The period between May 2025 and July 2026 marked a significant turning point for the transfer pricing landscape. A combination of legislative initiatives, evolving administrative practices, landmark dispute resolution developments, and increasing transparency requirements has reshaped the environment in which multinational enterprises, tax authorities, and advisers operate. While transfer pricing has long occupied a central position at the crossroads of economics, law, and international taxation, the pace and breadth of recent changes have accelerated a profound shift in the way transfer pricing positions are documented, scrutinised, contested, and ultimately resolved.
Five themes stand out:
The operational deployment of OECD amount B moved from policy design to real-world implementation;
Tax administrations continued to invest heavily in dispute prevention and tax certainty mechanisms;
Transfer pricing audits became increasingly sophisticated, data-driven, and technology-enabled;
Countries across the world continued to adapt domestic legislation and administrative guidance to align with – or respond to – OECD standards; and
Multinational enterprises increasingly resorted to cooperative compliance tools, advance pricing agreements (APAs), and mutual agreement procedures (MAPs) to manage controversy before disputes became litigation.
Against this backdrop, the articles in this year’s guide address some of the most relevant controversy topics facing taxpayers today.
The focus of the articles
One article examines transfer pricing controversy surrounding warranties and implicit support. Financial transactions remain one of the most heavily scrutinised areas of transfer pricing and tax authorities continue to challenge the pricing of guarantees, parental support, and the economic impact of group affiliation. The debate around implicit support has become increasingly important as tax administrations refine their application of Chapter X of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations. Questions concerning credit ratings, economically significant risks, and the delineation of financial relationships are becoming central issues in audits and litigation. The article explores how taxpayers can navigate the growing divergence between economic reality and increasingly formalistic interpretations sometimes adopted by tax authorities.
A second contribution focuses on practical experiences with amount B, concentrating on the US and Singapore. Amount B represents one of the most significant international transfer pricing initiatives in recent years and 2025–26 marked the transition from theory to implementation. OECD guidance, supporting materials, and technical FAQs have helped taxpayers understand the practical application of the simplified approach for baseline marketing and distribution activities. Jurisdictions such as the US and Singapore provide particularly useful case studies because they sit at the crossroads of sophisticated transfer pricing regimes, extensive treaty networks, and significant multinational investment. The practical experiences emerging from these jurisdictions provide valuable lessons for taxpayers assessing whether amount B can contribute to simplification and reduced controversy.
Another article turns to Brazil, Mexico, and the wider Latin American transfer pricing landscape. Latin America continues to be one of the most dynamic regions for transfer pricing developments. Brazil’s continued alignment with OECD principles, Mexico’s evolving administrative practices, and the broader regional movement towards international standards are reshaping controversy risks. At the same time, varying levels of administrative capacity, different approaches to documentation, and rapidly evolving audit practices create a complex environment for multinational groups operating throughout the region. Understanding these developments is increasingly important for taxpayers seeking consistency in their transfer pricing policies.
The guide also explores transfer pricing controversy in the hospitality industry. Hospitality businesses present unique transfer pricing challenges because value creation often depends on a combination of brands, technology platforms, reservation systems, management expertise, and local market execution. The allocation of profits among entities performing these functions frequently attracts tax authority attention. In a sector characterised by cross-border structures, intangible property, and significant disruption over recent years, transfer pricing controversy often requires a nuanced understanding of industry economics and OECD principles.
The growing role of statistics as a transfer pricing defence tool forms the subject of another article. As tax administrations increasingly use data analytics, machine learning techniques, and large-scale information reporting to identify risk, taxpayers are also responding by using more sophisticated quantitative approaches to defend their positions. Statistical techniques can help strengthen benchmarking analyses, evaluate comparability, identify anomalies, and improve evidentiary support during audits and litigation. In a world where tax authorities increasingly rely on data, robust statistical analysis is becoming an essential element of controversy management.
Another contribution discusses the OECD’s 2026 Manual on Effective Mutual Agreement Procedures (MEMAP) and other soft-law instruments. Although legislation and case law rightly receive significant attention, many of the most important developments in transfer pricing controversy over the past year have emerged through administrative guidance, cooperative compliance initiatives, and dispute resolution frameworks. The publication of the MEMAP – together with growing interest in the International Compliance Assurance Programme, the European Trust and Cooperation Approach[PM1] , and other cooperative mechanisms – reflects a broader trend towards prevention rather than resolution. These tools are becoming increasingly relevant as taxpayers seek certainty in an environment characterised by rising controversy and growing international coordination among tax authorities.
