Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Why this book? In recent times, countries have increasingly shifted their focus towards the curbing of tax avoidance and abuse. Accordingly, the G20 countries commissioned the OECD to undertake the BEPS Project, following which the OECD released its Final Reports on 15 distinct Actions in 2015. Further, the OECD also released the Multilateral Instrument, a multilateral tax treaty through which the application of thousands of bilateral tax treaties may be modified as regards the tax treaty-related proposals stemming from the BEPS Project. Presently, while several countries have already implemented large portions of these proposals, others have only implemented them to a limited extent. This may be due to several reasons, such as lack of relevance or administrative capacity, or differing policy priorities. However, as the Inclusive Framework is in the process of peer reviewing the compliance of each member with the minimum standards, more and more countries are implementing at least these minimum standards. Significantly, the BEPS Project has also given rise to new multilateral measures such as the EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive, which has led to a minimum level of harmonization in the European Union regarding some of the BEPS measures. This book explores the various ways in which countries have implemented the key proposals emerging from the BEPS Project. Through contributions made by national reporters from 36 different countries – including developed, developing and emerging economies – the book constitutes an expert guide to the varied perspectives towards the BEPS Project across the globe. While discussing the implementation of the BEPS Project, this study provides an in-depth analysis of the obstacles faced by countries in the implementation phase of the BEPS Project, as well as the interaction of such measures with various domestic legal systems. Downloads Sample excerpt, including table of contents This book is part of the WU Institute for Austrian and International Tax Law – Tax Law and Policy Series. View other titles in the series Editor(s) Michael Lang, Jeffrey Owens, Pasquale Pistone, Alexander Rust, Josef Schuch and Claus Staringer are professors at the Institute for Austrian and International Tax Law, WU (Vienna University of Economics and Business). Assistant Editor(s) Sriram Govind, Andreas Langer and Christina Dimitropoulou are PhD candidates at the Institute for Austrian and International Tax Law, WU (Vienna University of Economics and Business). Contributor(s) Kristiina Äimä, Muhammad Ashfaq Ahmed, Desiree Auer, Tomáš Balco, Rahul Batheja, B. Bawono Kristiaji, Jakob Bundgaard, Simon Busch, David Domínguez, David G. Duff, Marilena Ene, Stjepan Gadžo, Ricardo André Galendi Júnior, Malcolm Gammie, Cristián Garate, Elizabeth Gil García, Sriram Govind, Akiko Hamada, Sigrid Hemels, Peter Hongler, Tracy A. Kaye, Patrick Knörzer, Peter Koerver Schmidt, Svetislav V. Kostić, Jiří Kostohryz, Milada Kuceková, Andreas Langer, Krzysztof Lasiński-Sulecki, Na Li, Gaspar Lopes Dias V.S., Henri Lyyski, Jorge Martín López, Luis Maria Méndez, Clement Okello Migai, Marco Mosconi, A. Selçuk Özgenç Pasquale Pistone, Alice Pirlot, Ewa Prejs, Natalia Quiñones, Adrian Sawyer, Luís Eduardo Schoueri, Mirna Solange Screpante, Andrew Smith, C. John Taylor, Edoardo Traversa, Denny Vissaro, Martin Wenz, Björn Westberg, Felipe Yáñez, Priscilla Zamora, Lidija Živković, Yansheng Zhu, Nataša Žunić Kovačević.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».