Platform Operator, which

may later be used as Consideration via its Platform in exchange for the provision of Relevant Activities.

In such instances, the redemption of the voucher should be treated as the payment of Consideration in

exchange for a Relevant Activity.

7. Treatment of barter transactions (added October 2023)

There are instances where Consideration may be paid in -kind, i.e., in the context of barter

transactions. How should such transactions be treated under the MRDP?

Subparagraph A(6) of Section I defines “Consideration” as compensation in any form paid or credited

to a Seller in connection with Relevant Activities, the amount of which is know n, or reasonably

knowable, by the Platform Operator. Paragraph 33 of the Commentary to Section I further clarifies that

Consideration can take any form including money, cryptocurrencies or payments in kind. Therefore,

transactions involving Relevant Activi ties for in- kind Consideration are prima facie in- scope of the

MRDP. Pursuant to paragraphs 35 and 37 of the Commentary, such transactions must only be reported

upon in instances where the amount of the Consideration is known or reasonably knowable by the

Reporting Platform Operator, i.e., the value of the in- kind payment in the local currency of [jurisdiction]

is known or reasonably knowable.

OECD © 2023

8. Use of local currencies (added October 2023)

There are two instances where the MRDP rely on thresholds denominated in euros, specifically

in the optional Excluded Platform Operator definition for Platform Operators that facilitate the

provision of Relevant Services/Activities for which the aggregate Consideration at the level of

the Platform over the previous calendar year is less than EUR 1 million, or the Excluded Seller

definition in respect of Sellers for which the Platform Operator solely facilitated less than 30

Relevant Activities for the sale of Goods and for which the total amount of Consideration paid

or cred ited did not exceed 2,000 EUR during the Reportable Period. Does a consistent

implementation of the MRDP require that every jurisdiction introduces thresholds denominated

in euros?

No, a jurisdiction may reflect the threshold amounts in their local currency equivalent at the moment of

the implementation of the MRDP.

9. Reporting on multiple parties jointly registered as Sellers (added October 2023)

How should multiple parties jointly registered as Sellers be reported upon by a Reporting

Platform Operator?

A Seller is defined as a Platform user that is registered at any moment during the Reportable Period on

the Platform for the provision of Relevant Activities. Therefore, in cases where there are multiple parties

jointly registered as such, each party should be reported upon as a Reportable Seller. The aggregate

Consideration received by both parties should be reported in respect of each Reportable Seller, unless

the Reporting Platform Operator can reliably determine the amounts attributable to both Reportable

Sellers, in which case only such amounts should be reported.

However, in cases where one or more parties are registered as Sellers in their capacity as agents (for

example, a “key company” acting on behalf of the owner of rented immovable property or an agency

selling Goods for its clients) and the client of the agency is also registered as a Seller, only the client

should be subject to reporting as a Reportable Seller.