Confronting Conflicts of Qualification in Tax Treaty Law: The Principle of Common Interpretation and the New Approach Revisited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The principle of common interpretation and the new approach to article 23 A/B of the OECD Model Tax Convention are two concepts in tax treaty interpretation to avoid double taxation and double non-taxation resulting from conflicts of qualification. Against the backdrop of the introduction of similarly working approaches, namely the linking rules of BEPS Action 2, it seems appropriate to re-evaluate the doctrinal foundation and practical applicability of both concepts. Since the effectiveness of the principle of common interpretation and the new approach depends on their international recognition, the analysis is based on a comparative study including six jurisdictions, representing common and civil law: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States. In the first part of this article, the principle of common interpretation is examined, while the second part assesses the new approach. The third part concludes and gives proposals for the development of a joint methodological understanding of both concepts.
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 | 0.030 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.088 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.036 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".