Brunei vs Marshall Islands: Paying taxes: Time (hours per year) - Score

Brunei
99.46
in 2019
Marshall Islands
98.92
in 2019
Brunei rank
8th
Marshall Islands rank
10th

Paying taxes: Time (hours per year) - Score over time

  • Brunei
  • Marshall Islands
020406080100200520122019

How they compare

Brunei currently reports 99.46 against 98.92 in Marshall Islands, a difference of 0.54.

The two have swapped places 3 times across 14 shared years of data; in 2006 it was Marshall Islands ahead.

Brunei ranks 8th and Marshall Islands ranks 10th of 188 countries.

Across the 2 decades both report, Brunei averaged higher in 1 and Marshall Islands in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Brunei Marshall Islands Difference Ahead
2000s 85.32 87.79 2.47 Marshall Islands
2010s 94.44 92.49 1.95 Brunei

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher paying taxes: time (hours per year) - score, Brunei or Marshall Islands?
Brunei, at 99.46 against 98.92 in Marshall Islands as of 2019.
What is the difference in paying taxes: time (hours per year) - score between Brunei and Marshall Islands?
0.54, with Brunei ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Brunei and Marshall Islands?
14 years are reported by both, from 2006 to 2019.
How do Brunei and Marshall Islands rank globally for paying taxes: time (hours per year) - score?
Brunei ranks 8th and Marshall Islands ranks 10th of 188 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Paying taxes: Time (hours per year) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Paying taxes: Time (hours per year) - Score
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
190 places, 2,783 data points, 2005–2019
Last refreshed

The score for time to comply with tax laws benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance.