The report on BEPS Action 14 (Making Dispute Resolution Mechanisms More Effective) contains a commitment by jurisdictions to implement a minimum standard to ensure that they resolve treaty-related disputes in a timely, effective and efficient manner. All members of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS (Inclusive Framework) commit to the implementation of the Action 14 minimum standard which includes timely and complete reporting of mutual agreement procedure (MAP) statistics pursuant to an agreed reporting framework. The 2023 MAP statistics are reported under this new framework. They cover all the members that joined the Inclusive Framework prior to 2024.
2023 Mutual Agreement Procedure Statistics
The MAP statistics form part of the BEPS Action 14 Minimum Standard and the wider G20/OECD tax certainty agenda to improve the effectiveness and timeliness of tax-related dispute resolution mechanisms. The statistics provide an objective and global frame of reference, as well as a country-specific view, which together allow measurement of progress but also show where further work is needed.
About
At a glance
Type of case | Average time |
---|---|
Transfer pricing cases | 32.01 months |
Other cases | 23.36 months |
All cases* | 2023 Start inventory | Cases started in 2023 | Cases closed in 2023 | 2023 End inventory |
---|---|---|---|---|
Cases received prior to 1 January 2016 or of the year of joining the BEPS Inclusive Framework | 1042 | 0 | 213 | 813 |
Cases received on or after 1 January 2016 or of the year of joining the BEPS Inclusive Framework | 5413 | 2336 | 2388 | 5362 |
* New cases (cases received on or after 1 January 2016 or 1 January of the year of joining the Inclusive Framework) are counted using an agreed methodology that uses a common start date and allows for reconciliation of all MAP cases between members of the Inclusive Framework thus eliminating double counting.
Old cases (cases received prior to 1 January 2016 or 1 January of the year of joining the Inclusive Framework) were based on each reporting jurisdictions' own methodology without a jurisdiction by jurisdiction breakdown and the possibility of reconciliation. Aggregate reporting for old cases therefore included double counting of cases reported by two reporting jurisdictions in their respective inventory.
Breakdown per reporting jurisdiction
The 2023 MAP statistics are available per reporting jurisdiction for all cases, transfer pricing cases and other cases. The reference to 'transfer pricing cases' pertains to "attribution/allocation cases" under the agreed reporting framework. These are MAP cases where the taxpayer's MAP request relates to either (1) the attribution of profits to a permanent establishment (see e.g. Article 7 of the OECD Model Tax Convention); or (2) the determination of profits between associated enterprises (see e.g. Article 9 of the OECD Model Tax Convention). Any MAP case that is not a transfer pricing case is an "other" MAP case.
- Albania
- Andorra
- Angola
- Anguilla
- Antigua and Barbuda
- Argentina
- Armenia
- Aruba
- Australia
- Austria
- Azerbaijan
- Bahamas
- Bahrain
- Barbados
- Belgium
- Belize
- Benin
- Bermuda
- Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Botswana
- Brazil
- British Virgin Islands
- Brunei Darussalam
- Bulgaria
- Burkina Faso
- Cabo Verde
- Cameroon
- Canada
- Cayman Islands
- Chile
- China (People's Republic of)
- Colombia
- Cook Islands
- Costa Rica
- Côte d'Ivoire
- Croatia
- Curaçao
- Czechia
- Democratic Republic of the Congo
- Denmark
- Djibouti
- Dominica
- Dominican Republic
- Egypt
- Estonia
- Eswatini
- Faroe Islands
- Finland
- France
- Gabon
- Georgia
- Germany
- Gibraltar
- Greece
- Greenland
- Grenada
- Guernsey
- Haiti
- Honduras
- Hong Kong, China
- Hungary
- Iceland
- India
- Indonesia
- Ireland
- Isle of Man
- Israel
- Italy
- Jamaica
- Japan
- Jersey
- Jordan
- Kazakhstan
- Kenya
- Korea
- Kuwait
- Latvia
- Liberia
- Liechtenstein
- Lithuania
- Luxembourg
- Macau, China
- Malaysia
- Maldives
- Malta
- Mauritania
- Mauritius
- Mexico
- Monaco
- Mongolia
- Montenegro
- Montserrat
- Morocco
- Namibia
- Netherlands
- New Zealand
- Nigeria
- North Macedonia
- Norway
- Oman
- Pakistan
- Panama
- Papua New Guinea
- Paraguay
- Peru
- Philippines
- Poland
- Portugal
- Qatar
- Romania
- Saint Kitts and Nevis
- Saint Lucia
- Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
- Samoa
- San Marino
- Saudi Arabia
- Senegal
- Serbia
- Seychelles
- Singapore
- Slovak Republic
- Slovenia
- South Africa
- Spain
- Sri Lanka
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Thailand
- Togo
- Trinidad and Tobago
- Tunisia
- Türkiye
- Turks and Caicos Islands
- Ukraine
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Uruguay
- Uzbekistan
- Viet Nam
- Zambia
Note: The following jurisdictions were members of the inclusive framework in 2023 but have not submitted their 2023 MAP statistics: Congo, Jordan and Sierra Leone. The ‘closing ratio’ measures the number of MAP cases closed by each jurisdiction during the reporting year compared to its total MAP caseload. This is calculated by taking the percentage of MAP cases closed during the year over the sum of (i) the number of MAP cases in inventory at the beginning of the year and (ii) half of the number of MAP cases that started during the year. The number of MAP cases started during the reporting year is divided by 2 as some of the MAP cases started may have started towards the end of the year, making it unreasonable to expect jurisdictions to have closed such cases. This adjustment also explains that the ‘closing ratio’ may be higher than 100% for some jurisdictions.
