Use this skill with your AI agent
Paste this skill into your AI agent's context, or save the file to your project. Works with any AI agent that reads markdown.
tax-controversy-map-apa.md384 lines21.2 KB
v1GLOBAL
Not yet verified by an accountantContact accountant
| 1 | --- |
| 2 | name: tax-controversy-map-apa |
| 3 | description: > |
| 4 | Use this skill whenever a taxpayer faces a tax authority enquiry, audit, assessment, appeal, double-taxation conflict, or considers an advance ruling or APA. Trigger on phrases like "tax audit", "tax enquiry", "tax assessment", "tax appeal", "tax tribunal", "tax court", "MAP", "Mutual Agreement Procedure", "APA", "advance pricing agreement", "bilateral APA", "multilateral APA", "advance ruling", "binding ruling", "private letter ruling", "PLR", "BAPA", "OECD MEMAP", "BEPS Action 14", "MLI Article 16", "MLI mandatory arbitration", "EU tax dispute resolution directive", "DAC4", "competent authority", "voluntary disclosure", "amnesty", "GAAR", or any request to assess controversy strategy, advance certainty mechanisms, or cross-border dispute resolution. Maps MAP, APA, advance ruling, and domestic appeal mechanisms across 40+ jurisdictions with the EU DRM (Directive (EU) 2017/1852), the OECD BEPS Action 14 minimum standard, and the MLI mandatory binding arbitration commitments. Does NOT cover: criminal tax investigation procedure beyond high-level reference, transfer pricing methodology (see transfer-pricing-workflow-base), or country-specific litigation strategy. ALWAYS read this skill before recommending a controversy approach. |
| 5 | version: 0.1 |
| 6 | jurisdiction: GLOBAL |
| 7 | tax_year: 2025 |
| 8 | category: cross-border |
| 9 | depends_on: |
| 10 | - cross-border-workflow-base |
| 11 | verified_by: pending |
| 12 | --- |
| 13 | |
| 14 | # Tax Controversy / MAP / APA / Advance Rulings v0.1 |
| 15 | |
| 16 | ## What this file is |
| 17 | |
| 18 | **This file is a content skill that loads on top of `cross-border-workflow-base`.** It implements: |
| 19 | |
| 20 | - **OECD Manual on Effective Mutual Agreement Procedures (MEMAP)** and the **BEPS Action 14 minimum standard** (peer-reviewed by the Inclusive Framework) |
| 21 | - **OECD Model Tax Convention Article 25** (Mutual Agreement Procedure) and **Article 26** (Exchange of Information) |
| 22 | - **Multilateral Instrument (MLI) Articles 16, 17, 19-26**: mandatory arbitration commitments by reservation |
| 23 | - **EU Council Directive 2017/1852** on tax dispute resolution mechanisms (DRM) |
| 24 | - **Country-level audit, assessment, appeal, and advance ruling procedures** |
| 25 | |
| 26 | **Tax year coverage.** Current for **calendar 2025**, reflecting: |
| 27 | - OECD MAP statistics 2023 (released October 2024): ~3,400 new MAP cases initiated globally |
| 28 | - EU DRM cases gathering pace; first multilateral cases resolved 2024-2025 |
| 29 | - IRS APA program statistics 2024 (released February 2025) |
| 30 | - Pillar Two adding new dispute categories (QDMTT credit qualification, safe harbour eligibility) |
| 31 | |
| 32 | **The reviewer is the customer of this output.** Controversy and dispute resolution are zero-sum and time-sensitive. Every output must be reviewed by a credentialed tax controversy practitioner (typically a tax lawyer or Big 4 tax controversy specialist) before any submission is filed. |
| 33 | |
| 34 | --- |
| 35 | |
| 36 | ## Section 1 — Scope statement |
| 37 | |
| 38 | This skill covers: |
| 39 | |
| 40 | - **Audit phase strategy** — interaction patterns with tax authorities, document production, privilege |
| 41 | - **Domestic appeal mechanisms** — administrative review, tribunal, court |
| 42 | - **Advance ruling regimes** — when available, who can request, binding effect |
| 43 | - **Advance Pricing Agreements (APA)** — unilateral, bilateral, multilateral |
| 44 | - **Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP)** — eligibility, time limits, process, arbitration |
