Preventing Disputes Before They Arise: A Data-Driven Look at Finland's APA Programme
The OECD has released its latest Advance Pricing Arrangement (APA) statistics for 2024, and the figures offer a telling picture of how effective dispute prevention mechanisms are when put to the test.
In our previous article, we took a closer look at the OECD's data on Mutual Agreement Procedures (MAP). Here, we turn our attention to APAs: how Finland's cases have unfolded, what the numbers tell us about timelines and outcomes, and — perhaps most importantly — whether pursuing an APA is genuinely worthwhile when Finland is one of the parties involved.
Why dispute prevention deserves more attention
The international tax environment has grown more complex since the OECD/G20 BEPS project. Compliance obligations have multiplied, audit activity has intensified, and double taxation risk is now a persistent feature of cross-border operations. Transfer pricing positions that remain unconfirmed expose companies to adjustment risk in multiple jurisdictions simultaneously. APAs address this directly by fixing the intra-group pricing before a dispute can arise. Under an APA, a taxpayer and two (or more) competent authorities agree on the intra-group pricing and methodology for specified transactions in advance, creating binding certainty for a defined period. APA’ role in enhancing tax certainty is therefore critical: instead of waiting for an audit to trigger a cross-border disagreement, an APA locks in the applicable methodology in advance.
The OECD's Bilateral APA Manual sets out best practices for competent authorities, and the OECD Forum on Tax Administration now treats dispute prevention as a priority on par with dispute resolution. Based on OECD data for 2024, the number of jurisdictions reporting bilateral APAs increased by approximately 10% compared to 2023. Two full years of APA-specific statistics are now available, offering a dataset against which to evaluate programme performance on a global and local level.
Agreeing the transfer pricing method upfront is fundamentally different from defending it in an audit a couple of years later.
Global APA trends: growth, delays, and rejections
Global bilateral APA landscape (2023-2024)
- Jurisdictions reporting bilateral APA programmes: 80 (up from 73 in 2023), of which 49 are actively managing cases.
- Year-on-year filing trend: applications filed rose by 3%.
- Closure rate: roughly one quarter of the total inventory was closed during the period, consistent with 2023.
- Non-grant closures: the share of APA closures resulting in rejection or closure without agreement rose from just under 12% in 2023 to over 19% in 2024.
- APA-to-MAP ratio: eleven jurisdictions report ratios exceeding 50%1) the overall average stands at 37.8%.
- Multilateral APAs: a growing number of jurisdictions are entering into multilateral arrangements, though these remain a small share of total bilateral APA activity.
[1] These eleven jurisdictions are Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore, China, Korea, Australia, Malaysia, United States, New Zealand, India.
Source: OECD 2024 MAP and APA Statistics
Speed remains a concern. The global average time to grant a bilateral APA rose by almost three months to 39.6 months in 2024, meaning taxpayers wait over three years for certainty. The variation across jurisdictions is wide. While the total number of APAs granted globally held broadly steady in 2024, the share of cases closing without an agreement increased significantly, with almost 20% of concluded cases failing to reach a resolution, compared to around 12% the year before. Whether this reflects case complexity, resource constraints, or tightened acceptance criteria (or all of them) is unclear, but it makes application quality more important than ever. In most jurisdictions, limited competent authority resourcing constrains both the speed and initiative of that country's engagement.
In practice, the decision to pursue an APA is shaped as much by the process as by the outcome. The upfront investment in preparing a robust application is substantial, followed typically by a number of detailed information requests, meetings and interviews with tax authorities, and the multi-year negotiation timeline means that certainty rarely comes on the business's schedule. These constraints can discourage taxpayers from engaging in the procedure, particularly where the underlying transactions are changing or the regulatory landscape is in flux.
"An APA programme is only as strong as the competent authority behind it: its resources, its expertise, and its willingness to engage constructively with taxpayers and treaty partners."
Finland in focus: a programme gaining momentum and a rapidly expanding pipeline
Table: Finnish bilateral APA statistics at a glance (2023–2024)
Source: OECD 2024 MAP and APA Statistics: Finland country annex.
Finland's bilateral APA inventory doubled in two years. The doubling was driven by sustained inflow against a low rate of case closures. Although in 2024, Finland received slightly fewer new applications than in 2023, only a handful of cases were concluded. The growth reflects pipeline accumulation rather than a surge in new demand, and confirms continuing taxpayer preference for resolving tax matters, including transfer pricing, on a prospective basis. The growth rate indicates also the limited competent authority resources for APA negotiations.
