Executive summary

On 2 February 2026, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) published the first updated version of the Manual on Effective Mutual Agreement Procedures (MEMAP) since it was first released in 2007. MEMAP (2026 edition) forms a comprehensive update of the MEMAP. Whereas the original MEMAP was structured around specific topics, MEMAP (2026 edition) follows the different phases of the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP), from the pre-MAP phase to the bilateral phase of MAP. It is in essence structured around three key areas:

1. Dispute prevention and competent authority organization
2. Access to MAP and unilateral relief
3. Bilateral discussions, including practical guidance on MAP arbitration, where applicable

The update to MEMAP builds upon the outcomes of surveys conducted by a 17-jurisdiction focus group, which were circulated to all Forum on Tax Administration (FTA) MAP Forum members and several business groups. MEMAP 2026 incorporates Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action 14 Minimum Standards, reflects post-2007 developments such as MAP statistics reporting, arbitration clauses and digital submissions and provides step-by-step practical tools for dispute prevention and low-capacity jurisdictions.

The MEMAP functions as a practical guide to MAP, prepared by competent authorities within the FTA MAP Forum to address practical issues encountered in MAP and does not reflect any binding commitments by competent authorities. It contains best practices directed at competent authorities as well as taxpayers.

Finally, the MEMAP (2026 edition) also contains practical templates that taxpayers and competent authorities can use, such as templates for a MAP request (Annexes C.1 and C.2), a template for position papers (Annex C.4) and a template for closing letters (Annex C.5).

Detailed discussion

MEMAP (2026 edition)

On 2 February 2026, the OECD issued the MEMAP (2026 edition), which the Inclusive Framework on BEPS had approved on 18 December 2025. This is the first revision to the MEMAP since it was first published in 2007. The MEMAP (2026 edition) incorporates the BEPS Action 14 Minimum Standards and other post-2007 developments such as MAP statistics reporting, arbitration clauses and digital submissions.

In addition to the inclusion of the 11 MAP-related BEPS Action 14 best practices in Annex B, MEMAP contains 59 aspirational administrative best practices, which are contained in the different chapters of the manual and are summed up in Annex A.

The MEMAP (2026 edition) also addresses issues that had not previously been addressed, either in the original MEMAP or in the OECD Commentary. The newly addressed issues include:

• Language expressing that competent authorities should be willing to deviate from administrative (e.g., Advance Pricing Arrangements) and judicial decisions, unless these judicial decisions are final and cannot be deviated from
• A statement indicating that threats of criminal penalties should not be used to discourage the use of MAP
• Reference to the inconsistency between the policy of making MAP broadly accessible and requiring jurisdictions to pay a tax assessment as a condition of obtaining access to MAP
• Clarification of the requirement, as part of treaty obligations, to consider whether unilateral relief is possible before initiating bilateral discussions

(Please note: References to MEMAP in the subsequent paragraphs of this Alert should be read as a reference to MEMAP (2026 edition).)

Background and pre-MAP phase

MAP offers taxpayers a means of recourse when they believe they have been taxed in a manner inconsistent with the terms of the applicable tax treaty. MAP is a government-to-government process that aims to find a mutually acceptable solution eliminating taxation that is not in accordance with the treaty.

Taxpayers may go to the relevant competent authority to initiate MAP if there is "an action of" one or both of the jurisdictions. An "action" includes not only audit adjustments or assessments imposed by tax authorities but also the filing of a return in a self-assessment system or the active examination of a specific taxpayer reporting position in the course of an audit.

The MAP request must be filed with the relevant competent authority, which is generally the competent authority of the taxpayer's jurisdiction of residence or the nationality jurisdiction in nationality non-discrimination cases for MAP provisions following a treaty based on a pre-2017 version of the OECD Model Convention. For treaties with a MAP provision based on the 2017 or later version of the OECD Model Convention, the MAP request can be submitted with either (or both) jurisdictions.

