Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting or Multilateral Instrument (MLI) has been described as “an historical turning point in the area of international taxation” which introduces a third layer of tax rules for the taxation of cross-border transactions in addition to domestic tax law and bilateral tax treaties. Of the many provisions of the MLI, the most important are the preamble text in Article 6(1) and the so-called principal purpose test (PPT) in Article 7(1), both of which have been adopted by all signatories to the MLI in order to satisfy the OECD’s minimum standard on tax treaty abuse under BEPS Action 6. This two-part article considers the structure and potential application of the PPT in the context of pre-BEPS responses to perceived tax treaty abuses, the OECD’s work on BEPS Action 6, and other provisions of the MLI including the preamble text in Article 6(1). The first part, in the previous issue of the Journal, reviewed pre-BEPS responses to perceived tax treaty abuses, providing necessary background and context for understanding BEPS Action 6, the MLI and the PPT. The second part, in this issue of the Journal, examines the PPT in light of this background and in the context of BEPS Action 6 and other provisions of the MLI, considering its relationship to other anti-avoidance doctrines, principles and rules, the various elements that comprise its basic structure, the kinds of transactions or arrangements to which it may be expected to apply, and the consequences of its application.
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 | 0.014 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".