The arm’s length comparable in transfer pricing: a search for an “actual” or a “hypothetical” transaction?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.009 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".