Statizoid

Paying taxes: Time to comply with corporate income tax correction (hours) (DB17-20 methodology) by country

The time to comply with a corporate income tax correction measures the time spent preparing and submitting the correction, and the time spent preparing information for the tax officers, if, in 25% or more of cases, a company that voluntarily reports an error in its CIT return and an underpayment of the tax due...

Countries reporting
181
Highest
137 DB17-20 methodology
Brunei
Lowest
1 DB17-20 methodology
Portugal
Median
7 DB17-20 methodology
Years covered
5
2015–2019
Data points
905

What the numbers show

Paying taxes: Time to comply with corporate income tax correction (hours) (DB17-20 methodology) is currently reported for 181 countries. The highest value is 137 DB17-20 methodology in Brunei; the lowest is 1 DB17-20 methodology in Portugal.

The median across all reporting countries is 7 DB17-20 methodology, and the mean is 14.67 DB17-20 methodology.

The gap between the highest and lowest reporting country is a factor of about 137.

Paying taxes: Time to comply with corporate income tax correction: full country ranking

#Country LatestYear 10-year changeTrend
1 Brunei 137 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
2 Afghanistan 111 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — falling
3 Iraq 83 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
4 Kiribati 81 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
5 Saudi Arabia 69 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
6 Pakistan 67.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
7 Central African Republic 66 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
8 Sudan 60 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
9 Dominican Republic 59.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
10 East Timor 54.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
11 Trinidad and Tobago 54 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
12 Chad 46 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
13 Guinea 43 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
14 Niger 41.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
15 Puerto Rico 41 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
16 Brazil 39 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
17 Bangladesh 37 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
17 Togo 37 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Congo 36.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
19 Croatia 36.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
21 Iran 32 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — falling
22 Cambodia 31 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
23 Chile 30.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — falling
23 Guyana 30.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
25 Bosnia and Herzegovina 30 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
26 Slovenia 29 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
27 Mozambique 28 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
27 Panama 28 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
29 Nepal 26 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
30 Egypt 24.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
30 Malta 24.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
32 Jamaica 24 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
33 Democratic Republic of Congo 23 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
33 Lebanon 23 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
35 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 22.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
36 North Macedonia 21.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
36 Kosovo 21.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
36 Kosovo (UNSCR 1244) 21.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
39 Kenya 20.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
39 Malawi 20.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
41 Kyrgyzstan 20 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
41 Uganda 20 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Rwanda 19 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
44 Mauritania 18.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
45 Albania 18 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
46 Oman 17.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
47 Honduras 17 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
47 Singapore 17 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
49 Peru 16.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
50 Laos 16 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
51 Canada 15 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
51 Djibouti 15 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
51 Guatemala 15 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
54 Tonga 14 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
55 Cote d'Ivoire 13.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
55 Gabon 13.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
55 Madagascar 13.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
55 Mexico 13.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
59 Burundi 13 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
59 Palestine 13 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
59 San Marino 13 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — falling
59 Venezuela 13 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
63 Comoros 12 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
63 Fiji 12 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
63 Norway 12 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
66 Bulgaria 11.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — falling
66 Libya 11.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
66 Senegal 11.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
69 Malaysia 11.25 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
70 Jordan 11 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
70 Lesotho 11 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
70 South Africa 11 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — falling
73 Thailand 10.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — falling
73 Tajikistan 10.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
75 Israel 10 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
75 Myanmar 10 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
75 Sao Tome and Principe 10 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
75 Syria 10 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
79 Switzerland 9.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
79 Montenegro 9.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
81 Eritrea 9 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
81 Equatorial Guinea 9 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
81 South Korea 9 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
81 Nicaragua 9 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
81 Paraguay 9 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
86 Samoa 8.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
87 Ethiopia 8 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
87 Finland 8 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
87 United States 8 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
90 Angola 7 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
90 Maldives 7 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — falling
90 Mali 7 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
90 Nigeria 7 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Gambia 6.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Guinea-Bissau 6.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Sierra Leone 6.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
94 Taiwan 6.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Argentina 6 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 United Kingdom 6 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Poland 6 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Russia 6 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 South Sudan 6 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
103 Belgium 5.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
103 Colombia 5.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
103 Haiti 5.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
103 Uzbekistan 5.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
107 Italy 5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
107 Suriname 5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
107 Sweden 5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
107 Tanzania 5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
111 Germany 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
111 Denmark 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
111 Saint Lucia 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
111 Luxembourg 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
111 Papua New Guinea 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — falling
111 Serbia 4.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Belize 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Botswana 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Grenada 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Hungary 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
117 Kazakhstan 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Namibia 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 New Zealand 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
117 Eswatini 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
125 Iceland 3.75 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
126 Armenia 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
126 Barbados 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
126 Bhutan 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
126 Cape Verde 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
126 France 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
126 Greece 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
126 Mongolia 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
126 Netherlands 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
126 Vietnam 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
126 Zimbabwe 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
136 Zambia 3.25 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — falling
137 Antigua and Barbuda 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
137 Azerbaijan 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
137 Benin 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
137 Burkina Faso 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
137 Cameroon 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
137 Cyprus 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
137 Indonesia 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
137 India 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
137 Japan 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
137 Liberia 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
137 Sri Lanka 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
137 Morocco 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
137 Ukraine 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
150 Hong Kong 2.75 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
151 Austria 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
151 Costa Rica 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
151 Ecuador 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
151 Ghana 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
151 Latvia 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
151 Moldova 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
151 Mauritius 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — falling
151 El Salvador 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
151 Uruguay 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
160 Czechia 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
160 Algeria 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
160 Ireland 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
160 Saint Kitts and Nevis 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
160 Romania 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
160 Slovakia 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
160 Yemen 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
167 Australia 1.75 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
168 Bolivia 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
168 Dominica 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
168 Spain 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
168 Estonia 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
168 Lithuania 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
168 Philippines 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
168 Solomon Islands 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
168 Seychelles 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
168 Tunisia 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — falling
168 Turkey 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
178 Belarus 1 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
178 China 1 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
178 Georgia 1 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
178 Portugal 1 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Paying taxes: Time to comply with corporate income tax correction by country. Statizoid. Retrieved 29 August 2026, from https://reference.statizoid.com/stat/paying-taxes-time-to-comply-with-corporate-income-tax-correction-hours-db17-20-methodology/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://reference.statizoid.com/stat/paying-taxes-time-to-comply-with-corporate-income-tax-correction-hours-db17-20-methodology/">Paying taxes: Time to comply with corporate income tax correction by country</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Paying taxes: Time to comply with corporate income tax correction (hours) (DB17-20 methodology)
Unit
DB17-20 methodology
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
181 places, 905 data points, 2015–2019
Last refreshed

The time to comply with a corporate income tax correction measures the time spent preparing and submitting the correction, and the time spent preparing information for the tax officers, if, in 25% or more of cases, a company that voluntarily reports an error in its CIT return and an underpayment of the tax due would be selected for additional review. The component indicator is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.