MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005216755 · doi:10.54648/bula2020004

Taxing the Sale of Software: Revisiting the Definition of ‘Royalty’ Under the DTAAs

2020· article· en· W3005216755 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kashish Makkar

Bibliographic record

VenueBusiness Law Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Taxation and Avoidance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisdictionRevenuePaymentGovernment (linguistics)BusinessCommonwealthEconomicsIncome taxLawLaw and economicsPublic economicsAccountingFinancePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The characterization of payments, for taxation, in the hands of, non-resident payees arising out of a cross-border sale of software, has always remained controversial in India. While the Revenue, contends that such payments are ‘Royalties’ for Licensing of, Copyrights, the taxpayers argue that these payments are merely, Proceeds on the Sales of Copyrighted Articles. There have been, several conflicting decisions by different Income Tax Tribunals, and High Courts that have legitimized each of these characterizations., While the Courts and Tribunals led by the Delhi, HC held for the taxpayers by characterizing these payments as, Proceeds of Sales, the Courts and Tribunals led by the, Karnataka HC held for the Revenue. Therefore, albeit in, different jurisdictions within the country, a dichotomy persisted. In an attempt to resolve this dichotomy, the Government, of India introduced a clarificatory amendment to the Indian, Income Tax Act, 1961 in 2012. However, the conflict persisted, as the amendment did not clarify and could not have, clarified the status of these payments under the Double, Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) As a result, the, dichotomy, now limited to Non-Resident Payees whose resident, jurisdiction has a DTAA with India, still prevailed. These, jurisdictions include several Commonwealth nations such as the, UK, Australia, Malaysia, Canada, etc. and Ireland, which is, the most preferred jurisdiction to operate from for almost all the, tech corporations in the world. Therefore, this dichotomy still, affects the tax liability of the residents of these jurisdictions and, their ease of doing business with India. In this article, the author will highlight that the dichotomy,, though existent, has no basis in law. The author will, highlight that the characterization of these payments as has been, contended by the Revenue is the only legitimate characterization., This characterization not only draws support from the, established Rules of Statutory Interpretation but also promotes, the ease of doing business in India. Agreement, Consideration, Copyright, Double-Tax, Income Tax, Licensing, Literary, Payment, Royalty, Resident

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 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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBusiness Law ReviewSame topicCorporate Taxation and AvoidanceFrench-language works237,207