OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project Making Dispute Resolution More Effective - MAP Peer Review Report, Estonia (Stage 1) Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 14: Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 14

Foreword
Abbreviations and acronyms
Executive summary
Introduction
	Available mechanisms in Estonia to resolve tax treaty-related disputes
	Recent developments in Estonia
	Basis for the peer review process
	Overview of MAP caseload in Estonia
	General outline of the peer review report
	Notes
Part A: Preventing disputes
	[A.1] Include Article 25(3), first sentence, of the OECD Model Tax Convention in tax treaties
		Current situation of Estonia’s tax treaties
		Anticipated modifications
			Bilateral modifications
			Peer input
		Conclusion
	[A.2] Provide roll-back of bilateral APAs in appropriate cases
		Estonia’s APA programme
			Roll-back of bilateral APAs
		Practical application of roll-back of bilateral APAs
		Anticipated modifications
		Conclusion
	Notes
	Reference
Part B: Availability and access to MAP
	[B.1] Include Article 25(1) of the OECD Model Tax Convention in tax treaties
		Current situation of Estonia’s tax treaties
			Inclusion of Article 25(1), first sentence of the OECD Model Tax Convention
		Inclusion of Article 25(1), second sentence of the OECD Model Tax Convention
		Practical application
			Article 25(1), first sentence, of the OECD Model Tax Convention
			Article 25(1), second sentence, of the OECD Model Tax Convention
		Anticipated modifications
			Bilateral modifications
			Peer input
		Conclusion
	[B.2] Allow submission of MAP requests to the competent authority of either treaty partner, or, alternatively, introduce a bilateral consultation or notification process
		Domestic bilateral consultation or notification process in place
		Practical application
		Anticipated modifications
		Conclusion
	[B.3] Provide access to MAP in transfer pricing cases
		Legal and administrative framework
		Application of legal and administrative framework in practice
		Anticipated modifications
		Conclusion
	[B.4] Provide access to MAP in relation to the application of anti-abuse provisions
		Legal and administrative framework
		Practical application
		Anticipated modifications
		Conclusion
	[B.5] Provide access to MAP in cases of audit settlements
		Legal and administrative framework
			Audit settlements
			Administrative or statutory dispute settlement/resolution process
		Practical application
		Anticipated modifications
		Conclusion
	[B.6] Provide access to MAP if required information is submitted
		Legal framework on access to MAP and information to be submitted
		Practical application
		Anticipated modifications
		Conclusion
	[B.7] Include Article 25(3), second sentence, of the OECD Model Tax Convention in tax treaties
		Current situation of Estonia’s tax treaties
		Anticipated modifications
			Bilateral modifications
			Peer input
		Conclusion
	[B.8] Publish clear and comprehensive MAP guidance
		Estonia’s MAP guidance
		Information and documentation to be included in a MAP request
		Anticipated modifications
		Conclusion
	[B.9] Make MAP guidance available and easily accessible and publish MAP profile
		Rules, guidelines and procedures on access to and use of the MAP
		MAP profile
		Anticipated modifications
		Conclusion
	[B.10] Clarify in MAP guidance that audit settlements do not preclude access to MAP
		MAP and audit settlements in the MAP guidance
		MAP and other administrative or statutory dispute settlement/resolution processes in available guidance
		Notification of treaty partners of existing administrative or statutory dispute settlement/resolution processes
		Anticipated modifications
		Conclusion
	Note
	Reference
Part C: Resolution of MAP cases
	[C.1] Include Article 25(2), first sentence, of the OECD Model Tax Convention in tax treaties
		Current situation of Estonia’s tax treaties
		Anticipated modifications
			Peer input
		Conclusion
	[C.2] Seek to resolve MAP cases within a 24-month average timeframe
		Reporting of MAP statistics
		Monitoring of MAP statistics
		Analysis of Estonia’s MAP caseload
			Global overview
			Pre-2016 cases
			Post-2015 cases
		Overview of cases closed during the Statistics Reporting Period
			Reported outcomes
		Average timeframe needed to resolve MAP cases
			Peer input
		Anticipated modifications
		Conclusion
	[C.3] Provide adequate resources to the MAP function
		Description of Estonia’s competent authority
		Monitoring mechanism
		Practical application
			MAP statistics
			Peer input
		Anticipated modifications
		Conclusion
	[C.4] Ensure staff in charge of MAP has the authority to resolve cases in accordance with the applicable tax treaty
		Functioning of staff in charge of MAP
		Practical application
		Anticipated modifications
		Conclusion
	[C.5] Use appropriate performance indicators for the MAP function
		Performance indicators used by Estonia
		Practical application
		Anticipated modifications
		Conclusion
	[C.6] Provide transparency with respect to the position on MAP arbitration
		Position on MAP arbitration
		Practical application
		Anticipated modifications
		Conclusion
	Notes
	Reference
Part D: Implementation of MAP agreements
	[D.1] Implement all MAP agreements
		Legal framework to implement MAP agreements
		Practical application
		Anticipated modifications
		Conclusion
	[D.2] Implement all MAP agreements on a timely basis
		Theoretical timeframe for implementing mutual agreements
		Practical application
		1.1.2. Anticipated modifications
		Conclusion
	[D.3] Include Article 25(2), second sentence, of the OECD Model Tax Convention in tax treaties or alternative provisions in Article 9(1) and Article 7(2)
		Legal framework and current situation of Estonia’s tax treaties
		Anticipated modifications
			Peer input
		Conclusion
	Reference
Summary
Annex A: Tax treaty network of Estonia
Annex B: MAP Statistics Reporting for the 2016 and 2017 Reporting Periods (1 January 2016 to 31 December 2017) for Pre-2016 Cases
Annex C: MAP Statistics Reporting for the 2016 and 2017 Reporting Periods (1 January 2016 to 31 December 2017) for Post-2015 Cases
Glossary