• Login
  • Register
  • Search

Research on the Connection Between Mutual Agreement Procedure and Domestic Settlement of International Tax Disputes in China

Shuyi Li


As the main international settlement to the international tax disputes, the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) coincides with the domestic remedies in China, such as tax administrative review and tax administrative litigation. It is necessary for the law to clarify the order and relationship of those procedure application. Based on China's Tax Collection and Administration Law and other documents, the four possibilities of the connection between MAP and domestic solutions are classified and discussed, showing that the connection is not smooth. Since the root of the problem lies in the lack of law, we can draw on the experience of legislation and tax practice in Canada and other developed countries. It is clear that MAP and domestic settlement cannot be carried out simultaneously. The MAP can be set up as an institutional arrangement at the same level as the administrative review but with priority to be applied. MAP should be regarded as a pre-requirement for the completion of the review in order to initiate the administrative proceedings. We should protect the taxpayers' right to start MAP in the whole process of administrative litigation, as well as firmly maintain the finality and authority of administrative litigation judgment.


Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP); Administrative Review; Administrative Litigation

Full Text:


Included Database


Sun WB. International law approaches to the settlement of international tax disputes and their inadequacies [J]. Fujian taxation, 2003(07): 11-14.

Zhang ZP. On the legal features of international tax treaty dispute arbitration [J]. Taxation and Economics, 2009(02): 88-91.

Liao YX, an analysis of the OECD International Tax Arbitration Mechanism. Journal of the Xiamen University (philosophy and Social Sciences), 2012(05): pp. 66-74.

Liao YX, Feng XC. Compulsory Arbitration is not a panacea for international tax disputes [J]. Tax Research, 2020(02): 59-65.

Liu YW. On the absoluteness of national tax sovereignty from the perspective of international tax treaty dispute settlement mechanism [J]. The study of law and commerce, 27(05) 2010:85-91.

Gao F. BEPS action plan 14, Phase II outcome 7: making tax dispute resolution more effective [J]. International Taxation, 2015(10): 33-36.

Zhu YS. Improvement of cross-border tax dispute resolution mechanisms: progress in the implementation of the 14th BEPS action plan and options for the future [J]. International Taxation, 2021(04): 32-38.

Wu ZF. The State Administration of Taxation of the subject group of the Wuxi Inland Revenue Department. An analysis of cross-border tax disputes from the perspective of “Belt and Road tax”-based on the conclusion and application of tax treaties [J]. International Taxation, 2018(07): 46-50.

Zhang FQ. On the improvement of the “Belt and Road” international tax dispute settlement mechanism under the strategy of “Great Power” [J]. Journal of law, 2018,39(08): 1-12 + 142.

Liu FY, Wang LL. Review of the relationship between mutual agreement procedures and the application of domestic legal remedies [J]. International Taxation, 2019(12): 34-40.

Zhao L. An analysis of some problems in applying for start-up MAP by “Going Global” enterprises-reflections on the background of “Belt and Road” [J]. Social scientist, 2019(10): 68-75.

Liu FY, Wang LL. A comparative study of the mutual agreement clauses in our country's effective tax treaty [J]. International taxation, 2020(11): 41-47.

Chen B. The connection between the mutual negotiation procedure and the tax dispute settlement mechanism of our country [J]. Taxation and Economics, 2021(02): 48-53.

Zhao P. Study on international tax dispute settlement mechanism [D]. East China University of Political Science and Law, 2015.

Zhou RQ. How do European countries deal with the conflict between international tax agreements and domestic law[J]. Foreign tax, 2204(07):44.

Liu CH, Wang K. Study on the mechanism of “Going global” corporate tax dispute resolution in the high-quality development stage of the “Belt and Road” initiative [J]. International Taxation, 2019(2): 49-51.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18686/fm.v7i3.4450