Policy analysis examines incentives surrounding mandatory binding arbitration in international tax disputes, highlighting barriers to state adoption despite corporate demand for certainty.
Dispute resolution has gained prominence in international taxation responding to a growing risk of tax disputes driven by four factors: (i) increased international mobility of the tax base (ii) non-OECD members challenging existing tax allocations, (iii) stronger formalization of the arm’s length principle and (iv) expansion of anti-avoidance rules. Despite business preferences for greater certainty, relatively few countries have committed to mandatory binding arbitration. This article’s goal is threefold: identifying multinationals’ cost-benefit calculus for initiating international dispute resolution, examining countries’ incentives to (not) support efficient arbitration procedures and discussing binding arbitration in the context of alternative cross-border profit allocation rules.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Expert Group Transfer Pricing of the Schmalenbach Society (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: