MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reservations and declarations to tax treaties

2021· article· en· W3179094184 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

VenueLaw Enforcement Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Taxation and Avoidance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBase erosion and profit shiftingConventionTax treatyDouble taxationInternational taxationPolitical scienceAction planProfit (economics)Tax lawLaw and economicsEconomicsPublic economicsBusinessLawTax avoidanceTax reform

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The subject of the article. The article represents a research of conceptual properties and issues of applying reservations and declarations to the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, developed in frames of implementing the OECD/G20 Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS). The Multilateral Tax Convention modifies the application of agreements for avoiding double taxation, that are covered by its action. Since January 1, 2021 it has been applied to 34 agreements for avoiding double taxation between the Russian Federation and such countries as the UK, Canada, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands and France. The Multilateral Tax Convention provides for updating bilateral tax treaties – whether they were developed upon the OECD Model Tax Convention or the UN Model Tax convention. The Convention retains a great degree of flexibility in relation to the implementation of its provisions – especially by the means of reservations, made by the countries. The purpose of the article is to identify the main characteristics of applying reservations and declarations in international tax law. The methodology. The study is based on empirical methods of comparison and description, theoretical methods of formal and dialectical logic. The main results. Reservations have played a minor role in international taxation until now – usually they reflected disagreement, expressed by an OECD member country with the provisions of the OECD Model Tax Convention or its Official commentary. Reservations were formulated in relation to a non-binding (model) document and their importance was limited. Such reservations cannot be associated with declarations, made in relation to legally binding documents like the Multilateral Tax Convention. Analyzing the general points of scientific dispute upon the mentioned range of issues, the author argues with researchers who deem that the structure of reservations to the Multilateral Tax Convention doesn’t correspond with the provisions over reservations in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 and thus recognize those reservations as “legal hybrids”. Conclusions. The structure of reservations to the International Tax Convention is deter-mined by the nature of double taxation agreements. The model lawmaking principle (the use of the OECD Model Tax Convention) allowed developing “umbrella” architecture of relationships between the provisions of the Multilateral Tax Convention and the norms of double taxation agreements. The article categorizes types of reservations as reservations of general nature and treaty-specific reservations. The article also considers the specific properties of reservations made in relation to the provisions of the Convention, which com-pose a minimal standard.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.226 · 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