MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2235267256 · doi:10.59403/3dmw2h2

The Arm’s Length Comparable in Transfer Pricing: A Search for an “Actual” or a “Hypothetical” Transaction?

2015· article· en· W2235267256 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Tax Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Taxation and Avoidance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMistakeDatabase transactionTransfer pricingJurisprudenceBusinessTransaction costLaw and economicsLawComputer securityEconomicsOperations researchActuarial scienceComputer scienceMicroeconomicsPolitical scienceDatabaseEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When searching for an arm’s length comparable in the transfer pricing analysis, does the analysis require (or allow) searching for a transaction that actually took place in the market, or can/should the internal data of the controlled transaction simply be imputed to form a hypothetical uncontrolled transaction in which the parties are assumed to be operating at arm’s length but otherwise dealing under the same circumstances? This article sheds light on this question, based on lessons distilled from recent Canadian jurisprudence; particularly, the case Canada v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc. The author calls on Canada’s courts to reconsider their approach to this issue, and alerts courts in other jurisdictions to avoid transplanting the Canadian approach because otherwise they would risk repeating the same mistake(s).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.120
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.179 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it