International Tax 2026

FINLAND Law and Practice Contributed by: Petteri Rapo, Markku Renko, Henri Becker and Jaakko Niskala, Svalner Atlas Finland

in idem). The Finnish Tax Administration explains that tax increases can be comparable to criminal penal - ties, and that tax-related misconduct is therefore han - dled either administratively or through criminal pro - ceedings, depending on the nature and severity of the case. Where a matter is to be handled as a crime case, the Tax Administration may issue a tax assess - ment decision but refrain from issuing a tax‑increase decision, and may file a crime report, after which the prosecutor may bring charges. There is not an “automatic” referral for every irregular - ity; rather, the framework requires an authority deci - sion on the appropriate track (administrative penalty vs criminal process) in light of ne bis in idem con - siderations. In practice, co-ordination is facilitated by the possibility to conduct a tax audit alongside other authorities’ actions, including situations where a police pre-trial investigation is ongoing. 7. Administrative Co-Operation 7.1 Legal Framework for Administrative Co- Operation Finland’s administrative co‑operation in tax matters is grounded in a combination of EU directives, interna - tional agreements/standards and bilateral tax treaties. At an operational level, Finland participates in auto - matic exchange of information based on internation - al commitments and instruments, including FATCA, the OECD CRS and the EU DAC2 framework. Fin - land also implements EU administrative co-operation measures such as DAC6, which provides for reporting and EU‑level exchange of information on reportable cross‑border arrangements. For dispute resolution within the EU, Finland applies the national Act on International Tax Dispute Resolu - tion Procedure (530/2019) and related decree, which transpose Council Directive (EU) 2017/1852 on EU tax dispute resolution mechanisms into Finnish law. 7.2 Exchange of Information Clauses in Tax Agreements Finland exchanges information through multiple chan - nels, including automatic exchange and structured

reporting regimes. Finland participates in automatic exchange of information and receives information in return; this includes FATCA, CRS and DAC2, support - ed by annual reporting obligations for Finnish financial institutions. Additionally, DAC6 operates as an “early alert” mechanism in the EU, requiring reporting of certain arrangements and enabling exchange of the reported information among EU tax authorities. 7.3 Other Forms of International Tax Collaboration Beyond the MAP and advance pricing agreements, Finland participates in (and has developed) additional collaborative and proactive tools aimed at increas - ing tax certainty and reducing disputes, particularly in transfer pricing. One example is Cross-Border Dia - logue, which is a Finnish-initiated process designed to align preliminary ruling outcomes in more than one jurisdiction through administrative co-operation and information exchange channels. 8. Mutual Agreement Procedures and Arbitration 8.1 Availability and Legal Basis Finland has an established MAP practice. In transfer pricing matters specifically, the MAP may be based on: (i) the MAP article in Finland’s income tax treaties (aligned with Article 25 of the OECD Model), (ii) the EU Arbitration Convention (90/436/EEC), or (iii) the EU tax dispute resolution mechanism under Directive 2017/1852 as implemented domestically. The domes - tic procedural framework is set out in the Act on Inter - national Tax Dispute Resolution Procedure (530/2019) and related decree. 8.2 Application Deadlines The filing deadline for a MAP request depends on the relevant tax treaty or the applicable EU dispute reso - lution procedure. The time limit is usually three years from the first time the taxpayer learned that they had been taxed contrary to the treaty (eg, upon receiving a tax decision) or (for an EU dispute resolution proce - dure) three years from when the taxpayer first learned about the double taxation (eg, tax decision).

139 CHAMBERS.COM

Powered by