Award 3

• 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 2019 end inventory
• Winner: Belgium, with approximately 10%.

Category 3 - Caseload Management

• Methodology: Highest closing ratio in %**
• 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 2019 end inventory
• Winner: Belgium, with approximately 67%.

Award 5: Medium Inventory

• Methodology: Highest closing ratio in %**
• 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 2019 end inventory
• Winner: Norway, with approximately 65%.

Category 4 - Co-operation

Award 6: Transfer pricing cases

• Methodology: Highest agreement ratio for a pair of jurisdiction in %***
• 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 to resolve in 2019 (start inventory + cases started)
• Winners: India with Japan, with an agreement ratio of approximately 64%.

Award 7: Other cases

• Methodology: Highest agreement ratio for a pair of jurisdiction in %***
• 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 to resolve in 2019 (start inventory + cases started)
• Winners: Norway with the United States, with an agreement ratio of approximately 96%.

* 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 is the ratio of MAP cases closed by the jurisdiction over its total MAP caseload, where the total MAP caseload is the sum of (i) the number of MAP cases in inventory at the beginning of the year and (ii) the number of MAP cases that started during the year. To take into consideration the fact that the MAP cases started during the year did not all start on the exact same date and may have started during the first or the second semester, the latter number is divided by 2. This also explains the fact that the closing ratio may be higher than 100% for some jurisdictions.

*** The agreement ratio is the ratio 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 over their total MAP caseload, where the total MAP caseload is the sum of (i) the number of MAP cases in inventory at the beginning of the year and (ii) the number of MAP cases that started during the year. To take into consideration the fact that the MAP cases started during the year did not all start on the exact same date and may have started during the first or the second semester, the latter number is divided by 2. This also explains the fact that the agreement ratio may be higher than 100% for some jurisdictions.