By Peter Hongler and Irma Mosquera
The latest draft of the UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation (UNFCITC) introduces several pivotal provisions relating to administrative assistance. In particular, the text addresses Illicit Financial Flows (Art. 7), Mutual Administrative Assistance in general (Art. 9), and the Exchange of Information in a narrower sense (Art. 10). Additional references appear elsewhere, including in Art. 6 para. 2 on High-Net-Worth Individuals.
However, a fundamental institutional question remains unanswered: Which body will serve as the primary global authority for cooperation on mutual administrative assistance in tax matters? Will responsibility shift to the newly proposed Conference of the Parties (COP), or will it remain with the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes?
The Global Forum and the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: A Success Story (?)
With 172 members, the Global Forum has been the undisputed architect of modern mutual administrative assistance. By dismantling banking secrecy and institutionalizing the Automatic Exchange of Information (AEOI), it transformed administrative cooperation into an effective instrument against cross-border tax evasion. While critics have occasionally pointed to its origins within the OECD or alleged biases against specific jurisdictions, its technical achievements are undeniable. It has created a functional, sophisticated infrastructure that tax administrations rely on daily. The Global Forum has also provided technical assistance to countries for implementing of exchange of information through training, pilot projects including also the 2021 Tax Transparency Initiative in Africa to fight illicit financial flows in Africa. Since 2025, the Global Forum is expanding the peer review of EOI for instance to strengthen beneficial ownership transparency in the global tax landscape.
With more than 150 (signatories) tax jurisdictions the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters is a successful instrument to address all types of exchange of information to tackle tax fraud and tax evasion. This Convention that was initially (in 1998) developed for member countries of the Council of Europe has been amended in 2010 to make possible that all countries can become signatories of this Convention.
This Multilateral Convention has also allowed countries to activate bilateral exchange relationships throughout Multilateral Competent Authority Agreements (MCAAs). The current MCAAs covered exchange of information regarding Common Reporting Standard Information, Country by Country Reporting, Information on Income Derived through Digital Platforms, Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework and GLoBE Information. The result is more efficient tools to exchange information in accordance with the dynamic global tax landscape.
The number of signatories but also the use of this Multilateral Convention as the umbrella framework to activate bilateral exchange of information shows that this Convention has wide scope but also has the potential to deal with future yet unknown topics.
The Risk of Duplication
As the fourth negotiating session convenes in February 2026, the international community faces a critical crossroads. Simply enshrining existing standards in a UN treaty achieves little if institutional competence remains unclear. Without a clear mandate, the UN risks creating a symbolic shell: a treaty that appears ambitious on paper while effective technical oversight and peer-review mechanisms continue to reside with the Global Forum.
Furthermore, ignoring the success of the Multilateral Convention and the MCAAs to respond to the global tax developments will result in countries being required to use more resources (technical, personnel) to start negotiating new agreements.
Many observers have, therefore, rightly emphasized the risk of duplication. If the UN attempts to replicate technical work already developed and implemented by the Global Forum and the Multilateral Convention, scarce resources may be wasted through parallel structures and overlapping processes.
It Is All About Funding
The decisive factor in any potential transition is not legal theory, but funding. Sustaining the Global Forum’s existing work under a new institutional umbrella would require a substantial reallocation of financial resources. A shift in competence does not necessarily imply a change in personnel; rather, the question is whether the Global Forum’s work could be institutionalized under the umbrella and supervision of the (new) COP or the UNFCITC Secretariat.
Furthermore, acknowledging the Multilateral Convention and the use of MCCAs to facilitate bilateral exchange of information can also benefit countries to speed up exchange of information at a fast pace given the changing global tax landscape. This discussion must take place now — not after the Framework Convention has been finalized or ratified.
The Inefficiency of a Two-Track System
Some argue that a multipolar global order allows the UN and the Global Forum to operate in parallel. In the specific context of mutual administrative assistance, however, such a two-track system would be particularly inefficient. Unlike the highly contentious debate over the allocation of taxing rights — where national interests frequently diverge — the objectives of administrative assistance are largely aligned. Both developed and developing countries benefit from robust information exchange to protect their tax bases.
Moreover, the field is highly technical, rapidly evolving, and dependent on uniform standards. Fragmentation would impose dual compliance burdens on both taxpayers and administrations. For this reason, we have argued in favour of aligning the work of both bodies, notably by making the Multilateral Convention a protocol to the UNFCITC.
Conclusion: A Call for Leadership
If the UN intends to assume a leadership role, it must demonstrate that leadership in the coming weeks. The international community must decide — and soon — whether the COP established under the UNFCITC will evolve into a functional global authority for administrative assistance, or whether it will remain primarily a political forum while technical work continues elsewhere.
If this institutional question is not resolved clearly, continued negotiations on provisions relating to mutual administrative assistance risk becoming largely performative — and, ultimately, a poor use of time and resources.
To sum up, instead of re-inventing the wheel or starting to develop new agreements that will cost time to ratify, the Global Forum and the Multilateral Convention could be used to achieve what the articles of the UN Framework Convention aim which is more transparency to tackle tax fraud and tax evasion, tackle illicit financial flows, and to make possible exchange of information for instance regarding high-net worth individuals.