Amount B is the OECD’s proposal to standardise an arm’s length return for baseline marketing and distribution activities, such as routine wholesale distribution, commission and sales agency. It replaces bespoke benchmarking with a simplified, preset margin or range.
The policy aims to reduce disputes and compliance costs, deliver greater certainty and administrability (especially for lower-capacity tax administrations and small-medium enterprises and promote more consistent outcomes across jurisdictions for common distribution models.
Although progress towards widespread adoption has slowed as countries debate the scope and guardrails of the proposal – as well as how the preset returns should reflect industry and regional differences, and how Amount B should interact with existing domestic rules and treaties – the underlying need that it addresses has not diminished.
By offering a pragmatic, low-friction approach to a high-volume class of transactions, Amount B remains critical for improving tax certainty, easing Mutual Agreement Procedures / Advanced Pricing Agreements backlogs and limiting risks of double taxation while broader Pillar One issues continue to be resolved.
Conversely, it may be seen as an approach that will bring another level of complexity in multinational enterprises’ year-end adjustment processes. Impact on tariffs (custom duties) are not taken into account.
The CMS Transfer Pricing Subgroup has conducted a survey among several jurisdictions, the outcome of which is summarised below.
Uptake
Across the jurisdictions surveyed, domestic adoption of Amount B remains limited. Most jurisdictions have implemented Pillar Two but have not legislated Amount B. Details for each jurisdiction are as follows:
The Netherlands
The Netherlands has explicitly declined domestic application of Amount B while committing to eliminate double taxation where Amount B is correctly applied by “covered jurisdictions” with a treaty in force[1].
France[2]
The French tax authority has confirmed that when a low-capacity country with a double tax agreement with France applies Amount B, the French authorities will:
- respect the result obtained by applying the Amount B approach for transactions within the scope of the measure
- take all reasonable steps to avoid double taxation resulting from the application of Amount B.
This commitment applies to fiscal years beginning on or after 1 January 2025.
However, the tax authority noted that, as of 30 June, no territories currently fulfil the conditions to secure these terms, namely:
- the other territory must have chosen to apply Amount B
- the other territory must be listed by the OECD as a “covered jurisdiction”
- the other territory must also have a double tax treaty in force with France.
United Kingdom
The UK Government has not yet chosen to apply the approach but has expressed its commitment to Pillar One in the “Corporate Tax Roadmap” of October 2024[3].
Belgium, Croatia, Hungary, Italy and Poland
Belgium has not taken a formal position; while Croatia, Hungary, Italy and Poland have reported no domestic adoption of Amount B to date.
In summary
Overall, the dominant pattern is non‑adoption paired with varying levels of willingness to provide correlative relief when counterparties apply Amount B. It is interesting to note that, conversely, the US allows for the optional application of Amount B, and Mexico is considering its adoption. The position of the various jurisdictions is specified in the country fact sheets available on the OECD website[4].
Despite the difficulties that Amount B is facing, it could nevertheless be useful to simulate the calculation suggested by Amount B either to compare the ratio applied by multinational enterprises or to corroborate the ratio applied to overcome objections in the context of a transfer pricing audit. The Pricing Automation Tool released by the OECD – an Excel-based spreadsheet designed to simplify transfer pricing for baseline marketing and distribution activities under Pillar One’s Amount B, automating the calculation of the “return on sales” for qualifying transactions by inputting industry classification plus financial data such as income statement and balance sheet items over a three- to four-year period – aims to reduce the compliance burden for both businesses and tax authorities[5].
[1] Reference is made to Decree no. 2024-0000528135, issued on 27 November 2024, published by the Dutch State Secretary of Finance. According to the Decree, which became effective as of 1 January 2025, Amount B will not apply to Dutch taxpayers who carry out baseline marketing and distribution activities in the Netherlands. However, when Amount B is applied abroad, it may play a role in the assessment of corporate income tax for Dutch taxpayers in certain situations. See document published online: https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/stcrt-2024-38369.pdf
[2] Reference is made to guidance dated 23 July 2025. See document published online: BOI-BIC-BASE-80-10-50 - BIC - Base d’imposition - Transfert indirect de bénéfices à l’étranger entre entreprises dépendantes - Définition, détermination, politique de contrôle et obligations déclaratives et documentaires en matière de prix de transfert - Application simplifiée du principe de pleine concurrence pour certaines activités de commercialisation et de distribution (« Montant B ») | bofip.impots.gouv.fr
[3] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6721199c4da1c0d41942a8bd/Corporate_Tax_Roadmap.pdf
[4] https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/transfer-pricing/transfer-pricing-country-profiles.html
[5] https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/transfer-pricing/pillar-one-amount-b.html
