2022 Mutual Agreement Procedure Statistics

* 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.

Notes:

• the following jurisdictions reported not being involved in any MAP cases in 2022: Angola, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Aruba, Bahamas, Bahrain, Belize, Bermuda, Bosnia and Herzegovina, British Virgin Islands, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cameroon, Cayman Islands, Congo, Cook Islands, Cote d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Eswatini, Gabon, Georgia, Grenada, Haiti, Honduras, Liberia, Macau (China), Maldives, Mauritania, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Montserrat, Namibia, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Turks and Caicos Islands, United Arab Emirates and Uruguay.
• the following jurisdictions were members of the Inclusive Framework in 2022 but have not yet submitted their 2022 MAP statistics: Congo, Gabon, Liberia, Montenegro, Paraguay, Sierra Leone, and Mauritania. 

• 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:

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).

* 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.