The impact of technology on transfer pricing audits is explored in a dedicated article examining audits in the current technological environment. Tax administrations increasingly rely on digital reporting requirements, country-by-country reporting data, electronic invoicing systems, and advanced analytics to identify audit targets and challenge transfer pricing outcomes. Technology is transforming the detection of risk and the conduct of tax audits. For taxpayers, this means that documentation, governance, and data consistency are becoming more important than ever.
Intangible property restructurings remain a key controversy topic and are therefore the focus of another article. Despite many years of OECD guidance and extensive litigation, disputes involving intangibles, DEMPE functions, and business restructurings continue to generate some of the largest transfer pricing adjustments worldwide. Cases involving platform businesses, intellectual property migrations, and hard-to-value intangibles demonstrate the continuing importance of substance, risk control, and contemporaneous evidence. The interaction between valuation theory and real-world business decisions remains one of the most contentious aspects of transfer pricing.
Finally, transfer pricing issues arising from global mobility are considered. Increasingly international workforces, remote working arrangements, and cross-border deployment of highly skilled employees are creating complex transfer pricing questions. Determining where value is created, which entities benefit from employee activities, and how those benefits should be compensated continues to challenge taxpayers and tax authorities alike. Global mobility therefore represents an area where transfer pricing, employment taxation, and business operations intersect in increasingly complex ways.
Tax certainty, MAPs, and APAs under pressure
These subject areas reflect broader trends visible across the international tax environment. OECD MAP statistics continue to demonstrate significant taxpayer reliance on dispute resolution mechanisms. APA programmes in many countries remain highly active, although growing demand has placed pressure on resources and increased inventories. At the same time, taxpayers continue to face increasing audit scrutiny, supported by unprecedented levels of information available to tax administrations.
In this sense, on October 31 2025, the OECD presented its latest statistics on MAPs and, for the second time, on APAs during its seventh Tax Certainty Day. The publication underscores the central role these instruments play in ensuring tax certainty and preventing double taxation.
MAP statistics continue to serve as an important monitoring tool for implementing the minimum standard under BEPS Action 14 and show how effectively double taxation disputes between countries are resolved. In addition, the APA statistics highlight the growing importance of preventive measures. With a broader database and an increasing number of bilateral APAs, the trend towards greater predictability and risk minimisation for multinational enterprises becomes evident.
The OECD emphasised that the combination of a global overview and country-specific data not only makes progress measurable but also provides starting points for optimising procedures. Digitalisation and efficient communication remain key factors for the future.
The global MAP statistics point to a system that remains heavily used and broadly effective but increasingly under pressure. In transfer pricing cases, the average time required to close a MAP improved moderately, falling to 30.9 months from 32 months in 2023. Outcomes also improved, with the share of fully resolved MAP cases rising by two percentage points to 76% in 2024.
At the same time, the figures also reveal signs of strain. Transfer pricing case inventories increased by 4.9%, while the number of closed transfer pricing MAP cases fell by 5.5%. This was accompanied by a sharp 29.1% increase in new transfer pricing cases, suggesting that demand for MAPs continues to grow even as competent authorities face resource and timing constraints. Nevertheless, the age profile of pending cases remains relatively balanced: less than 20% of MAP cases in inventories are older than four years, while more than 56% are less than two years old.
The APA data tells a similar story of growing demand for advanced certainty. Bilateral APA programmes are now available in 80 jurisdictions, compared with 73 in 2023, and the number of APA applications filed increased by 3% in 2024. The overall ratio of transfer pricing-related MAP cases to APAs stood at 37.8%, with several jurisdictions reporting ratios above 50%, confirming that APAs are becoming an increasingly important complement to traditional dispute resolution mechanisms.
However, greater use of APAs has also brought longer timelines and more demanding admission and completion processes. The average time required to reach an APA agreement increased to 39.6 months, up from 36.8 months in 2023. In addition, the proportion of APAs rejected or closed without agreement rose to 19%, compared with 12% in the previous year. These figures illustrate the attractiveness of APAs as a preventive tool and the practical challenges associated with managing complex bilateral cases across jurisdictions.
