The Dominant Voices in Double Taxation Agreements: A Critical Analysis of the “Dividend” Article in the Agreement between Uganda and the Netherlands
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In a bid to attract foreign investment, Third World countries are increasingly concluding Double Taxation Treaties with capital-rich countries, based on either the UN model treaty convention or the OECD model. Using the example of the dividend Article in the Uganda-Netherlands treaty, the discussion in this article illustrates the increased use of tax treaties to shift income from developing to developed countries. By essentially reducing the tax rate on dividend income to nil, that treaty significantly erodes Uganda's tax base. Such agreements raise concern, especially when one takes into account the fact that investment decisions are often driven by factors external to tax, meaning that reduced tax rates do not guarantee increased investments. Worse still, because developing countries are net capital importers, the benefits accruing from such treaties are often one-sided. The paper calls for a rethinking and redrafting of the UN model convention to ensure that the taxing rights of Third World countries are strengthened. In addition, since the practical reality is that developed countries often base their agreements (even with developing countries) on the OECD model, there is a need to amend the latter model to take this reality into account.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it