Evolution of MAP inventory per reporting jurisdiction
All cases
Notes:
- The following jurisdictions reported not being involved in any MAP cases in 2023: Angola, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Aruba, Bahamas, Bahrain, Belize, Bermuda, Bosnia and Herzegovina, British Virgin Islands, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cayman Islands, Cook Islands, Cote d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Eswatini, Gabon, Georgia, Gibraltar, Grenada, Haiti, Honduras, Macau, China, Maldives, Mauritania, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Montserrat, Namibia, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Togo, Turks and Caicos Islands and Uzbekistan.
- The following jurisdictions were members of the inclusive framework in 2023 but have not yet submitted their 2023 MAP statistics: Congo, Jordan and Sierra Leone.
Transfer pricing cases
Other cases
Inventory trends
All cases
Transfer pricing cases
Other cases
*The evolutions depicted are based on cumulative numbers reported by individual jurisdictions (i.e. on the sum of all cases reported by each reporting jurisdiction) and therefore, do not eliminate double counting. These numbers should only be used for comparative trends. More information on the differences as compared to the numbers used on the MAP Statistics page is provided in the Frequently Asked Questions.
Cases received prior to or after 1 January 2016 or 1 January of the year of joining the Inclusive Framework
In the MAP Statistics Reporting Framework, a distinction is made between the cases received before or as from 1 January 2016, which is the date as from when the reporting jurisdictions committed to the implementation of the Action 14 minimum standard. For the jurisdictions that joined the Inclusive Framework after 31 December 2016, the distinction is made between the cases received before or as from 1 January of the year of joining the Inclusive Framework on BEPS (IF membership).
- The cases received before 1 January 2016 or 1 January of the year of joining the Inclusive Framework are cases that were in the inventory of the jurisdictions before they committed to the implementation of the Action 14 minimum standard. The number of cases in such category will decrease over time.
- The cases received as from 1 January 2016 or 1 January of the year of joining the Inclusive Framework are cases that started after the jurisdictions committed to the implementation of the Action 14 minimum standard. The share of cases in such category will increase over time and eventually will cover all cases in a jurisdiction’s inventory.
The main differences between the two categories are the following:
Cases received before 1 January 2016 or 1 January of the year of joining the Inclusive Framework on BEPS | Cases received on or after 1 January 2016 or 1 January of the year of joining the Inclusive Framework on BEPS |
---|---|
|
|
Transfer pricing cases and other cases
The agreed reporting framework now makes a distinction between "attribution/allocation" cases and "other" cases.
An attribution/allocation case (called here a "transfer pricing case") is a MAP case where the taxpayer’s MAP request relates to either:
- the attribution of profits to a permanent establishment (see e.g. Article 7 of the OECD Model Tax Convention); or
- the determination of profits between associated enterprises (see e.g. Article 9 of the OECD Model Tax Convention).
Any MAP case that is not an attribution/allocation MAP case is considered as an "other" MAP case.
Note: While these definitions belong to the set of rules applicable for cases started as from 1 January 2016 or 1 January of the year of joining the Inclusive Framework, the jurisdictions may have used different definitions for cases that started before 1 January 2016 and specify in the notes of their own statistics the definitions they have used. See also above for more details about the distinction between cases started before or as from 1 January 2016 or 1 January of the year of joining the BEPS Inclusive Framework (IF membership).
