Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article considers the significance of the term beneficial ownership in Articles 10, 11 and 12 of the OECD Model Double Tax Convention (“the Model”), and looks at features of commonly used cross-border structures (structured finance and holding companies) by way of practical background to the question of how significant this issue is in international tax structures. The ability for a multinational to successfully insert a resident of a more favourable Double Tax Treaty, between the country of the source of income and the ultimate recipient depends, inter alia, on the question of whether the interposed entity can be said to be the “beneficial owner” of the income.In seeking to find a meaning for the term beneficial ownership the article considers:a) the approach of New Zealand Courts (as an example of a common law country) to the interpretation of Double Tax Conventions and the reliance upon the Vienna Convention,b) the use, under Article 3(2) of the Model, of either a domestic meaning or autonomous international meaning for the term, and weighs up the relative merits of each approach,c) analyses three recent UK, French and Canadian cases and their decision, both on the issue referred to above in b) and on their conclusions as to the meaning of the term, andd) lastly, predicts what a New Zealand Court will decide on the meaning of the term, having regard to the treaty, statutory and case law position (both NZ and foreign), including the question of whether there is a difference between tightly structured financing transactions (interest) and holding companies (dividends).
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".