On October 31, 2025, the OECD published its 2024 Statistics on Mutual Agreement Procedures (MAP) and Advance Pricing Agreements (APA), covering a record 141 jurisdictions. In the area of Transfer Pricing, one of the most significant outcomes for Mexico was the recognition it received for having completely eliminated cases dating prior to 2016 from its MAP backlog.
Within the framework of the MAP and APA recognitions granted by the OECD, Mexico stood out in the category related to the age of the backlog, having ended the period with no pending cases prior to 2016.
The MAP is a mechanism provided for in double taxation treaties, whose provisions are typically based on Article 25 of the OECD Model Tax Convention. Through this procedure, the competent authorities seek to resolve tax situations that do not comply with the treaty, including those arising from certain Transfer Pricing adjustments.
A global overview of increased use of the mechanism, with resolution times that remain long
Globally, the OECD reported that the average resolution time for a MAP case remained relatively stable at 27.4 months in 2024, while cases related to Transfer Pricing showed a slight improvement, averaging 30.9 months, compared to the 32 months recorded in 2023.
Furthermore, 76% of MAP cases closed in 2024 reached a full resolution for the taxpayer, compared to 74% the previous year, while approximately 4% concluded without an agreement between the competent authorities.
The global backlog of Transfer Pricing cases increased by 3.9% in 2024. At the same time, new cases in this category initiated during the year saw a 29.1% increase globally, indicating a greater influx of disputes into the MAP mechanism.
Regarding the historical backlog, as of the end of 2024, cases predating 2016 accounted for about 3.3% of the global MAP caseload, reflecting the gradual reduction in older proceedings.
The Contrast in the Mexican Case
Mexico’s results present a particularly notable contrast.
On the one hand, the country ended 2024 with no MAP cases prior to 2016 in its inventory—a result that was expressly recognized by the OECD. However, at the same time, there was a sharp increase in the inventory of Transfer Pricing cases filed after 2015.
At the end of 2023, Mexico had 70 pending post-2015 Transfer Pricing cases. By the end of 2024, this backlog had reached 120 cases, representing an approximate 71.4% increase when comparing the year-end backlogs for both fiscal years.
The trends observed during 2024 help explain this increase: Mexico registered 55 new MAP Transfer Pricing cases, while only 9 cases in this category were closed during the same period.
The 55 cases initiated also represent the highest number of new Transfer Pricing proceedings reported by Mexico in a single year since it began reporting its statistics under the BEPS Action 14 monitoring framework.
The results thus reveal two distinct trends: Mexico has cleared the backlog of older cases but is simultaneously facing a growing accumulation of disputes arising after 2015.
It should be noted that the “transfer pricing cases” category used by the OECD encompasses attribution and allocation cases, including disputes related to associated enterprises and certain cases of profit attribution to permanent establishments. Therefore, the statistics do not allow us to conclude what specific type of transaction gave rise to each proceeding.
Why does this matter for multinational groups operating in Mexico?
For a multinational group facing an adjustment with tax implications in more than one jurisdiction, the MAP is the mechanism provided for in tax treaties to allow competent authorities to resolve cases of taxation that are not in accordance with the treaty.
The increase recorded in Mexico reflects a greater influx of Transfer Pricing cases into the MAP mechanism during 2024. However, the statistics published by the OECD do not break down the procedures by industry, type of transaction, or business structure; therefore, it is not possible to attribute this growth specifically to manufacturing operations, intra-group services, intangibles, or any other specific category.
This point is relevant when assessing a dispute: the increase in the backlog should not only be analyzed based on the number of new procedures initiated but also in light of the resolution capacity observed during the same period.
What does this imply for planning a Transfer Pricing dispute?
Time is one of the most important factors when evaluating the use of MAP.
Globally, Transfer Pricing cases closed in 2024 took an average of 30.9 months to resolve. However, in Mexico, post-2015 proceedings in this category that were closed during the year took an average of approximately 51.06 months.
This figure should be interpreted in light of the fact that Mexico closed only nine cases in this category during the period. Nevertheless, the contrast is significant: while 55 new proceedings were initiated in 2024, only nine were concluded.
For groups facing or anticipating a Transfer Pricing adjustment with implications in more than one jurisdiction, these data underscore the need to promptly evaluate the available alternatives, the applicable deadlines under the relevant treaty, and the documentation required to support the taxpayer’s position.
MAPs and APAs also serve distinct functions within tax certainty management. While the MAP seeks to resolve situations in which taxation is or may be inconsistent with a treaty, Advance Pricing Agreements aim to provide advance certainty regarding the treatment of certain transactions during the periods covered by the agreement.
At TPC Group, we assist multinational groups with operations in Mexico in evaluating the feasibility of a MAP in the face of Transfer Pricing adjustments that impact more than one jurisdiction, taking into account resolution timelines, the provisions of the applicable treaty, and recent developments in the case inventory reported by the OECD.
Sources:
· OECD