Congo, Democratic Republic of the vs Malta: Paying taxes: Time to comply with corporate income tax correction
Congo, Democratic Republic of the
60.55
in 2019
Malta
57.8
in 2019
Congo, Democratic Republic of the rank
148th
Malta rank
151st
Paying taxes: Time to comply with corporate income tax correction over time
- Congo, Democratic Republic of the
- Malta
How they compare
Congo, Democratic Republic of the currently reports 60.55 against 57.8 in Malta, a difference of 2.75.
Across all 5 years both countries report, Congo, Democratic Republic of the has been ahead every year.
Congo, Democratic Republic of the ranks 148th and Malta ranks 151st of 182 countries.
Congo, Democratic Republic of the has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher paying taxes: time to comply with corporate income tax correction, Congo, Democratic Republic of the or Malta?
- Congo, Democratic Republic of the, at 60.55 against 57.8 in Malta as of 2019.
- What is the difference in paying taxes: time to comply with corporate income tax correction between Congo, Democratic Republic of the and Malta?
- 2.75, with Congo, Democratic Republic of the ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Congo, Democratic Republic of the and Malta?
- 5 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2019.
- How do Congo, Democratic Republic of the and Malta rank globally for paying taxes: time to comply with corporate income tax correction?
- Congo, Democratic Republic of the ranks 148th and Malta ranks 151st of 182 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Paying taxes: Time to comply with corporate income tax correction (hours) (DB17-20 methodology) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The score for time to comply with a corporate income tax correction 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, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.