IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/lawarc/hg7qn_v1.html

The Mutual Agreement Procedure as Primary Forum for Tax Treaty Disputes: A Case Analysis of Oracle Corporation Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2024] FCA 1262; [2025] FCAFC 145

Author

Listed:
  • Verma, Surbhi

Abstract

This case note examines the Full Federal Court of Australia's decision in Oracle v Commissioner of Taxation, which repositioned the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) as the presumptive primary forum for resolving cross-border tax treaty disputes ahead of domestic litigation. It analyses the Court's treatment of taxpayer sequencing rights under the MLI, the evidentiary threshold for revenue-authority public interest objections, and the decision's implications for jurisdictions, including India and other Global South economies, facing structural conflicts between domestic limitation periods and MAP timelines.

Suggested Citation

  • Verma, Surbhi, 2026. "The Mutual Agreement Procedure as Primary Forum for Tax Treaty Disputes: A Case Analysis of Oracle Corporation Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2024] FCA 1262; [2025] FCAFC 145," LawArchive hg7qn_v1, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:lawarc:hg7qn_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/hg7qn_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/6a3e67a10cbf23250a5005ed/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/hg7qn_v1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:lawarc:hg7qn_v1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://lawarchive.info/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.