International Tax Planning: A Perspective on the Principal Purpose Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article provides a detailed review and analysis of the commentary on article 29(9) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD's) model tax convention, the so-called principal purpose test (PPT). The PPT is intended to deny a treaty benefit where obtaining that benefit was one of the principal purposes of any arrangement or transaction that resulted directly or indirectly in that benefit, unless it is established that granting that benefit in the relevant circumstances would be in accordance with the object and purpose of the relevant provisions of the treaty. The analysis distills the various principles that are reflected in the OECD commentary, compares those principles with principles developed in Canadian jurisprudence involving similar tests applied under the Income Tax Act, and highlights some uncertainties; but ultimately, it is intended to contribute to the process of better understanding how the PPT may affect the interpretation and application of Canada's numerous income tax treaties.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| 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".