Finally, the MAP request must be filed within the time limit, which is generally three years from the date of the first notification of the action resulting in taxation not in accordance with the treaty. The MEMAP reiterates the OECD Commentary, stating that this three-year time limit should not be interpreted overly strictly.

According to the MEMAP, taxpayers are not always aware of their rights to access MAP under tax treaties, often relying on domestic remedies.

The MEMAP also points out that jurisdictions should take proactive measures to prevent disputes leading to MAP cases by enhancing global awareness in audit and examination functions, ensuring well-reasoned and well-substantiated audit adjustments or assessments, and by enhancing periodic engagement and communication between the audit and examination function on the one hand, and the competent authority on the other hand. It further points out that jurisdictions should take proactive measures to minimize the need for dispute resolution and prevent MAP cases by:

• Entering into interpretative MAP agreements under Article 25(3), first sentence, of the OECD Model Convention
• Entering into bilateral or multilateral advance pricing arrangements (APAs)
• Implementing procedures to allow, in appropriate cases, taxpayer requests for the multi-year resolution of recurring issues through MAP

The MEMAP further stresses the importance of functional separation of the competent authority function and the audit and examination function, with the competent authority operating independently and following a treaty-first approach to uphold the treaty in good faith, without regard to the revenue involved in a case. In particular, for more experienced MAP jurisdictions, this includes ensuring that any staff member previously involved in the audit adjustment or assessment does not participate in the handling and resolution of the same case in MAP.

Types of disputes generally covered by MAP include:

• Transfer pricing cases
• Dual residence cases
• Withholding tax cases
• Permanent establishment cases
• Characterization cases
• Non-discrimination cases
• Cross-border worker cases

According to the MEMAP, jurisdictions should aim to resolve MAP cases within 24 months from the start date. Further, jurisdictions should implement structured inventory management processes, to ensure the efficient and timely handling of MAP cases. Jurisdictions with small MAP inventories, defined as jurisdictions having fewer than 10 MAP cases in their MAP inventory on average over the previous three years, should ensure that there is at least one staff member who is always available to receive and prioritize MAP requests as well as their handling and resolution when multiple functions are being performed by staff assigned to the competent authority function.

The MEMAP encourages jurisdictions to allow for pre-filing meetings before submitting a MAP request and calls for jurisdictions to publish clear and accessible guidance on MAP.

Unilateral Phase of MAP

Under Article 25(2) of the OECD Model Convention, if an objection appears to it to be justified and the competent authority is not able to arrive at a satisfactory solution, the competent authority must endeavor to resolve the case by mutual agreement with the competent authority of the other jurisdiction.

The MEMAP describes a four-step approach:

1. The taxpayer submits a MAP request
2. The competent authorities check the eligibility of the MAP request
3. The competent authorities determine whether the objection is justified
4. The competent authorities assess whether unilateral relief can be granted

Chapter 2 of the MEMAP addresses the unilateral phase of the MAP. According to the best practices contained in chapter 2 of the MEMAP, jurisdictions should ensure that the process for taxpayers to file a MAP request is streamlined, secure and easily accessible and tailor expectations and requirements based on a taxpayer's size and sophistication.

The MEMAP also contains best practices for taxpayers, stating that taxpayers should submit their MAP requests as soon as possible after receiving the notification of an action they believe results or will result in taxation not in accordance with the tax treaty. Further, taxpayers are encouraged to:

• Submit their MAP request to both jurisdictions concerned
• Provide the required information in a simple and understandable format to avoid delays in processing
• Specify if the MAP request is intended solely to preserve the time limits under the tax treaty (protective MAP).

Once the competent authority has received a MAP request, it must assess whether the case appears to be justified. In this context, the MEMAP states that the competent authority receiving a MAP request should, within four to eight weeks of receipt, notify the taxpayer and communicate its decision on whether the request is eligible for access to MAP or indicate that additional information is required to determine whether these conditions are met. The competent authority should within the same timeframe also notify the other competent authority and provide an opportunity to respond to the decision on whether the request is eligible for access to MAP.

