Comparative Analysis of Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) Regulations in Indonesia, Singapore, Japan, and Australia within the OECD BEPS Action 14 Framework

Authors

  • Eko Fauzi Program Studi Ilmu Hukum, Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Mpu Tantular, Indonesia
  • Appe Hutauruk Program Studi Ilmu Hukum, Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Mpu Tantular, Indonesia
  • Hotman Sinambela Program Studi Ilmu Hukum, Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Mpu Tantular, Indonesia
  • Fendi Maruba Parlindungan Hutahaean Program Studi Ilmu Hukum, Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Mpu Tantular, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58258/xad1sc39

Keywords:

Mutual Agreement Procedure; BEPS Action 14; OECD; Tax Certainty; International Tax Dispute.

Abstract

The increasing number of international tax disputes resulting from double taxation and Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) has strengthened the importance of effective dispute resolution mechanisms. In response, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) introduced BEPS Action 14 to establish minimum standards for improving the effectiveness of the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP). This study aims to analyze the conformity of Indonesia's MAP regulations with the OECD BEPS Action 14 Minimum Standard and to compare Indonesia's regulatory framework with those of Singapore, Japan, and Australia. The research employs a normative juridical approach supported by statutory, comparative, historical, and conceptual analyses. Data were collected through library research, including legislation, tax treaties, OECD reports, MAP Peer Review Reports, and relevant academic literature. The findings indicate that Indonesia has substantially incorporated the OECD minimum standards through Minister of Finance Regulation No. 172/PMK.03/2023. However, challenges remain regarding procedural transparency, taxpayer accessibility, institutional capacity, and the timeliness of dispute resolution, with several cases exceeding the OECD's recommended 24-month resolution period. Compared with Singapore, Japan, and Australia, Indonesia demonstrates relatively lower performance in implementing an effective MAP framework. These shortcomings affect tax certainty, taxpayer protection, and Indonesia's compliance with international commitments under tax treaties. The study recommends strengthening the national regulatory framework, improving transparency and administrative procedures, enhancing the capacity of the Competent Authority, and adopting international best practices to increase the effectiveness of MAP implementation and reinforce legal certainty in international taxation.
Abstract Views 50PDF Downloads 43

References

Arnold, B. J. (2019). International tax primer (4th ed.). Kluwer Law International.

Ault, H. J., & Arnold, B. J. (2017). Comparative income taxation: A structural analysis (4th ed.). Kluwer Law International.

Avi-Yonah, R. S. (2019). International tax as international law: An analysis of the international tax regime (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Defi. (2023). International tax dispute resolution through MAP in Indonesia. Educoretax, 4(9).

Lang, M. (2021). Introduction to the law of double taxation conventions. Linde Verlag.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2015). Making dispute resolution mechanisms more effective, Action 14: 2015 Final Report. OECD Publishing.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2017). Model tax convention on income and on capital: Condensed version. OECD Publishing.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2021). MAP peer review report: Indonesia (Stage 2). OECD Publishing.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2022). Transfer pricing guidelines for multinational enterprises and tax administrations 2022. OECD Publishing.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). Mutual agreement procedure statistics for 2022. OECD Publishing.

United Nations. (2021). United Nations model double taxation convention between developed and developing countries 2021. United Nations.

United Nations. (2021). Practical manual on transfer pricing for developing countries. United Nations.

Vogel, K. (2015). Klaus Vogel on double taxation conventions (4th ed.). Kluwer Law International.

World Bank. (2020). Doing business 2020: Comparing business regulation in 190 economies. World Bank.

World Trade Organization. (2023). World trade statistical review 2023. World Trade Organization.

Downloads

Published

2026-09-02

How to Cite

Comparative Analysis of Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) Regulations in Indonesia, Singapore, Japan, and Australia within the OECD BEPS Action 14 Framework. (2026). JIHAD : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Dan Administrasi, 8(3), 1010-1015. https://doi.org/10.58258/xad1sc39