The OECD’s 2024 statistics show that MAPs remain an important tool to resolve double taxation despite the lengthy durations and differences in performance across jurisdictions. APAs are on the rise, showing the need for tax certainty at an early stage instead of dispute resolution. Considerations of MAPs, APAs, or a combination of both are key to achieving more tax certainty.
OECD and EU developments shaping future disputes
Another significant OECD development during 2026 was the publication of the consultation draft on the Revisions to Chapter VII of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, dealing with intra-group services. From a controversy perspective, the draft reflects the OECD’s intention to provide tax administrations and taxpayers with a more detailed framework for assessing the existence of services, demonstrating economic benefit and supporting service charges, thereby addressing some of the most common sources of transfer pricing disputes involving management fees and shared service arrangements. It also introduces extensive new practical examples and enhanced documentation guidance intended to improve consistency between taxpayers and tax administrations.
Given that intra-group services remain one of the most frequently challenged areas during transfer pricing audits worldwide, the revision has the potential to reduce transfer pricing controversy and improve dispute prevention in future years.
Within Europe, developments aimed at strengthening dispute prevention and dispute resolution deserve particular attention. While the proposed EU Transfer Pricing Directive was ultimately withdrawn, work continued on initiatives such as Business in Europe: Framework for Income Taxation and the European Trust and Cooperation Approach. Equally important, technical negotiations were completed for the International Tax Dispute Resolution Commission, a potentially transformative development for arbitration and dispute resolution within Europe.
A major development in 2026 was the publication of the European Commission's Taxation Omnibus package, which includes amendments to the EU Dispute Resolution Mechanism Directive. The proposal forms part of a broader effort to simplify the EU direct tax framework, reduce compliance burdens, and improve legal certainty for cross-border businesses. Together with the ongoing creation of the International Tax Dispute Resolution Commission, the initiative signals a renewed EU focus on tax certainty, dispute prevention, and the efficiency of mutual agreement and arbitration procedures.
A new era for transfer pricing controversy
Taken together, these developments indicate that transfer pricing controversy is entering a new phase. The traditional focus on documentation and retrospective defence is giving way to a broader strategy centred on governance, prevention, dispute avoidance, and proactive engagement. Taxpayers increasingly recognise that robust transfer pricing policies require not only technical accuracy but also operational consistency, evidentiary support, and a clear understanding of controversy risk.
The articles in this guide examine these themes from different perspectives, combining technical analysis with practical experience from a diverse group of jurisdictions and industries. We hope they help taxpayers, advisers, and tax authorities better understand the challenges and opportunities presented by the rapidly evolving transfer pricing landscape and provide useful insights for managing controversy in the years ahead.
Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited (DTTL), its global network of member firms, and their related entities (collectively, the “Deloitte organization”). DTTL (also referred to as “Deloitte Global”) and each of its member firms and related entities are legally separate and independent entities, which cannot obligate or bind each other in respect of third parties. DTTL and each DTTL member firm and related entity is liable only for its own acts and omissions, and not those of each other. DTTL does not provide services to clients. Please see www.deloitte.com/about to learn more.
Deloitte provides leading professional services to nearly 90% of the Fortune Global 500® and thousands of private companies. Our people deliver measurable and lasting results that help reinforce public trust in capital markets and enable clients to transform and thrive. Building on its 180+ year history, Deloitte spans more than 150 countries and territories. Learn how Deloitte’s over 470,000 people worldwide work together every day to make an impact that matters at www.deloitte.com.
This communication contains general information only, and none of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited (DTTL), its global network of member firms or their related entities (collectively, the “Deloitte organization”) is, by means of this communication, rendering professional advice or services. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your finances or your business, you should consult a qualified professional adviser.
No representations, warranties or undertakings (express or implied) are given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information in this communication, and none of DTTL, its member firms, related entities, employees or agents shall be liable or responsible for any loss or damage whatsoever arising directly or indirectly in connection with any person relying on this communication. DTTL and each of its member firms, and their related entities, are legally separate and independent entities.
© 2026. For information, contact Deloitte Global.