| 45 | - **EU Tax Dispute Resolution Directive (DRM)** — supplement / alternative to MAP for EU-EU disputes |
| 46 | - **Voluntary disclosure programmes** — by jurisdiction |
| 47 | - **General Anti-Abuse Rules (GAAR)** triggers and defences |
| 48 | |
| 49 | This skill does NOT cover: |
| 50 | |
| 51 | - **Criminal tax investigations** — separate procedural skill required |
| 52 | - **Transfer pricing methodology** itself — see `transfer-pricing-workflow-base.md` |
| 53 | - **Litigation strategy** in specific national courts |
| 54 | - **Crisis communications** in high-profile cases |
| 55 | |
| 56 | --- |
| 57 | |
| 58 | ## Section 2 — Domestic dispute lifecycle |
| 59 | |
| 60 | ### 2.1 Common phases |
| 61 | |
| 62 | **[T1]** Most jurisdictions follow a similar arc: |
| 63 | |
| 64 | 1. **Pre-audit / risk assessment** — sometimes formal (UK Customer Compliance Manager) or informal |
| 65 | 2. **Audit / enquiry / examination** — information requests, interviews, statutory penalties for non-cooperation |
| 66 | 3. **Proposed adjustment / notice of deficiency** — formal communication of the tax authority's position |
| 67 | 4. **Administrative appeal / objection** — typically a fixed window (30-90 days) to file |
| 68 | 5. **Tribunal / first-tier court** — independent review |
| 69 | 6. **Higher court appeal** — on points of law typically |
| 70 | 7. **Collection and enforcement** — usually distinct from adjudication |
| 71 | |
| 72 | ### 2.2 Country-specific appeal windows |
| 73 | |
| 74 | | Country | Audit-to-assessment window | Time to appeal assessment | |
| 75 | |---|---|---| |
| 76 | | **United States — IRS** | Statute of limitations 3 yr (6 yr if substantial omission; unlimited if fraud) | 90 days (Notice of Deficiency); 30 days for appeals office; petition Tax Court within 90 days | |
| 77 | | **United Kingdom — HMRC** | Discovery up to 4 years (careless 6, deliberate 20) | 30 days for internal review; 30 days to Tribunal | |
| 78 | | **Germany — Finanzamt** | Steuerliche Festsetzungsverjährung 4 years (extended 5/10 for fraud) | Einspruch: 1 month from notice; Klage to Finanzgericht: 1 month from Einspruchsentscheidung | |
| 79 | | **France — DGFiP** | Reprise: 3 years (10 if fraud); contrôle URSSAF 3 yr | Réclamation contentieuse: 2 yr (varies); TA appeal: 2 mo | |
| 80 | | **Italy — Agenzia delle Entrate** | Accertamento: 5 yr (7 if no return) | Ricorso to Corte di Giustizia Tributaria: 60 days | |
| 81 | | **Spain — AEAT** | Prescripción 4 años | Reclamación TEAR: 1 mo; recurso ante TSJ: 2 mo | |
| 82 | | **Netherlands — Belastingdienst** | Aanslagtermijn 3 yr (12 yr foreign assets) | Bezwaar: 6 wk; beroep to Rechtbank: 6 wk | |
| 83 | | **Australia — ATO** | Standard 2/4 yr (extended for fraud / unlimited international) | 60 days to lodge objection; tribunal 60 days | |
| 84 | | **Canada — CRA** | Reassessment 3 yr (4 for CCPC, 7 for transfer pricing) | 90 days for Notice of Objection; Tax Court 90 days | |
| 85 | | **Japan — National Tax Agency** | 5 yr (7 if fraud) | Administrative review 3 months; tax tribunal further period | |
| 86 | | **India — IT Department** | 3-10 years depending on case | Appeal to CIT(A) within 30 days; ITAT within 60 days | |
| 87 | | **Brazil — Receita Federal** | 5 yr | Impugnação within 30 days; CARF appeal within 30 days | |
| 88 | |
| 89 | ### 2.3 Document production and privilege |
| 90 | |
| 91 | **[T1]** Privilege protection varies materially: |
| 92 | |
| 93 | | Jurisdiction | Privilege scope | |
| 94 | |---|---| |
| 95 | | **US** | Attorney-client privilege; federally recognised work product; §7525 federally authorised practitioner privilege (limited, does not extend to criminal) | |
| 96 | | **UK** | Legal advice privilege (solicitors, barristers) and litigation privilege; tax advice from accountants NOT privileged (Prudential v HMRC) | |
| 97 | | **Germany** | Anwaltsgeheimnis for lawyers; Steuerberater have limited Beratungsschutz | |
