MAP and APA 2024: Latest OECD statistics for Germany

In the context of tax audits, taxpayers engaged in material cross-border transactions are increasingly facing more intensive and comprehensive audit procedures. Tax authorities have not only expanded their transfer pricing expertise through the recruitment of additional specialized auditors, but the underlying business relationships and fact patterns have also become increasingly complex and extensive.

At the same time, mutually agreed outcomes in transfer pricing related tax audits are becoming less common, while the adjustment amounts asserted by tax authorities continue to increase. Against this backdrop, international dispute prevention and dispute resolution mechanisms are gaining further practical relevance in Germany. Unlike domestic legal remedies, which generally eliminate double taxation only where the taxpayer fully prevails, these instruments are specifically designed to address cross-border tax disputes. The most recent OECD statistics available as at the date of this publication, covering the financial year 2024, reflect these developments both for Germany and in the international environment. 

In addition to Mutual Agreement Procedures (“MAPs”) and Advance Pricing Agreements (“APAs”), taxpayers have access to a range of instruments for the prevention and resolution of international tax disputes, including the International Compliance Assurance Programme (“ICAP”) and Joint Audits. In practice, however, MAPs and APAs continue to be the predominant instruments for preventing or eliminating actual or potential double taxation.

The OECD statistics for 2024, currently the most recent reporting year, show persistently high, and in some cases increasing, caseloads across OECD member jurisdictions, while average processing times remain broadly stable: 

• The average completion time for MAP cases stood at 27.4 months, almost unchanged from the previous year (2023: 27.3 months). Transfer pricing cases improved slightly to 30.9 months (2023: 32.0 months), although they continue to exceed the OECD target of 24 months. 
• Approximately 76% of MAP cases closed in 2024 resulted in a full resolution for the taxpayer through a mutual agreement, unilateral relief, or a domestic remedy (2023: 74%). Only 4% of cases were closed without agreement. 
• The inventory of older cases was reduced significantly: only 3.3% of the total inventory originated before 2016, fewer than 20% of cases were older than four years, and more than 56% were younger than two years. 
• The pending inventory increased slightly again, with transfer pricing cases rising by 3.9% following a temporary decline in 2023, presumably in connection with the fading effect of COVID-19-related adjustments. 
• New MAP cases increased significantly, particularly in transfer pricing matters (+29.1%). By contrast, the number of completed transfer pricing cases decreased by 5.5% following a record year in 2023. 
• 80 jurisdictions now offer taxpayers bilateral APAs (2023: 73), and 49 jurisdictions actively manage pending cases. The number of submitted bilateral APA applications increased by 3% in 2024, while approximately one quarter of the inventory was closed. In eleven jurisdictions, APAs already account for more than 50% of the bilateral transfer pricing case inventory; the average is 37.8%. 
• Fewer APAs were granted than in 2023 (-2%), while the proportion of rejected APA applications or APA cases closed without agreement increased from almost 12% in 2023 to more than 19% in 2024. 
• The average time required to reach agreement increased further to 39.6 months (2023: 36.8 months). 

MAPs: Large Inventories, but Faster Processing Times

The German MAP statistics for 2024 underline the continued practical importance of mutual agreement procedures in transfer pricing matters. At the beginning of 2024, Germany had 698 pending transfer pricing MAP cases. During the year, 346 new cases were initiated, while 314 cases were resolved. Despite the continued high number of completed cases, the year-end inventory increased to 730 cases, reflecting the strong inflow of new requests. Germany therefore remains one of the jurisdictions with the largest inventories of transfer pricing MAP cases worldwide. 

A closer look at Germany’s key procedural partners shows that the pending cases are concentrated among a limited number of jurisdictions. The following table provides an overview of the number of transfer pricing MAP cases by country, including the average time required to reach an agreement:

 
Germany’s comparatively short processing time is particularly noteworthy given the substantial MAP inventory. The success rate of these procedures is also positive. An analysis of outcomes in German transfer pricing MAP cases shows that the vast majority of cases result in the complete or at least substantial elimination of double taxation (87%). Cases closed without agreement remain the exception. This confirms the high practical relevance of the instrument for taxpayers.

APAs: Tax Certainty with Long Processing Times

While MAP proceedings serve to resolve disputes relating to past years, APAs provide prospective certainty regarding transfer prices and the methods applied. For taxpayers, APAs can therefore be an important instrument for achieving tax certainty, particularly in relation to material, risk-sensitive, and recurring intercompany transactions. However, the German APA figures also show that this certainty is associated with a significant time investment. 

 
Although APAs provide legal certainty, the path to implementing an agreed solution is often lengthy. One disadvantage of treaty-based APA procedures is that there is no obligation to reach agreement within a legally prescribed period. This is also reflected in Germany’s long average APA processing time of 54.1 months. Given that the initial statutory term of an APA is limited to a maximum of five years and that the average duration of APA proceedings is approximately four and a half years, it becomes apparent that the intended “advance” nature of an APA can, in practice, only be realized to a limited extent. In many cases, by the time the APA is concluded, the majority of the agreed covered period has already elapsed. 

In addition to the question of whether a MAP is appropriate in a particular case, another practical question is increasingly coming into focus: on which legal basis should a planned mutual agreement procedure be requested? Within Europe, taxpayers generally may rely on procedures based on the applicable double tax treaty, the EU Arbitration Convention, or the German implementation of the EU Tax Dispute Resolution Directive 2017/1852 (“EU-DBA-SBG”). 

Although the EU-DBA-SBG, which is based on EU Directive 2017/1852, was designed as a modern and comprehensive dispute resolution instrument within the European Union, practical experience to date presents a nuanced picture. On the one hand, proceedings under the EU-DBA-SBG offer the advantage of the automatic initiation of arbitration and are subject to a predefined deadline for reaching agreement. On the other hand, the formal requirements are regularly higher than under the EU Arbitration Convention or a bilateral double tax treaty. In addition, taxpayers are subject to significantly shorter deadlines under their duty to cooperate, for example when responding to requests from competent authorities. At the same time, the entire application must be filed in German. Although, at first glance, a mutual agreement procedure under the EU-DBA-SBG appears to offer the benefit of an accelerated process, this benefit should be viewed in the context of the procedural durations described above. Under the EU-DBA-SBG, where the case proceeds to arbitration, the maximum procedural duration is three years, whereas mutual agreement procedures in general show an average duration of just under two years. 

Accordingly, the choice of legal basis requires a careful assessment of which procedural advantages prevail in the individual case. For transfer pricing cases concerning the mere allocation of profits between associated enterprises, a mutual agreement procedure under the EU Arbitration Convention appears to remain an attractive route, even in the era of the EU-DBA-SBG. 

The 2024 figures confirm that MAPs and APAs remain indispensable instruments in the international transfer pricing environment. MAP proceedings demonstrate a high level of practical effectiveness, particularly in German transfer pricing cases, and comparatively reasonable processing times by international standards. APAs, by contrast, offer prospective tax certainty, but are associated with lengthy processing times and additional filing fees in Germany and, frequently, abroad. 

For taxpayers, this means that the decision to pursue a MAP or an APA should not be made on a one-size-fits-all basis. The decisive factors are the specific dispute, the jurisdictions involved, and the strategic importance of the underlying business relationships. Particularly where material transfer pricing risks arise, the early definition of a tax controversy strategy remains key to effectively preventing or eliminating double taxation.