The process of mutual unification (POP) remains the most widely used way and the best way to eliminate double taxation. The effective use of PPIs by different instruments has been of interest to the OECD and the EU for more than 20 years. According to bePS, the number of double taxes is increasing and the number of POPs continues to increase. There is a growing emphasis on ensuring better dispute resolution techniques to more effectively eliminate double taxation. This article describes some of the features of the instruments currently available. On 18 November 2020, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) organised its second OECD tax security day as a virtual event (the event). During the event, the OECD published the 2019 Regulations on Mutual Agreement Procedures (MAP), 1 of the 20192 MAP Awards, and also announced a public consultation on the revision of minimum dispute resolution standards under Action 14.3. Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cameroon, Congo, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Egypt, Gabon, Grenada, Haiti, Jamaica, Liberia, Mongolia, Montserrat, Nigeria, Northern Macedonia, St. Lucia, St.
Vincent and the Grenadines, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates and Vietnam. Within the EU, the EU Arbitration Convention came into force on 1 January 1995 as an instrument that promised to allow the elimination of double taxation between Member States. It is important that it provides for a binding and binding arbitration mechanism that eliminates double taxation, with the advice of an independent advisory body, if the competent authorities fail to reach an agreement after two years. This went beyond the existing bilateral agreements at the time, which simply required the competent authorities to make their «best efforts» to eliminate double taxation. Pop statistics 2019 are also available by reporting country. In 2006, the OECD began producing annual statistics on the number of cases of all its member countries and partner countries that say they are ready to provide these statistics. Statistics are available for each of the countries listed below. The most recent available statistics correspond to the 2014 reference period. These statistics show that at the end of the 2014 reference period, the total number of open cases of POPs reported by OECD countries was 5423, an increase of 18.77% over the 2013 reference period and an increase of 130.57% over the 2006 reference period (POP cases involving two OECD Member States are counted twice in this total). For OECD countries for which data have been provided, the average time to complete MAP files with other OECD countries was the average time: for 2019, the statistics contain information from all OECD and G20 members as well as members of the Framework of Reference and Profit Transfer (BEPS) who joined the inclusive framework before 2020 – for a total of 105 countries 4 countries 2018 in the 89 countries concerned. Data for 2019 cover almost all POPs cases worldwide.
For transfer pricing cases and «other cases» (i.e. transfer pricing) for 2019, separate statistics are provided for: The «Action 14» report reflects countries` acceptance of a minimum standard for resolving contract disputes. One element of the minimum standard requires that courts attempt to resolve POPs cases within an average of 24 months. Even in the event of an arbitration request, the EU review found that there could be many shortcomings in the system, including delays or lack of setting up the advisory committee and the lack of agreement on the appointment of the chairman of the advisory committee that delays or prevents the procedure.