Unfortunately, transfer pricing is often used as a means of tax evasion: prices are manipulated to transfer income from the multinational`s detachment to the original company, which is in a tax haven and provides for a more favourable tax on profits. help verify the consistency of the business model with the intercompany pricing system in order to identify and reduce potential risks associated with transfer pricing policy, in line with ongoing international developments. Bilateral and multilateral APAs are generally bilateral or multilateral, i.e. they also enter into agreements between the subject and one or more foreign tax administrations under the control of the Mutual Agreement Procedure (POP) under the tax treaties.  The subject benefits from such agreements, since he is assured that income from covered transactions is not subject to double taxation on the part of the IRS and the relevant foreign tax authorities. The IRS policy is to “encourage” taxpayers to apply for bilateral or multilateral APA where there are provisions of the competent authority. The issue of tax discipline in transfer pricing is one of the main concerns of multinationals. In this sensitive context, pre-price agreements (APAs) have developed as another means of resolving potential disputes on this issue and are based on an agreement between the subject and the tax authorities on the method used to establish normal value for intragroup transactions. Like any previous question, they provide the subject with certainty about the tax consequences of the transactions in question and are now considered indispensable in the modern world, particularly given the distribution of the subject in the duty of compliance.
Although the Community Arbitration Convention has a long history, its practical application by the Member States has been laborious, with frequent delays and erroneous departures. However, the number of cases reviewed has increased significantly in recent times. On the other hand, Article 10 of the Directive applies to the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women. Article 25, paragraph 2 of the OECD model seems to leave the competent authority of the Member States with real room for assessment in determining whether the subject`s request for arbitration is well founded; This gives the taxpayer the opportunity to challenge the non-compliance with this power in court. With regard to this profile, the commentary on the OECD model deplores the lack of clarity resulting from the granting of this discretion to the competent authority (i.e. financial management) and stresses that “the circumstances in which a state could refuse access to arbitration should clearly be provided for by the treaty.” The decision of the Italian Court of Cassation, which is the subject of the last part of this article, is important because it has allowed the courts to remove a specific obstacle to the functioning of the arbitration procedure by declaring the subject`s appeal against the Office`s refusal to activate the procedure in question admissible and justified. In addition, neither the Community Arbitration Agreement nor the Code of Conduct contains a provision or interpretation instructions to determine cases in which the refusal may be lawful.