Dutch Ruling Practice Annual Report 2025: Growing Demand for APAs and Cross-Border Tax Certainty

Recent developments illustrate the continued focus on improving international tax dispute prevention and resolution. The 2025 Annual Report on the Dutch ruling practice provides further insight into the use of Advance Pricing Agreements (APAs) in the Netherlands. As transfer pricing audits continue to increase globally, multinational groups are placing greater emphasis on tax certainty and effective dispute prevention. For many taxpayers, a proactive Bilateral APA (BAPA) or Multilateral APA (MAPA) strategy can help reduce the risk of future disputes and double taxation.

2025 Annual Report on the Ruling Practice

In 2025, the total number of Dutch tax ruling requests slightly decreased to 528, compared with 583 in 2024. This decrease was mainly driven by fewer advance tax ruling requests and, to a lesser extent, fewer innovation box ruling requests. By contrast, the number of APA requests slightly increased, with the most notable increase relating to BAPA and MAPA requests. The revised Dutch ruling practice, which took effect on July 1, 2019, introduced stricter requirements and a more robust process for international tax rulings, including unilateral APAs. As a result, unilateral certainty may not always be available or sufficient. Multinational enterprises are increasingly seeking tax certainty across multiple jurisdictions to reduce the risk of double taxation, although this may involve somewhat longer processing times.

Special considerations regarding APAs

The report also includes observations on APA eligibility for routine financing and treasury-related activities. These remain fact-specific and should be assessed carefully in pre-filing discussions, particularly where financial flows, business reasons, withholding tax considerations and the role of the Dutch entity are relevant.

For taxpayers with material cross-border transactions, this is a useful moment to reassess whether existing transfer pricing positions are sufficiently documented and whether proactive tax certainty could reduce future controversy and double taxation risk.

The adequacy of the taxpayer’s remuneration after financing expenses may also be considered in an APA context, also in relation to routine companies. 

Looking ahead

The 2025 annual report does not indicate a fundamental change in Dutch ruling policy. It does, however, confirm that for the Netherlands advance tax certainty, including through APAs, BAPAs and MAPAs remain an important part of the Dutch tax certainty framework. The 2025 figures further underline the continued relevance of BAPAs and MAPAs, particularly where multinational enterprises seek certainty across multiple jurisdictions and aim to reduce the risk of double taxation. In appropriate cases, involving more than two tax authorities in a MAPA process may also help move discussions away from purely bilateral positions.

Want to know more? 

In our view, the key takeaway is that tax certainty is no longer only a domestic question. For many multinational groups, the real value lies in coordinated, cross-border certainty that reduces the risk of double taxation before disputes arise. Our Tax Controversy & Litigation and Transfer Pricing teams can assist taxpayers in assessing whether APA, BAPA or MAPA strategy is appropriate, and preparing for discussions with Dutch Tax Authorities and foreign competent authorities and in avoiding international tax disputes, in close cooperation with KPMG's global network of tax controversy professionals.