On February 2, 2026, the OECD published the 2026 edition of the Manual on Mutual Agreement Procedures (MEMAP), the reference guide on how to process a Mutual Agreement (MAP)—the mechanism under Article 25 of the OECD Model Convention that allows a taxpayer to resolve double taxation when two tax administrations disagree on the treatment of the same transaction. This is the first comprehensive revision of the manual since its original 2007 version. For any multinational group that has faced—or may face—a Transfer Pricing adjustment contested by two jurisdictions simultaneously, this update redefines specific expectations regarding how the process should be conducted.
A guide built on nearly two decades of practical experience
The 2007 edition of MEMAP was, to a large extent, theoretical. The 2026 edition incorporates more than a decade of work under the BEPS Action 14 Minimum Standard—the peer review framework that assesses how each jurisdiction resolves its MAP cases—as well as direct input from the competent authorities themselves, as gathered at the MAP Forum of the OECD Forum on Tax Administration (FTA). The result is 59 aspirational best practices.
The structure now follows the actual life cycle of a case
The manual is reorganized into three chapters that chronologically follow the phases of a MAP case, plus a fourth chapter dedicated to jurisdictions with low administrative capacity:
Dispute prevention and organization of the competent authority (pre-MAP phase). This first section places unprecedented emphasis on the stage prior to the formal submission of the case: how the competent authority’s function should be structured and staffed to act with a problem-solving approach, and how to conduct pre-MAP consultations that establish clear mutual expectations between the taxpayer and the administration before the dispute escalates.
Access to MAP and Unilateral Relief. The second section sets out concrete best practices for the unilateral phase of the process: the ideal structure of a MAP request, the criteria for assessing taxpayer eligibility, and when an objection is justified. It also specifies the circumstances under which a tax administration should grant unilateral relief—that is, resolve the case without needing to proceed to bilateral negotiations with the other jurisdiction.
Specific guidance on MAP arbitration. For the first time, the manual includes detailed guidance and best practices on arbitration as a resolution mechanism when the competent authorities fail to reach an agreement within the prescribed timeframes.
Considerations for jurisdictions with limited administrative capacity, recognizing that not all tax administrations have the same infrastructure to process MAP cases efficiently.
What this means in practice for a group with operations in Latin America
Given that MAP, along with Advance Pricing Agreements, is the most common formal avenue for resolving a disputed transfer pricing adjustment across two jurisdictions, the 2026 update sends a clear message to companies: the quality and timeliness of technical documentation are no longer merely relevant for defending against a local audit; rather, they directly determine how quickly and favorably a subsequent MAP process can be resolved. The manual explicitly recommends that taxpayers provide complete information starting at the local audit stage, rather than reserving technical arguments for a potential subsequent MAP negotiation; according to the OECD itself, this practice tends to prolong cases rather than strengthen them.
At TPC Group, we assist multinational groups with operations in Latin America in assessing the feasibility of a MAP in response to Transfer Pricing adjustments affecting more than one jurisdiction, and in preparing the technical documentation now required for a MAP process in accordance with the new OECD standards.
Sources: