How MAP Delivers Tax Certainty in Transfer Pricing Disputes
— A Finnish Perspective
The OECD’s latest Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) statistics for 2024 are out, and they make for interesting reading. For multinationals navigating cross-border transfer pricing disputes, the data offers a valuable reality check on how well dispute resolution actually works in practice and where the gaps remain.
In this article, we dig into data from 2016 to 2024 through the lens of Finland. We look into how Finnish MAP cases have played out, what the numbers reveal about the timing and outcomes, and critically, whether pursuing MAP is actually worth it when Finland is involved. Spoiler: the Finnish track record is largely positive, but the story is not without its complications.
The role of MAP is critical in delivering tax certainty
Enhancing tax certainty is one of the main priorities of the OECD Forum on Tax Administration, and rightly so. Since the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project1, regulatory developments have largely increased the compliance burden on taxpayers rather than improving their position. For multinationals, tax certainty is fundamental to sound business planning. Without clarity on how intercompany transactions will be taxed across jurisdictions, investment, structuring, and financing decisions simply cannot be made with confidence.
The consequences of uncertainty are real and wide-ranging. Unresolved cross-border disputes can result in the same income being taxed twice. Companies must provision for uncertain tax positions under IFRS and US GAAP, which affect reported earnings and investor perception. Beyond the numbers, disputes consume significant management time and advisory resources, often over many years. Every euro spent managing an unresolved dispute is a resource not deployed elsewhere. Having a reliable path to dispute resolution, such as MAP, has become a strategic necessity rather than an optional safeguard.
BEPS Action 14 aimed to strengthen MAP procedures by establishing a minimum standard for timely and effective dispute resolution, with an ideal average resolution time not exceeding 24 months for post-2015 cases. But how well is MAP actually delivering on that promise?
"MAP has become a strategic necessity rather than an optional safeguard"
What do the statistics tell us?
The global view
The headline figure is striking: both new and closed transfer pricing MAP cases have doubled globally over the past nine years. This reflects increasing audit activity by local tax authorities and greater use of MAP as a tool to eliminate double taxation. While the parallel increase in cases opened and closed suggests competent authorities have kept pace with demand, the underlying picture is less encouraging.
The average time to resolve a MAP case has remained above 30 months globally since 2016, with no meaningful improvement over nearly a decade. Adding 2.5 years of MAP process on top of an already lengthy domestic dispute process is simply too long. Country-level variation is significant: in 2024, average resolution times exceeded 50 months in Slovenia, Mexico, and Greece, while Switzerland, Spain, and Denmark resolved cases in under 22 months. Furthermore, global statistics suggest that double taxation persisted in approximately 15% of cases2 in 2024, while it was fully eliminated in around 65%. The remaining 20% of outcomes3 indicate that no double taxation ultimately occurred.
The conclusion at a global level is clear: MAP is not consistently delivering tax certainty, either in terms of speed or outcome. From our experience, the answer to whether current resources are sufficient is an unambiguous "no", competent authority capacity has consistently proven too limited, and changes in personnel have repeatedly disrupted ongoing processes.
“Even a single case of exceeding the minimum time standard or resulting in double taxation is unacceptable when it comes to delivering tax certainty.”
Analysing Finland
Finland's picture is considerably more positive, though not without its challenges. The number of Finnish transfer pricing MAP cases has remained relatively stable, averaging around 20 new cases per year between 2016 and 2024 a notable contrast to the doubling seen globally. The Finnish competent authority has consistently closed a comparable or slightly higher number of cases than were initiated, averaging 22 closures annually, with 28 resolved in 2024 alone.
On timing, Finland performed well throughout 2018–2023, resolving post-2016 cases in an average of 18 months, comfortably within the OECD minimum standard. However, 2024 saw a deterioration, with the average climbing to over 26 months. It is also worth noting that on 31 December 2024, three Finnish MAP cases dating back to before 2016 remained unresolved that at this time they had been outstanding for more than eight years. Statistics are averages, and averages can mask significant outliers. Even a single case exceeding the minimum time standard is unacceptable when it comes to delivering tax certainty.
On outcomes, Finland's record is genuinely impressive. During 2016–2024, the following occurred:
Finland resolved 198 transfer pricing MAP cases in total, of which 140 were post-2015 cases.
Germany, Sweden, Italy, and Spain account for 60% of the closed post-2015 cases.
With Spain and Italy, double taxation was fully eliminated in every single case.
With Germany and Sweden, the combined outcomes4 suggest no double taxation occurred in 97% and 93% of the cases, respectively.
Across all the cases involving Finland over 95%5 resulted in double taxation being successfully removed or it had not occured, which is a significantly better outcome than the global average.
“Statistics show that the MAP procedure has been an effective tool for eliminating double taxation in the Finnish cases in terms of time and outcome.”
That said, 2024 produced a notable anomaly: two cases with Sweden went unresolved, with the average resolution time exceeding 39 months. These are the only unresolved cases Finland has recorded across the entire 2016–2024 period, and the fact that they involve Sweden makes them particularly surprising. The Nordic Double Tax Treaty contains no mandatory arbitration clause, but the EU Arbitration Convention was available. The explanation must be the error in the type of MAP application submitted, compounded by unusually complex circumstances. It is a reminder that the choice of MAP procedure is not a technicality, it can be decisive. Out of 198 closed cases, only four have resulted in any residual double taxation. Statistically, that is excellent.
“The choice of MAP procedure is not a technicality, it can be decisive”.
Conclusion
Tax certainty is not just about avoiding a tax bill. It is about running your business with confidence, reporting your financials accurately, and making investment decisions on solid ground. That is why MAP imperfect as it is remains a genuinely important tool for multinationals navigating an increasingly complex international tax landscape.
Globally, the picture needs improvement. Case volumes have doubled, resolution times remain stubbornly above 30 months, and double taxation persists in too many cases. Country-level variation is stark, and understanding which procedures are available, and choosing the right one, matter enormously.
Finland's MAP record, by contrast, is strong. A stable caseload, consistent throughput, and excellent outcomes on double taxation elimination all reflect a competent authority with a genuine preference for negotiated resolution. But even Finland is not immune to delays or failure, and more resources and improved processes are still needed, both globally and domestically, to raise the bar on tax certainty for all.
____________________
[1] The OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Action Plan outlined 15 action points for tackling international tax avoidance and ensuring that profits are taxed where economic activities take place. The final reports for all 15 actions were delivered to G20 leaders in November 2015.
[2] Transfer pricing cases remained unresolved, MAP access was denied, double taxation was only partially eliminated and the competent authority concluded that the materialscope requirements of the applicable MAP provision were not satisfied.
[3] There has been agreement that no double taxation existed, the MAP application has been withdrawn by the taxpayer or the matter was resolved via a domestic remedy.
[4] Double taxation has been fully eliminated, there has been agreement that
no double taxation existed, the MAP application has been withdrawn by thetaxpayer, or the matter was resolved via a domestic remedy.
[5] Double taxation has been fully eliminated, there has been agreement that no double taxation existed, the MAP application has been withdrawn by the taxpayer, the matter was resolved via a domestic remedy or unilateral relief was granted.
