The attribution of profits to permanent establishments : the taxation of intra-company dealings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PREFACE PART I THE ATTRIBUTION OF PROFITS TO PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENTS UNDER THE OECD APPROACH 1. INTRODUCTION 2. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF ART. 7 OF THE OECD MODEL 2.1. The 1927 and 1928 Drafts of the League of Nations 2.2. The 1933 League of Nations Draft Convention on the Allocation of Business Income 2.3. The London and Mexico Model Conventions 2.4. The 1960 OEEC Report and the 1963 OECD Draft Convention 2.5. The 1974 Proposal and the 1977 and 1992 OECD Models 2.6. The 1994 OECD Report on Attribution of Income to Permanent Establishments 2.7. The 2003 OECD Model and Commentary 2.8. The 2001 OECD Discussion Draft on the Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments 2.9. The 2004 OECD Discussion Draft on the Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments 2.9.1. Allocation of functions, risks and assets to the permanent establishment 2.9.2. Allocation of free capital to the permanent establishment 2.9.3. Attribution of profits to the permanent establishment 2.9.4. Special considerations for agency permanent establishments 3. THE TAXATION OF INTRA-COMPANY DEALINGS FOR TAX TREATY PURPOSES 3.1. The Independency fiction 3.2. The Potential Scenarios 3.2.1. In general 3.2.2. Transfer of trading stock from the general enterprise to the permanent establishment 3.2.2.1. From the perspective of the GE State 3.2.2.2. From the perspective of the PE State 3.2.3. Transfer of a capital asset from the general enterprise to the permanent establishment 3.2.3.1. From the perspective of the GE State 3.2.3.2. From the perspective of the PE State 3.2.4. Transfer of trading stock from the permanent establishment to the general enterprise 3.2.4.1. From the perspective of the GE State 2 3.2.4.2. From the perspective of the PE State 3.2.5. Transfer of a capital asset from the permanent establishment to the general enterprise 3.2.5.1. From the perspective of the GE State 3.2.5.2. From the perspective of the PE State PART II COMPARATIVE SURVEY INTRODUCTION ARGENTINA AUSTRIA BELGIUM BRAZIL CANADA CHILE FINLAND FRANCE GERMANY INDIA ITALY MEXICO NETHERLANDS SPAIN SOUTH AFRICA SWITZERLAND UNITED KINGDOM UNITED STATES VENEZUELA SUMMARY 3 EACH COUNTRY CHAPTER IS DIVIDED AS FOLLOWS: 1. GENERAL FEATURES OF THE TAX SYSTEM 1.1. Taxation of residents 1.2. Taxation of non-residents 2. THE TAX TREATMENT OF INTRA-COMPANY DEALINGS 2.1. In general 2.2. Transfer of Assets 2.2.1. From domestic GE to foreign PE 2.2.2. From foreign PE to domestic GE 2.2.3. From domestic PE to foreign GE 2.2.4. From foreign GE to domestic PE 2.3. Intangibles 2.3.1. From domestic GE to foreign PE 2.3.2. From foreign PE to domestic GE 2.3.3. From domestic PE to foreign GE 2.3.4. From foreign GE to domestic PE 2.4. Services 2.4.1. From domestic GE to foreign PE 2.4.2. From foreign PE to domestic GE 2.4.3. From domestic PE to foreign GE 2.4.4. From foreign GE to domestic PE 2.5. Transfer of funds 2.5.1. From domestic GE to foreign PE 2.5.2. From foreign PE to domestic GE 2.5.3. From domestic PE to foreign GE 2.5.4. From foreign GE to domestic PE Bibliography PART III SELECTED ISSUES ON THE TAX TREATMENT OF INTRA-COMPANY DEALINGS 1. Source taxation on deemed payments 2. Non-Discrimination under tax treaties 3. Non-Discrimination under EC Law
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".