| 98 | | **France** | Avocats have full secret professionnel including for tax advice (post-Cour de cassation 2022) | |
| 99 | | **Australia** | Legal professional privilege for lawyers; accountants' concession (limited) | |
| 100 | | **Canada** | Solicitor-client privilege; accountant communications generally not privileged | |
| 101 | |
| 102 | --- |
| 103 | |
| 104 | ## Section 3 — Advance ruling regimes |
| 105 | |
| 106 | ### 3.1 Where available |
| 107 | |
| 108 | **[T1] Binding advance ruling regimes:** |
| 109 | |
| 110 | | Jurisdiction | Body | Type | Binding effect | |
| 111 | |---|---|---|---| |
| 112 | | **United States — IRS PLR** | National Office | Private Letter Ruling | Binds IRS for the requesting taxpayer on the specific facts | |
| 113 | | **United Kingdom — HMRC** | HMRC Advance Clearances | Pre-transaction clearance | Binding if facts as represented | |
| 114 | | **Netherlands** | Belastingdienst Rulings Team APA/ATR | ATR (Advance Tax Ruling) | Binding generally | |
| 115 | | **Luxembourg** | ACD | Décision anticipée | Binding | |
| 116 | | **Switzerland** | Canton + ESTV | Steuerruling | Binding cantonal + federal | |
| 117 | | **Belgium** | SDA/BBI | Advance ruling | Binding | |
| 118 | | **Ireland** | Revenue | Opinion / Confirmation | Quasi-binding | |
| 119 | | **Germany** | Finanzamt | Verbindliche Auskunft | Binding | |
| 120 | | **France** | DGFiP | Rescrit | Binding | |
| 121 | | **Italy** | Agenzia delle Entrate | Interpello | Binding | |
| 122 | | **Spain** | Dirección General de Tributos | Consulta vinculante | Binding | |
| 123 | | **India** | AAR | Advance Ruling | Binding for the applicant on the specific transaction | |
| 124 | | **Singapore** | IRAS | Income Tax Advance Ruling | Binding | |
| 125 | | **Australia** | ATO Public/Private Ruling | Various | Binding | |
| 126 | | **Canada** | CRA | Advance Income Tax Ruling | Binding | |
| 127 | | **Japan** | NTA | Advance ruling on transfer pricing only generally | Limited | |
| 128 | |
| 129 | ### 3.2 Process and fees |
| 130 | |
| 131 | **[T1]** |
| 132 | - **Submission**: detailed factual scenario, legal analysis, requested treatment |
| 133 | - **Discussion** with the tax authority |
| 134 | - **Issuance** within statutory or guideline window (typically 6-24 months) |
| 135 | - **Fees** vary (Spain free; US PLR USD 39,950 standard for income tax matters; Switzerland varies by canton) |
| 136 | |
| 137 | ### 3.3 Information sharing under DAC3 |
| 138 | |
| 139 | **[T1]** Council Directive (EU) 2015/2376 (DAC3) requires automatic exchange of cross-border tax rulings issued by EU Member States. The receiving Member State's tax authority can challenge. |
| 140 | |
| 141 | --- |
| 142 | |
| 143 | ## Section 4 — Advance Pricing Agreements (APA) |
| 144 | |
| 145 | ### 4.1 What is an APA |
| 146 | |
| 147 | **[T1]** An agreement between a taxpayer and one (unilateral) or more tax authorities (bilateral / multilateral) on the transfer pricing methodology to apply to specified intra-group transactions for a defined future period (typically 3-5 years, renewable). Reduces audit risk and provides certainty. |
| 148 | |
| 149 | ### 4.2 APA program leaders |
| 150 | |
| 151 | | Country | Program | Annual completions (latest) | Average cycle time | |
| 152 | |---|---|---|---| |
| 153 | | **United States — IRS APMA** | Advance Pricing & Mutual Agreement Program | ~150 bilateral / 200 total (2024) | ~40 months bilateral | |
| 154 | | **Japan — NTA APA Office** | Pioneer of bilateral APAs | ~100 bilateral (2024) | ~36 months | |
| 155 | | **United Kingdom — HMRC TPS** | UK APA Programme | ~25 (2024) | ~30 months | |
| 156 | | **Germany — BZSt** | Verständigungsverfahren | ~30 (2024) | ~30 months | |
| 157 | | **France — DGFiP** | APA Cellule | ~25 (2024) | ~36 months | |
| 158 | | **Italy — Agenzia delle Entrate** | Patent and TP APA | ~30 (2024) | ~36 months | |
