MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395027816 · doi:10.59403/1tvzyyw002

Chapter 2: The Application of the Principal Purpose Test under Tax Treaties

2019· book-chapter· en· W4395027816 on OpenAlexfundno aff
S. Buriak

Bibliographic record

VenueWU Institute for Austrian and International Tax Law, tax law and policy series. · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTaxation and Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork UniversityUniversité du Luxembourg
KeywordsPrincipal (computer security)Test (biology)Computer scienceComputer securityBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Why this book? The entitlement to tax treaty benefits is of pivotal importance for taxpayers in order to obtain treaty benefits. However, the application and interpretation of the respective tax treaty provisions are not always straightforward and may often raise various questions. This is all the more true now that the OECD has introduced a number of new provisions regarding the entitlement to tax treaties into its Model Convention as part of the BEPS Project. This book analyses several crucial areas concerning the entitlement to tax treaties. The topics covered include: The application of the principal purpose test, limitation on benefits clauses and the beneficial ownership test The relevance of the term “person” within the OECD Model Dual residence for individuals and non-individuals The tax treaty entitlement of hybrid entities The entitlement to protection against discriminatory taxation The personal scope of the mutual agreement procedure and arbitration provisions, and the mutual assistance provisions Downloads Sample excerpt, including table of contents This book is part of the WU Institute for Austrian and International Tax Law – Tax Law and Policy Series View other titles in the series Editor(s) Michael Lang, Pasquale Pistone, Alexander Rust, Josef Schuch and Claus Staringer are professors at the Institute for Austrian and International Tax Law, WU (Vienna University of Economics and Business). Contributor(s) Desiree Auer, Peter Bräumann, Svitlana Buriak, Karol Dziwiński, Sriram Govind, Michael Lang, Clement Okello Migai, Florian Navisotschnigg, Claire (Xue) Peng, Pasquale Pistone, Lisa Maria Ramharter, Alexander Rust, Josef Schuch, Claus Staringer, Rita Szudoczky, Michael Tumpel, Jean-Philippe Van West.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.008

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWU Institute for Austrian and International Tax Law, tax law and policy series.Same topicTaxation and Legal IssuesFrench-language works237,207