The MEMAP states that jurisdictions should grant access to MAP if the conditions in the relevant tax treaty have been met. Specific reference is made to transfer pricing cases, including a reference to cases of bona fide taxpayer-initiated adjustments if they are authorized under domestic law and permit or require the taxpayer to amend a previously filed tax return and if it is at least probable that such adjustments, in the taxpayer's view, will result in taxation not in accordance with the applicable tax treaty and the taxpayer is clearly acting with the bona fide intent to resolve this taxation.

Further, specific reference is made to cases in which the taxpayer and the tax authorities disagree as to whether (1) the conditions for applying a treaty anti-abuse provision have been met or (2) applying a domestic law anti-abuse provision conflicts with the treaty provisions.

According to the MEMAP, taxpayers should not be required to waive their right to MAP to obtain an audit settlement. There should be no informal agreements or pressure from the audit or examination function discouraging taxpayers from access MAP and jurisdictions should ensure that audit practices and settlement procedures do not undermine taxpayers' treaty rights or create undue deterrents to accessing MAP.

Cases in which taxpayers have simultaneously initiated available domestic remedies along with a MAP request should not be excluded from MAP. Similarly, cases in which taxpayers have entered into unilateral rulings or unilateral APAs or cases in which there is no double taxation but taxation is not in accordance with the relevant tax treaty should not be excluded from MAP.

When assessing whether or not the request is justified, jurisdictions should ensure that a competent authority considers taxpayer's objection to be "not justified" only if a prima facie preliminary analysis demonstrates that taxation was not or will not be in accordance with the tax treaty. In this regard, jurisdictions should establish a consultation process between the competent authorities for cases in which a competent authority considers the objection raised in a MAP request are not justified.

If the competent authority does consider the objection justified, the competent authority must consider whether it can provide a satisfactory resolution to the case before initiating bilateral discussions. In this regard, the aim is for a competent authority to decide whether it can provide unilateral relief and inform the taxpayer and the other competent authority within four months from receiving a complete MAP request and all necessary information.

In particular, in transfer pricing cases, the MEMAP notes that if the competent authority receiving the MAP request believes that the taxpayer's reported position is within the arm's-length range and the adjustment made by its tax administration only moves the value to a different point within that range, the competent authority should generally grant unilateral relief.

In addition, if the adjustment or assessment in its own jurisdiction is not well substantiated by adequate evidence, the competent authority should not re-perform the audit in an attempt to build support for the adjustment or assessment but generally should provide unilateral relief.

Bilateral Phase of MAP

Under Article 25(2) of the OECD Model Convention, if the objection appears to be justified and the competent authorities are unable to resolve the case unilaterally, they have the obligation to endeavor to resolve the case by mutual agreement.

For the bilateral phase of MAP, the MEMAP describes a two or three-step approach:

1. The competent authorities endeavor to resolve the case through an exchange of position papers and bilateral discussions.
2. The agreement between the competent authorities is finalized and implemented.
3. If the competent authorities are not able to reach an agreement fully resolving the taxation not in accordance with the treaty and the treaty provides for it, the taxpayer may have access to MAP arbitration.

Chapter 3 of the MEMAP addresses the bilateral phase of the MAP. According to the best practices contained in chapter 3 of the MEMAP, jurisdictions should ensure that the bilateral phase is initiated and both competent authorities endeavor to resolve the case in line with their treaty obligations.

Competent authorities should only suspend discussions in the bilateral phase if the taxpayer is actively pursuing judicial proceedings and those proceedings have not been stayed or stopped. Filing in court solely to protect domestic time limits should not suspend the bilateral phase.

Further, a jurisdiction should ensure that the competent authority is not bound by a decision in a domestic remedy when considering a case under MAP, unless it is legally impossible for it to deviate from that decision. Ideally, competent authorities should not be bound by any decision except for a decision of a court that finally adjudicates a claim (i.e., a decision that cannot be or has not been appealed further) and that cannot be deviated from under the jurisdiction's law.