| 159 | | **Netherlands** | APA / ATR Team | ~30 (2024) | ~24 months | |
| 160 | | **Australia — ATO** | APA Programme | ~30 (2024) | ~30 months | |
| 161 | | **Canada — CRA** | International Tax Division | ~30 (2024) | ~36 months | |
| 162 | | **India — CBDT** | APA Authority | ~60 (2024, including signing record year FY24) | ~30 months (rolling) | |
| 163 | |
| 164 | ### 4.3 Bilateral vs unilateral vs multilateral |
| 165 | |
| 166 | **[T1]** |
| 167 | - **Unilateral APA**: between taxpayer and one tax authority; lower certainty across borders |
| 168 | - **Bilateral APA (BAPA)**: between taxpayer and both tax authorities (via competent authorities); strongest cross-border certainty |
| 169 | - **Multilateral APA**: three or more tax authorities; complex; useful for global value chains |
| 170 | |
| 171 | **[T2]** Unilateral APAs face increasing scepticism from OECD Forum on Tax Administration and BEPS Action 5 — they may constitute "harmful tax practice" if granting unmerited certainty. Bilateral/multilateral preferred. |
| 172 | |
| 173 | ### 4.4 APA process |
| 174 | |
| 175 | 1. **Pre-filing meeting** with the relevant competent authority(ies) |
| 176 | 2. **Application** with detailed functional analysis, comparables, proposed methodology |
| 177 | 3. **Tax authority review** — economic analysis, comparables challenge |
| 178 | 4. **Negotiation** with the other competent authority (for BAPA / MAPA) |
| 179 | 5. **Agreement** signed; covered period and annual reports specified |
| 180 | 6. **Renewal** typically possible |
| 181 | |
| 182 | ### 4.5 Rollback |
| 183 | |
| 184 | **[T1]** Many regimes allow rollback of the APA methodology to open prior years, eliminating retrospective audit risk. US offers rollback at request; UK and Australia at competent authority discretion. |
| 185 | |
| 186 | --- |
| 187 | |
| 188 | ## Section 5 — Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) |
| 189 | |
| 190 | ### 5.1 What is MAP |
| 191 | |
| 192 | **[T1] OECD Model Article 25:** when a taxpayer considers that taxation by one or both contracting states "is not in accordance with" the treaty, the competent authorities endeavour to resolve the case by mutual agreement. |
| 193 | |
| 194 | **Common MAP triggers:** |
| 195 | - Double taxation arising from transfer pricing adjustment |
| 196 | - Conflicting residence determinations |
| 197 | - Treatment of permanent establishment profits |
| 198 | - Withholding tax disputes |
| 199 | - DST / Pillar Two interaction questions (emerging) |
| 200 | |
| 201 | ### 5.2 Eligibility and time limits |
| 202 | |
| 203 | **[T1] OECD Model Article 25(1):** present case to competent authority of residence (or of nationality for some cases) "within three years from the first notification of the action resulting in taxation not in accordance with the Convention." |
| 204 | |
| 205 | Country-specific variations: |
| 206 | - **US** — 3 years from notice + extension via Form 8833 |
| 207 | - **Germany** — 4 years |
| 208 | - **France** — varies by treaty |
| 209 | - **Italy** — 2-3 years |
| 210 | - **India** — 3 years from receipt of order |
| 211 | |
| 212 | ### 5.3 BEPS Action 14 minimum standard |
| 213 | |
| 214 | **[T1]** Inclusive Framework members commit to: |
| 215 | - Resolve MAP cases on average within 24 months |
| 216 | - Provide access to MAP regardless of domestic audit settlement |
| 217 | - Publish guidance on MAP access |
| 218 | - Submit annual MAP statistics to OECD |
| 219 | |
| 220 | ### 5.4 MLI Article 16 — MAP |
| 221 | |
| 222 | **[T1]** Where two parties to a covered tax agreement adopt the MLI and apply Article 16, the article modifies Article 25 to provide three-year filing window from first notification AND symmetrical access (taxpayer can file in either state). |
| 223 | |
| 224 | ### 5.5 MLI Articles 18-26 — Mandatory Binding Arbitration |
| 225 | |
