Amount B and the provision of additional certainty: an unattained goal?

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Amount B and the provision of additional certainty: an unattained goal?

Sponsored by

Gatti Pavesi logo.JPG
idea-3312758.jpg

Paolo Ludovici and Marlinda Gianfrate of Gatti Pavesi Bianchi Ludovici focus on how the simplified and streamlined approach set out in the OECD’s Pillar One – Amount B report enhances tax certainty

As part of the complex two-pillar approach agreed by the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS (the Inclusive Framework) to address tax challenges in the digital economy, pillar one aims to ensure that the allocation of taxing rights on a part of the business profits of large multinational enterprises no longer requires physical presence in a jurisdiction.

Pillar one is based on three components:

  • Amount A, introducing a new nexus on market jurisdictions, where customers are located;

  • Amount B, identifying a fixed return for certain marketing and distribution activities; and

  • Tax certainty, to be enhanced through effective dispute prevention and resolution mechanisms.

As we await the full agreement by all members of the Inclusive Framework on the contents of a Multilateral Convention to Implement Amount A of Pillar One, progress on amount B is nearing completion. The Inclusive Framework released the Pillar One – Amount B report (the Report) on February 19 2024, which will be finalised once additional guidance, including qualitative scoping criteria to identify distributors performing non-core activities (‘baseline activities’), is published.

The Report will be incorporated into the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations (the OECD TPG) and jurisdictions shall decide whether to introduce the simplified approach in their tax systems starting from fiscal years commencing on or after January 1 2025.

The Commentary on Article 25 of the OECD Model Tax Convention will then be changed accordingly.

The amount B purposes are as follows:

  • To simplify the application of transfer pricing for baseline marketing and distribution activities. In this regard, the Report recommends a streamlined approach for applying the most appropriate transfer pricing method to remunerate in-scope transactions involving baseline marketing distributors, such as wholesalers, sales agents, and commissionaires.

  • To provide greater tax certainty for all involved parties, especially addressing the needs of jurisdictions that often lack local market comparables or access to commercial databases for transfer pricing analysis.

  • To prevent certain transfer pricing disputes.

Amount B can be implemented by jurisdictions under two options: they can allow taxpayers to voluntarily adopt the simplified and streamlined approach (i.e., a safe harbour) or they can mandate its use for in-scope transactions.

The search for tax certainty and elimination of double taxation

Although the simplification rationale behind amount B seems an interesting opportunity that tax administrations and taxpayers should evaluate, particularly regarding its potential as a reference for risk assessment purposes, the interplay of the simplified approach with tax certainty seems to be an issue not easily solved.

Indeed, as a general principle, the simplified and streamlined approach is elective for jurisdictions: its outcome applies only if both countries have opted for it (or have signed a competent authorities agreement). In other words, the effects determined under the simplified and streamlined approach by a jurisdiction are not binding upon the counterparty jurisdictions if the same election has not been made. In this scenario, the tax administrations must substantiate their positions in a relevant mutual agreement procedure (MAP) leveraging only on the other sections of the OECD TPG (the same principle applies in the arbitration procedure).

As a consequence, any outcome deriving from the application of the simplified and streamlined approach is not (always) certain and cannot (always) be considered reliable for the purposes of a MAP; in other words, amount B works on a level playing field only when all jurisdictions have applied the approach.

This adds another layer of complexity to an environment where positions are sometimes fixed. Some jurisdictions currently applying unilateral safe harbours are unwilling to change the transfer prices compliant with them in the context of a MAP, defending their stance and requesting the other competent authority to make a corresponding adjustment. This occurs despite the OECD TPG recommending to jurisdictions adopting safe harbours to be open to adjust their outcomes in MAP cases.

And it is also for this reason that members of the Inclusive Framework commit to respect the outcome based on the simplified and streamlined approach where adopted by developing countries (the list of countries included is yet to be released).

The introduction of a standardised regime for baseline transactions is valuable, both in terms of simplification and compliance costs. However, the choice made by the Inclusive Framework in favour of a unilateral and elective approach seems to limit the effectiveness in the elimination of double taxation. Notwithstanding the Inclusive Framework commitment, it is likely that the implementation of the new approach will require an additional effort and the development of a network of competent authorities agreements.

In conclusion, given the current status, amount B seems to be half effective and the only tool at the taxpayer’s disposal to achieve tax certainty remains the bilateral advance pricing agreement, which allows – only for ongoing procedures and for new applications – the prevention of double taxation even with reference to the application of the simplified approach.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The judgment, which saw Denmark's Supreme Court rely on OECD TP guidance, sets aside more than 15 years of consistent administrative practice, experts have told ITR
Belgium’s new coalition government has gone ahead with a new exit tax regime that could land it in the courts.
Brazil’s government has not officially framed the bill as a countermeasure amid trade tensions with the US, but the move is being considered as part of Brazil’s strategic response, one expert tells ITR
Understanding India’s income tax landscape can help charities ensure compliance, optimise tax benefits, and enhance their impact, writes Raghav Bajaj of Khaitan & Co
Tax advisers in Brazil are rising above the country’s notoriously complex tax system to deliver high-quality advisory services, ITR’s exclusive in-house data reveals
ITR’s data has highlighted the US firm’s ambition to become America’s ‘premier’ tax player via a concerted partner recruitment strategy
Jaap Zwaan’s arrival continues a recent streak of A&M Tax investing in the region; in other news, the US and Japan struck a deal that significantly lowered tariff rates
In a world where international tax concepts rely on human activity, Leonard Wagenaar poses existential questions about the future of such ideas when AI is ever-present
France v Axa provides a practical illustration of how the burden of proof is applied in TP matters under French law, ITR also heard
In an exclusive interview with ITR, Ian Gary calls for a central public CbCR database and bemoans the US’s lack of involvement in international tax transparency
Gift this article