An assessment of the mutual agreement procedure as an international tax treaty dispute resolution remedy

M.Com. (South African and International Taxation)International tax treaties are unique bilateral negotiations effectively breaking down the barriers of international trade while aiming to eliminate double taxation and prevent fiscal evasion. The implementation of these negotiated tax treaties is a matter of domestic law, once concluded a contracting state is free to use domestic legislation to tax the income allocated through the these tax treaties. There is however, no external enforcement of these agreements and as a result disputes occur. The remedy proposed by both the OECD MTC and the UN MTC is what we know as MAP. MAP is a non-binding, non-compulsory dispute resolution mechanism developed in the early 20th century. Even though many jurisdictions remain of the view the MAP is a successful method of dispute resolution, others feel that it has significant shortcomings as outlined by the JWG established by the OECD in 2003. As a result of the work done by the JWG and in an attempt to address some of the insufficiencies of the MAP the OECD introduced additional articles to the MTC including guidelines on non-binding arbitration. The UN subsequently introduced similar guidelines in its MTC. The introduction of mandatory arbitration into both these MTCs is the most significant development in the resolution of international tax disputes. However, the increased complexity and volume of international trade undoubtedly results in tax implications that are not currently addressed in tax treaties or conventions. Differences in the interpretation of the underlying facts of those trade transactions may lead to a host of international tax disputes, often resulting in juridical double taxation. With MAP being the only remedy available, this study aims to determine whether or not the MAP in its current form, is an effective international dispute resolution mechanism or whether further developments are still required