| 226 | **[T1] Optional MLI provisions:** ~30+ jurisdictions have adopted MLI Part VI mandatory arbitration. If MAP not resolved within 2 years, taxpayer can require arbitration. Decisions binding on both states. Key adopters: Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Singapore, Spain, UK, US (US has not signed MLI but has bilateral arbitration in most treaties). |
| 227 | |
| 228 | **[T2]** Arbitration is typically baseball-style (final-offer) or independent-opinion. Disclosure obligations and confidentiality rules vary by treaty. |
| 229 | |
| 230 | --- |
| 231 | |
| 232 | ## Section 6 — EU Tax Dispute Resolution Mechanism (DRM) |
| 233 | |
| 234 | **[T1] Council Directive (EU) 2017/1852** (transposed by Member States by 30 June 2019): |
| 235 | |
| 236 | ### 6.1 Scope |
| 237 | |
| 238 | - Disputes between two or more EU Member States arising from the interpretation and application of tax treaties or the EU Arbitration Convention on Transfer Pricing (Convention 90/436/EEC) |
| 239 | - Includes interpretation of treaty provisions, attribution of profits to PEs, transfer pricing adjustments, residence conflicts |
| 240 | |
| 241 | ### 6.2 Process |
| 242 | |
| 243 | **[T1]** |
| 244 | |
| 245 | 1. **Complaint** filed by taxpayer with all relevant Member States within 3 years of first notification |
| 246 | 2. **Acceptance / rejection** by Member States within 6 months |
| 247 | 3. **MAP phase** — Member States have 2 years (extendable to 3) to reach mutual agreement |
| 248 | 4. **Arbitration phase** — if no resolution, taxpayer can request an Advisory Commission of independent persons; commission issues independent opinion within 6 months |
| 249 | 5. **Final decision** by Member States — must adopt independent opinion or alternative resolution within 6 months |
| 250 | 6. **Enforceability** — binding once accepted by taxpayer |
| 251 | |
| 252 | ### 6.3 Comparison to MAP |
| 253 | |
| 254 | | Feature | MAP (OECD) | EU DRM | |
| 255 | |---|---|---| |
| 256 | | Geographic scope | Bilateral | EU-EU | |
| 257 | | Time limit | Typically 24 months (BEPS Action 14) | 2 years extendable to 3 | |
| 258 | | Arbitration | Optional via MLI | Built-in mandatory | |
| 259 | | Taxpayer participation | Limited | Right to be heard; right to choose Advisory Commission | |
| 260 | | Binding effect | Subject to domestic acceptance | Binding on Member States once final | |
| 261 | |
| 262 | --- |
| 263 | |
| 264 | ## Section 7 — Voluntary disclosure programmes |
| 265 | |
| 266 | ### 7.1 Major regimes |
| 267 | |
| 268 | **[T1]** |
| 269 | |
| 270 | | Country | Programme | |
| 271 | |---|---| |
| 272 | | **US** | Streamlined Filing Compliance Procedures (offshore); IRS Voluntary Disclosure Practice (general, post-OVDP) | |
| 273 | | **UK** | Worldwide Disclosure Facility (active); Code of Practice 9 (CDF) for serious fraud | |
| 274 | | **Germany** | Selbstanzeige (§371 AO) — voluntary self-denunciation can extinguish criminal liability if before discovery | |
| 275 | | **France** | Service de Traitement des Déclarations Rectificatives (STDR) — closed but historical filings still being processed | |
| 276 | | **Italy** | Voluntary Disclosure (Legge 186/2014, renewed 2017, 2023) | |
| 277 | | **Australia** | Project Wickenby legacy; current voluntary disclosure under Practice Statement | |
| 278 | | **Canada** | Voluntary Disclosures Program (VDP) — narrowed in 2018; two tiers (general, limited) | |
| 279 | | **India** | Income Declaration Scheme (closed); various amnesty schemes by Finance Acts | |
| 280 | | **Brazil** | Multiple Regimes (latest 2024 RFB) | |
| 281 | |
| 282 | ### 7.2 Common features |
| 283 | |
| 284 | - Reduced penalties (often eliminated criminal exposure) |
| 285 | - Full disclosure of all unreported income/assets |
| 286 | - Payment of tax + (reduced) interest + (reduced) penalties |
| 287 | - Sunset clauses on amnesty programmes |
| 288 | - Eligibility limited: typically excludes taxpayers already under audit/investigation |