With respect to the bilateral process, the MEMAP states that:

• Jurisdictions should ensure that clear and comprehensive position papers are prepared and shared in a timely manner.
• Jurisdictions should ensure that meetings between the competent authorities in MAP are conducted effectively, with a structured approach aimed at reaching an agreement on both factual and technical issues in a collaborative, pragmatic and solution-oriented manner.
• Taxpayers should make themselves available for communications, calls and meetings with the competent authorities throughout the MAP process to support the efficient, effective and timely handling and resolution of MAP cases.
• Jurisdictions should allow taxpayers to file MAP requests for multilateral cases and ensure that such cases are handled and resolved in accordance with the guidance set out in the Manual on the Handling of Multilateral Mutual Agreement Procedures and Advance Pricing Arrangements (MoMA).

Once a provisional agreement has been reached on the case:

• Jurisdictions should ensure that the resolution is clearly documented and taxpayer consent is obtained within a reasonable timeframe to facilitate implementation and prevent future disputes.
• Jurisdictions should ensure that all MAP agreements are implemented in a timely manner.
• Taxpayers should confirm agreement or disagreement with the MAP outcome within the timeframe specified in the notification and provide any reasonable information requested by the competent authorities, as well as withdraw or waive domestic remedies with respect to the issue resolved in MAP.

If interest and penalties are directly connected to taxes covered under a tax treaty, jurisdictions should reduce or withdraw the interest or penalties to the same extent as the underlying tax is reduced or withdrawn under the MAP agreement.

If the competent authorities are unable to reach an agreement fully resolving the taxation not in accordance with the treaty and the treaty contains an arbitration clause, either in the treaty itself or due to the application of Part VI of the Multilateral Instrument, the taxpayer may have access to MAP arbitration.

In the context of MAP arbitration, the MEMAP contains the following best practices:

• Jurisdictions that have chosen to adopt a general policy to not include MAP arbitration provisions in any of their tax treaties should indicate this in their published MAP guidance and MAP profile, along with their legal or policy reasoning behind the decision.
• Jurisdictions should enter into a general agreement on the procedural conduct of the arbitration process for each bilateral relationship.
• Taxpayers should assess whether to allow MAP discussions to continue beyond the time limit before arbitration eligibility if discussions between competent authorities in MAP are seen to be productive but go beyond the prescribed period for arbitration under the tax treaty concerned.

Considerations for low-capacity jurisdictions

Chapter 4 of the MEMAP covers considerations for low-capacity jurisdictions. It states that the guidance and best practices outlined in the MEMAP have been developed to accommodate diverse needs of jurisdictions, with specific guidance for low-capacity jurisdictions.

It further calls, where possible, for jurisdictions with extensive MAP experience to invest in capacity-building initiatives to support competent authorities in jurisdictions with little or no MAP experience and to support these jurisdictions with independent expert assistance, following the Tax Inspectors Without Borders model.

Implications

The 2026 update of MEMAP significantly expands on the first MEMAP published in 2007. Its most immediately relevant implications for multinational groups are twofold: (1) it introduces best practices that can be adopted by the competent authorities of the jurisdictions in which multinational groups operate to improve the effectiveness of the MAP process for multinational groups; and (2) it provides for best practices that can be adopted by multinational groups to facilitate a smooth MAP process.

As the MEMAP refers to these best practices as "aspirational administrative best practices," it is likely that not all competent authorities will adopt all the best practices listed in MEMAP. These best practices do not impose any binding obligations upon tax administrations or the competent authorities. It is therefore still to be seen to what extent these best practices are embraced in practice.

Businesses should stay abreast of how these best practices are implemented or applied. It is important to recognize that the practical implications will not be uniform across jurisdictions. Moreover, there are differences between jurisdictions in the number of MAP cases, levels of experience and stages of development, all of which affect the degree of experience and expertise within the competent authorities. Finally, there may be legal hurdles in some jurisdictions, such as constitutional challenges in relation to overriding a court decision by means of a MAP agreement.