Transfer pricing issues: tax certainty, tax uncertainty, and ICAP

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Transfer pricing issues: tax certainty, tax uncertainty, and ICAP

Sponsored by

Gatti Pavesi logo.JPG
globe-7817766 (1).jpg

Paolo Ludovici and Marlinda Gianfrate of Gatti Pavesi Bianchi Ludovici discuss the latest developments in the OECD International Compliance Assurance Programme and evaluate its role within the framework of tax certainty

The OECD ICAP: current state of affairs

The International Compliance Assurance Programme (ICAP) is a voluntary programme initiated by the OECD to facilitate a multilateral cooperative approach to international tax risk assessment and assurance. It involves collaboration between tax administrations and multinational enterprise (MNE) groups, focusing on transfer pricing and permanent establishment risks associated with cross-border intercompany transactions. The programme emphasises active taxpayer engagement with tax authorities. The risk assessment process, carried out uniformly among participating tax authorities, is designed to determine the risk rating of covered transactions: transactions classified as low risk are exempt from further inquiries. The foundation of this risk assessment is transfer pricing documentation, particularly country-by-country reporting data, applicable for groups exceeding the defined threshold.

Since its launch in 2018, the programme has undergone continuous enhancements. In December 2024, the OECD Forum on Tax Administration released updated ICAP FAQs, introducing three major updates aimed at streamlining the process:

  • Flexible application timing – the revised guidelines allow MNEs to apply at any time, eliminating the previous biannual application deadlines.

  • Extended timelines – the target timeframes for different stages of the programme have been adjusted to align with real-world experiences:

    • The selection stage – 8–12 weeks (up from 4–8 weeks);

    • The risk assessment stage – 30–45 weeks (up from 20 weeks); and

    • The outcome stage – 6–8 weeks (up from 4–8 weeks).

  • Defining scope of assessment – MNEs can now propose a narrower scope for assessments, such as focusing on specific business lines, geographic areas, or functions across selected jurisdictions. However, even under a limited scope, taxpayers must submit comprehensive documentation, resulting in some uncertainty regarding how the gathered information will be used by participating tax authorities.

These updates aim to enhance taxpayer involvement and optimise the programme’s efficiency in providing tax certainty.

Tax certainty and the transfer pricing framework

Recent OECD global statistics on mutual agreement procedures reveal a slight decline in the number of new cases and a significant increase in resolved cases compared with prior years. However, transfer pricing cases remain predominant.

Bilateral advance pricing arrangements (APAs) show growing efficiency and usage but remain time intensive, making them more suitable for complex and high-value cases. The rise of cooperative compliance programmes across various jurisdictions (for instance, Italy’s enhanced regime under recent tax reforms) underscores the importance of adhering to the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations (2022). For example, Italy’s new code of conduct for cooperative compliance taxpayers emphasises proper application of transfer pricing guidelines.

However, participation in cooperative compliance programmes does not preclude tax disputes in other jurisdictions involved in the same intercompany transaction. This stems from the dual objectives of transfer pricing: securing the appropriate tax base in each jurisdiction while avoiding double taxation. As transfer pricing often involves the taxing rights of multiple jurisdictions, no single mechanism can guarantee complete tax certainty. MNEs must strategically evaluate and combine various tools to mitigate risks of double taxation.

The role of ICAP: do we really need it?

ICAP provides MNEs with a tool to achieve tax certainty in the ex ante phase, integrating ordinary tax audits. While it offers less certainty compared with bilateral and multilateral APAs, it is more time efficient and particularly useful for:

  • Multilateral cases applying uniform transfer pricing models across multiple jurisdictions; and

  • Centralised intragroup services.

ICAP also complements national cooperative compliance programmes, which are inherently unilateral, by enhancing their benefits. Moreover, confirming a transaction as low risk through ICAP may indirectly validate the same transfer pricing model across all participating jurisdictions.

Improvements to ICAP are a welcome development, as the programme offers strategic advantages for MNEs seeking tax certainty and minimising risks of double taxation related to transfer pricing and permanent establishments. Widespread adoption of ICAP could contribute significantly to enhancing multilateral tax certainty and reducing conflicts among tax administrations.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

New research, which suggests LLMs can silently corrupt complex documents, should alert tax and legal teams relying on AI to handle iterative drafting and compliance workflows
Maintaining increased funding for HMRC is a ‘high possibility’ if he becomes PM, ITR has also heard
Awards
ITR is delighted to reveal all the shortlisted nominees for the 2026 Europe Tax Awards
The firm has hired a team of private client lawyers from Withers to launch in New York and Connecticut, though ITR analysis suggests it faces stiff competition
The ability of tax authorities to receive and analyse data is becoming ‘quite advanced’, warns Stuart Lang, head of EY’s compliance co-sourcing solution
The Court of Appeal ruling clarifies that treaty benefits are not abusive where transactions are commercially driven, providing greater certainty on “main purpose” anti-avoidance tests
Despite the Netherlands featuring an unusual concentration of World Tax-ranked technology-led providers, sources believe there’s a long way to go to challenge the established players
Ethics seems to be playing a subservient role to an entitlement culture borne out of a pervasive ‘revenue at all costs’ mentality at the big four
Historical World Tax data suggests the ‘largest law firm merger in history’ may not pose a serious threat to the world's leading tax practices
The repeal of Libya’s statute of limitations and tougher enforcement leave taxpayers navigating a high-stakes choice between conciliation and litigation
Gift this article