| 289 | |
| 290 | --- |
| 291 | |
| 292 | ## Section 8 — General Anti-Abuse Rules (GAAR) |
| 293 | |
| 294 | ### 8.1 GAAR landscape |
| 295 | |
| 296 | **[T1] In-force GAARs:** |
| 297 | |
| 298 | | Country | GAAR | Test | |
| 299 | |---|---|---| |
| 300 | | **UK** | GAAR (FA 2013 Part 5) | "Abusive tax arrangements"; double reasonableness test | |
| 301 | | **EU** | Article 6 ATAD Directive (in force in all 27 MS) | "Non-genuine arrangement... main purpose / one of main purposes" of obtaining a tax advantage | |
| 302 | | **US** | Economic substance doctrine (§7701(o)) | Codified 2010; subjective + objective tests | |
| 303 | | **Australia** | Part IVA Income Tax Assessment Act | "Dominant purpose" of obtaining a tax benefit | |
| 304 | | **Canada** | Section 245 ITA + recent FA 2024 amendment | "Abusive avoidance transaction" — strengthened 2024 | |
| 305 | | **India** | GAAR Chapter X-A | Threshold INR 30m; main purpose test | |
| 306 | | **Brazil** | CTN art. 116 | Anti-abuse; rarely litigated successfully | |
| 307 | | **France** | Article L64 LPF — abus de droit | Two limbs: fictitious / fraudulent | |
| 308 | | **Germany** | §42 AO — Gestaltungsmissbrauch | Inappropriate legal structure | |
| 309 | | **OECD MLI Article 7** | Principal Purpose Test | Treaty-shopping anti-abuse | |
| 310 | |
| 311 | ### 8.2 GAAR defence strategy |
| 312 | |
| 313 | **[T1]** |
| 314 | - Document business purpose contemporaneously |
| 315 | - Demonstrate that the arrangement is consistent with the legislative intent of any relied-upon provisions |
| 316 | - Engage advance ruling early where uncertain |
| 317 | - Avoid arrangements with no commercial substance beyond tax |
| 318 | |
| 319 | --- |
| 320 | |
| 321 | ## Section 9 — Pillar Two dispute mechanisms |
| 322 | |
| 323 | **[T1]** Pillar Two introduces new dispute categories: |
| 324 | - QDMTT qualifying status disputes — handled through Inclusive Framework peer review |
| 325 | - Transitional CbCR Safe Harbour qualification disputes |
| 326 | - Allocation of Top-up Tax under UTPR |
| 327 | - IIR vs UTPR priority |
| 328 | |
| 329 | **[T2]** The OECD has not yet finalized a unified Pillar Two dispute resolution mechanism. The IF intends to publish a framework. In the interim, taxpayers should: |
| 330 | - Engage early with each relevant competent authority |
| 331 | - Use existing MAP / EU DRM where treaty-eligible |
| 332 | - Document Pillar Two computations in audit-ready form |
| 333 | |
| 334 | --- |
| 335 | |
| 336 | ## Section 10 — Output specification |
| 337 | |
| 338 | The reviewer brief must include: |
| 339 | |
| 340 | 1. **Dispute classification** — domestic / cross-border, double taxation, treaty interpretation, transfer pricing, etc. |
| 341 | 2. **Procedural timeline** with all critical deadlines (filing, appeal, MAP, arbitration) |
| 342 | 3. **Forum analysis** — domestic appeals vs MAP vs EU DRM; pros and cons |
| 343 | 4. **APA feasibility** — would an advance agreement avoid recurrence? |
| 344 | 5. **Privilege analysis** — what is protected, by whom |
| 345 | 6. **Settlement options** — penalty mitigation, voluntary disclosure |
| 346 | 7. **GAAR / anti-abuse risk** flagged if applicable |
| 347 | 8. **MLI / treaty arbitration eligibility** for cross-border cases |
| 348 | 9. **Resource requirements** — likely cost, internal resource, external advisor model |
| 349 | 10. **Reviewer questions** — open items flagged as [T2] or [T3] |
| 350 | |
| 351 | --- |
| 352 | |
| 353 | ## Section 11 — Self-checks |
| 354 | |
| 355 | - [ ] Statute of limitations / appeal windows plotted from first notification, not assumed |
| 356 | - [ ] Document privilege scoped per jurisdiction (US §7525 not equivalent to UK legal advice privilege) |
| 357 | - [ ] MAP eligibility tested against the relevant treaty's Article 25 and any MLI modifications |
| 358 | - [ ] Arbitration eligibility tested against MLI Part VI reservations |