While Finland's average processing time for bilateral APAs improved in 2024 and remained well below the global average, the clearance rate tells a different story. With caseloads continuing to grow, the number of cases brought to conclusion remains low relative to both the pipeline and global benchmarks. The timeline is, however, inherently bilateral. Even where the Finnish competent authority processes its side efficiently, the overall duration will depend equally on the responsiveness and capacity of the counterpart authority. In cases involving jurisdictions with longer processing times, the actual elapsed period may substantially exceed Finland's domestic average. Taxpayers are well advised to factor in this bilateral dimension from the outset and to engage advisers, such as Deloitte, with direct experience of the counterpart jurisdiction's APA process, as that familiarity can meaningfully influence both the pace and the outcome of negotiations.
Finland rejected two APA applications in 2024, having rejected none the previous year. The dataset remains too limited to draw any Finland-specific conclusions, but the development aligns with a broader global pattern of rising non-grant closures. If this trajectory continues, it points in a concerning direction, one that does little to advance tax certainty. What makes this particularly problematic is the downstream effect: rejected APA applications do not simply disappear. The same disputes are liable to resurface through the MAP process, which is a reactive rather than preventive mechanism. This creates a cycle that is difficult to justify from the taxpayer's perspective. An APA is, by design, a tool for certainty, and even a single rejection undermines that purpose entirely.
A notable feature of the Finnish data is the scale of the APA programme relative to the MAP. Finland's end-2024 APA inventory of 70 cases already exceeds its transfer pricing MAP inventory of 56. The two are structurally different, but the relative scale signals that dispute prevention is approaching parity with dispute resolution in Finland's bilateral transfer pricing work. There are eleven jurisdictions that have already crossed that threshold.
When set against Finland's MAP statistics, the APA figures compare surprisingly unfavorably. The Finnish competent authority has consistently closed a comparable or slightly higher number of transfer pricing MAP cases than were initiated, averaging 22 closures per year — with 28 resolved in 2024 alone. The APA picture looks markedly different: only 2 and 4 APAs were granted in 2023 and 2024 respectively, figures that fall well short of the number of applications submitted.
A well-functioning APA programme should, over time, reduce the MAP caseload rather than feed into it. If the Finnish competent authority is able to sustain MAP throughput at its current pace, there is no obvious reason why comparable focus and resources could not be directed towards APA cases. Closing that gap is not merely a matter of administrative efficiency — it is fundamental to delivering the tax certainty that the APA process is designed to provide.
"The rapid growth of Finland's APA inventory is a vote of confidence from taxpayers. But the programme's long-term credibility in creating tax certainty will depend on its ability to convert that pipeline into concluded agreements within the next few years."
Practical implications: what taxpayers should consider
A bilateral APA requires thorough transfer pricing analysis, a well-documented and defensible methodology, and a submission quality capable of satisfying two or more competent authorities. The clock starts only when the competent authority deems the application complete, making preparation critical. With global rejection rates rising from under 12% in 2023 to over 19% in 2024, rigorous benchmarking and a realistic assessment of what will gain bilateral acceptance are essential.
Working with advisers who know the relevant competent authorities’ expectations materially improves both application quality and negotiation pace. Deloitte has a proven and extensive track record in APA processes across a significant number of jurisdictions worldwide giving us unparalleled insight into the practical and procedural dynamics of APA negotiations at an international level. Our global network operates seamlessly across borders, and our professionals work closely and regularly with these authorities, ensuring that we understand not only the formal legal and procedural frameworks, but also the preferences, priorities, and negotiating positions that characterize each jurisdiction.
Finnish taxpayers should plan for approximately two to three years from submission to conclusion. That is faster than the global average, but still a significant commitment, and the figure reflects current averages that may lengthen as caseloads grow. Needless to say, that the direction should be the opposite.
APAs operate prospectively, though rollback to earlier open years is available under Finnish practice in appropriate circumstances. Where transactions span three or more jurisdictions, a multilateral APA is often preferable to multiple bilateral arrangements. Given the time and cost involved, taxpayers should identify a materiality threshold above which an APA is warranted; the investment is most readily justified where the underlying transfer pricing exposure is significant.
Looking ahead
The premise of an APA is straightforward: agree on the rules before the game begins. Finland's APA programme shows genuine promise, with processing times well below the global average and a growing pipeline that reflects taxpayers’ real wish (or even despair?) to get confident upfront rather than ending in a tax dispute afterwards. But confidence alone does not create certainty. A programme that takes in more cases than it can conclude will, over time, undermine the very purpose it is designed to serve. Translating that pipeline into concluded agreements requires investment, and that means adequate resourcing of the competent authorities. The demand is there. The question is whether the resources will follow.
