Cameroon vs Democratic Republic of the Congo: Effective tax rates - Corporate tax statistics — Effective marginal

Cameroon
364.49 Percentage of taxable income
in 2025
Democratic Republic of the Congo
43.54 Percentage of taxable income
in 2025
Cameroon rank
1st
Democratic Republic of the Congo rank
1st

Effective tax rates - Corporate tax statistics — Effective marginal over time

  • Cameroon
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo
0100200300400201720212025

How they compare

Cameroon currently reports 364.49 Percentage of taxable income against 43.54 Percentage of taxable income in Democratic Republic of the Congo, a difference of 320.95 Percentage of taxable income.

That makes Cameroon's figure about 8.4 times Democratic Republic of the Congo's.

Across all 9 years both countries report, Cameroon has been ahead every year.

Cameroon ranks 1st and Democratic Republic of the Congo ranks 1st of 99 countries.

Cameroon has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Cameroon Democratic Republic of the Congo Difference Ahead
2010s 257.93 Percentage of taxable income 35.67 Percentage of taxable income 222.26 Percentage of taxable income Cameroon
2020s 330.68 Percentage of taxable income 41.34 Percentage of taxable income 289.33 Percentage of taxable income Cameroon

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher effective tax rates - corporate tax statistics — effective marginal, Cameroon or Democratic Republic of the Congo?
Cameroon, at 364.49 Percentage of taxable income against 43.54 Percentage of taxable income in Democratic Republic of the Congo as of 2025.
What is the difference in effective tax rates - corporate tax statistics — effective marginal between Cameroon and Democratic Republic of the Congo?
320.95 Percentage of taxable income, with Cameroon ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Cameroon and Democratic Republic of the Congo?
9 years are reported by both, from 2017 to 2025.
How do Cameroon and Democratic Republic of the Congo rank globally for effective tax rates - corporate tax statistics — effective marginal?
Cameroon ranks 1st and Democratic Republic of the Congo ranks 1st of 99 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, published as Effective tax rates - Corporate tax statistics — Effective marginal tax rate. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Cameroon vs Democratic Republic of the Congo: Effective tax rates - Corporate tax statistics — Effective marginal. Statizoid, drawing on Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved 18 September 2026, from https://economy.statizoid.com/compare/effective-tax-rates-corporate-tax-statistics-effective-marginal-tax-rate/cameroon/democratic-republic-of-the-congo/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under OECD Terms and Conditions (attribution required); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://economy.statizoid.com/compare/effective-tax-rates-corporate-tax-statistics-effective-marginal-tax-rate/cameroon/democratic-republic-of-the-congo/">Cameroon vs Democratic Republic of the Congo: Effective tax rates - Corporate tax statistics — Effective marginal</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Effective tax rates - Corporate tax statistics — Effective marginal tax rate
Unit
Percentage of taxable income
Source
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Licence
OECD Terms and Conditions (attribution required)
Coverage
105 places, 936 data points, 2017–2025
Last refreshed

This table reports synthetic tax policy indicators calculated on the basis of a prospective, hypothetical investment project. Unlike backward-looking ETRs, they do not incorporate any information about firms' actual tax payments.The OECD methodology has been described in detail in the OECD Taxation Working Paper No. 38 (Hanappi, 2018). Further methodological information is available in the explanatory annex.