| 359 | - [ ] EU DRM considered for any EU-EU dispute |
| 360 | - [ ] APA option evaluated for ongoing recurring transfer pricing exposure |
| 361 | - [ ] Advance ruling option considered for novel positions before transaction |
| 362 | - [ ] GAAR risk identified contemporaneously, not retroactively |
| 363 | - [ ] Voluntary disclosure eligibility tested if pre-audit unreported items exist |
| 364 | - [ ] Output flags every [T2]/[T3] item for reviewer judgement |
| 365 | |
| 366 | --- |
| 367 | |
| 368 | ## Section 12 — Prohibitions |
| 369 | |
| 370 | - **Do not** miss a deadline. Tax controversy is procedural before substantive — missed appeal windows are usually unrecoverable. |
| 371 | - **Do not** disclose privileged communications to non-privileged parties (including tax advisors without proper Kovel-type arrangements in the US). |
| 372 | - **Do not** rely on treaty MAP without confirming the treaty includes Article 25 and the MLI status of both states. |
| 373 | - **Do not** treat an OECD Inclusive Framework MAP statistic as a guarantee — country-specific resource constraints affect actual resolution times. |
| 374 | - **Do not** advise on tax authority strategy without confirming the tax authority's published litigation history and likely posture — patterns matter. |
| 375 | - **Do not** advise voluntary disclosure if the taxpayer is already under examination — most programmes exclude such cases. |
| 376 | |
| 377 | --- |
| 378 | |
| 379 | ## Section 13 — Disclaimer |
| 380 | |
| 381 | This skill and its outputs are provided for informational and computational purposes only and do not constitute tax, legal, or financial advice. Tax controversy is zero-sum and procedural; every output must be reviewed and signed off by a credentialed tax controversy practitioner before any submission is filed. |
| 382 | |
| 383 | The most up-to-date, verified version of this skill is maintained at [openaccountants.com](https://openaccountants.com). |
| 384 |
Run this skill, then get an accountant to check it
After running the full skill pack in your AI agent, sign up and upload your worksheet. We'll connect you with a trusted accountant in our network who can review your numbers before you file.
Verification status
Research-verified
Drafted from authoritative sources (tax authority sites, Big-4 summaries). Awaiting credentialed sign-off.
Needs section-by-section practitioner review to reach accountant-verified.
Section review progress
0/32
About
Use this skill whenever a taxpayer faces a tax authority enquiry, audit, assessment, appeal, double-taxation conflict, or considers an advance ruling or APA. Trigger on phrases like "tax audit", "tax enquiry", "tax assessment", "tax appeal", "tax tribunal", "tax court", "MAP", "Mutual Agreement Procedure", "APA", "advance pricing agreement", "bilateral APA", "multilateral APA", "advance ruling", "binding ruling", "private letter ruling", "PLR", "BAPA", "OECD MEMAP", "BEPS Action 14", "MLI Article 16", "MLI mandatory arbitration", "EU tax dispute resolution directive", "DAC4", "competent authority", "voluntary disclosure", "amnesty", "GAAR", or any request to assess controversy strategy, advance certainty mechanisms, or cross-border dispute resolution. Maps MAP, APA, advance ruling, and domestic appeal mechanisms across 40+ jurisdictions with the EU DRM (Directive (EU) 2017/1852), the OECD BEPS Action 14 minimum standard, and the MLI mandatory binding arbitration commitments. Does NOT cover: criminal tax investigation procedure beyond high-level reference, transfer pricing methodology (see transfer-pricing-workflow-base), or country-specific litigation strategy. ALWAYS read this skill before recommending a controversy approach.
GLOBALty-2025
Use this skill
This skill is open source and free to use in any AI agent. Copy it, download it, or clone the repo. If you find an error, report an issue — a licensed accountant will review.