Transfer pricing cases* | Start inventory | Cases started | Cases closed | End inventory |
---|---|---|---|---|
Cases received prior to 1 January 2016 or of the year of joining the BEPS Inclusive Framework | 529 | 0 | 107 | 420 |
Cases received on or after 1 January 2016 or of the year of joining the BEPS Inclusive Framework | 2869 | 979 | 1078 | 2770 |
Other cases* | Start inventory | Cases started | Cases closed | End inventory |
---|---|---|---|---|
Cases received prior to 1 January 2016 or of the year of joining the BEPS Inclusive Framework | 513 | 0 | 106 | 393 |
Cases received on or after 1 January 2016 or of the year of joining the BEPS Inclusive Framework | 2545 | 1357 | 1310 | 2592 |
* New cases (cases received on or after 1 January 2016 or 1 January of the year of joining the BEPS Inclusive Framework) are counted using an agreed methodology that uses a common start date and allows for reconciliation of all MAP cases between members of the Inclusive Framework thus eliminating double counting. Old cases (cases received prior to 1 January 2016 or 1 January of the year of joining the BEPS Inclusive Framework) are counted based on each reporting jurisdictions' own methodology without a jurisdiction by jurisdiction breakdown and the possibility of reconciliation. Aggregate reporting for old cases therefore included double counting of cases reported by two reporting jurisdictions in their respective inventory.
Case Age and Resolution Time Metrics
In 2022, the IF members updated the MAP Statistics Reporting Framework to include, as from reporting year 2023, two additional datapoints regarding cases received on or after 1 January 2016 or of the year of joining the BEPS Inclusive Framework. Jurisdictions are now required to provide a breakdown of the age of their MAP caseload as well as the average time taken to resolve MAP cases at the unilateral and bilateral stages of MAP.
Breakdown of the age of MAP cases in total inventory
Less than 2 years old | Between 2 and 4 years old | Between 4 and 6 years old | More than 6 years old | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Cases received on or after 1 January 2016 or of the year of joining the BEPS Inclusive Framework | 55.9% | 25.7% | 12.5% | 5.9% |
All cases* | 51.9% | 23.9% | 11.6% | 12.6% |
* Cases received on or after 1 January 2016 or of the year of joining the BEPS Inclusive Framework and cases received before 1 January 2016 or of the year of joining the BEPS Inclusive Framework
Average time taken to resolve post-2015 MAP cases at the unilateral and bilateral stage
Cases received on or after 1 January 2016 or of the year of joining the BEPS Inclusive Framework | Average time taken to resolve MAP cases at the unilateral stage* (in months) | Average time taken to resolve MAP cases at the bilateral stage** (in months) |
---|---|---|
Transfer pricing cases | 15.48 | 29.46 |
Other cases | 8.85 | 23.04 |
All cases | 9.78 | 26.35 |
* MAP cases closed with the following outcomes: “denied MAP access”, “objection is not justified” and “unilateral relief granted
** MAP cases closed with any outcome other than: “denied MAP access”, “objection is not justified” and “unilateral relief granted
Further information
MAP statistics for 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 are still available for OECD member countries and several non-OECD economies that have agreed to provide such statistics for these periods. Action 14 develops solutions to address obstacles that prevent countries from solving treaty-related disputes under MAP, via a minimum standard in this area and several best practices. It also includes arbitration as an option for willing countries.
- See Frequently Asked Questions on the MAP Statistics for more details on how the MAP statistics are reported and analysed.
- Learn more about OECD work on dispute resolution
- Contact us by e-mail: ctp.beps@oecd.org
- Follow us on social media: @OECDtax (X/Twitter) & OECD Tax (LinkedIn)
Related content
-
The 2023 Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) and Advance Pricing Arrangement (APA) Statistics, the 2023 MAP & APA Awards and the 2024 Consolidated Information on MAP were released during the sixth OECD Tax Certainty Day.Learn more
-
In line with the OECD/G20 tax certainty agenda, which promotes dispute prevention, APA Statistics are a new metric designed to provide a clearer, more accurate view of a jurisdiction’s dispute prevention and resolution efforts, enhancing transparency in this area. When read alongside MAP Statistics, APA Statistics give stakeholders a more complete picture of a jurisdiction’s approach to preventing and resolving transfer pricing disputes.Learn more
-
This event allowed tax policymakers, tax administrations, business representatives and other stakeholders to take stock of the tax certainty agenda and move towards further improvements in dispute prevention and dispute resolution.Learn more