On the occasion of the fifth Tax Certainty Day, the OECD released the 2022 MAP statistics and the winners of the MAP awards for this year.

• Category 1 - Average time to close MAP cases
• Category 2 - Age of Inventory
• Category 3 - Caseload Management
• Category 4 - Co-operation
• Category 5 - Most Improved Jurisdiction
  

Note: The winners for all categories have been determined by taking into account the time necessary and the outcomes reached in MAP by the jurisdictions concerned as well.

 

Award 1: Transfer pricing cases

• Methodology: Shortest average time to close MAP cases, in months
• Type of cases: Transfer pricing cases, received before or after 1 January 2016 (or 1 January of the year of joining the BEPS Inclusive Framework)*
• Size: Jurisdictions that closed more than 50 transfer pricing cases in 2022
• Winner: Netherlands with approximately 19.6 months.  
  

 

Award 2: Other cases

• Methodology: Shortest average time to close MAP cases, in months
• Type of cases: Other cases, received before or after 1 January 2016 (or 1 January of the year of joining the BEPS Inclusive Framework)*
• Size: Jurisdictions that closed more than 20 other cases in 2022
• Winner: New Zealand with approximately 6 months.  
  

 

Award 3: Best Age of Inventory

• Methodology: Smallest portion of cases received before 1 January 2016 (or 1 January of the year of joining the BEPS Inclusive Framework)* in end inventory, in %
• Type of cases: Both transfer pricing cases and other cases
• Size: Jurisdictions with more than 100 cases left in 2022 end inventory
• Winner: Canada with approximately 1.04%.
  

 

Award 4: Large Inventory

• Methodology: Highest closing ratio in %** taking into account case outcomes
• Type of cases: Both transfer pricing cases and other cases, received before or after 1 January 2016 (or 1 January of the year of joining the BEPS Inclusive Framework)*
• Size: Jurisdictions with more than 100 cases left in 2022 end inventory
• Winner: Luxembourg with approximately 57%.
  

 

Award 5: Medium Inventory

• Methodology: Highest closing ratio in %** taking into account case outcomes
• Type of cases: Both transfer pricing cases and other cases, received before or after 1 January 2016 (or 1 January of the year of joining the BEPS Inclusive Framework)*
• Size: Jurisdictions with more than 20 cases but fewer than 100 cases left in 2022 end inventory
• Winner: Norway with approximately 54%.
  

 

Award 6: Transfer pricing cases

• Methodology: Most number of MAP cases fully resolved through agreement by a pair of jurisdictions as compared to their total MAP caseload as determined by the agreement score***
• Type of cases: Transfer pricing cases received after 1 January 2016 (or 1 January of the year of joining the BEPS Inclusive Framework)*
• Size: Pairs of jurisdictions with more than 20 transfer pricing cases pending in 2022 (start inventory + cases started)
• Winners: Denmark with Ireland with an agreement score of approximately 83 points.
  

 

Award 7: Other cases

• Methodology: Most number of MAP cases fully resolved through agreement by a pair of jurisdictions as compared to their total MAP caseload as determined by the agreement score***
• Type of cases: Other cases received after 1 January 2016 (or 1 January of the year of joining the BEPS Inclusive Framework)*
• Size: Pairs of jurisdictions with more than 20 other MAP cases pending in 2022 (start inventory + cases started)
• Winners: Ireland with Germany with an agreement score of approximately 135 points.
  

 

Award 8: Most Improved Jurisdiction

• Methodology: Greatest increase in number of cases closed with unilateral relief or full agreement (2022 vs 2021), with an increase for both transfer pricing and other cases
• Type of cases: Both transfer pricing cases and other cases, received before or after 1 January 2016 (or 1 January of the year of joining the BEPS Inclusive Framework)*
• Size: All jurisdictions
• Winner: Netherlands with an increase by 102 cases closed with unilateral relief or full agreement in 2022 compared to 2021 (+ 31 for transfer pricing cases and + 71 for other cases).

 

* 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. 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.

** The closing ratio measures the number of MAP cases closed by each jurisdiction during the reporting year as compared its total MAP caseload. This is calculated by taking the percentage of the number 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 halved in this ratio 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.

*** The agreement score measures the number of MAP cases fully resolved in the bilateral phase by the pair of jurisdictions as compared to their total MAP caseload. The score is calculated by comparing (i) the number of MAP cases fully resolved in the bilateral phase with an agreement, either fully eliminating the double taxation or fully resolving the taxation not in accordance with the tax treaty by the pair of jurisdictions with (ii) the sum of the number of MAP cases in inventory at the beginning of the year and half of the number of MAP cases that started during the year. The number of MAP cases started during the reporting year is halved in this computation 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.  For instance, a pair of jurisdictions that has 10 cases in their start inventory, 20 cases that start during the year, and that close 10 of them with an agreement, either fully eliminating the double taxation or fully resolving the taxation not in accordance with the tax treaty would have a score of 50 points. The agreement score can be up to 200 points, in very rare circumstances.