Procedural Aspects of Arbitration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dispute Resolution under Tax Treaties and Beyond is a detailed and comprehensive study on tax dispute resolution mechanisms, with a specific focus on tax treaty disputes.Why this book?Dispute Resolution under Tax Treaties and Beyond is a detailed and comprehensive study on tax dispute resolution mechanisms, with a specific focus on tax treaty disputes. It includes the reports presented at the annual conference held in Milan in November 2022, together with four selected issues addressed solely in ad hoc contributions delivered by younger academics and practitioners and individual country reports.First, the book thoroughly examines the mutual agreement procedure (MAP) and arbitration under article 25 of the OECD Model. Beginning with article 25(1), the book first focuses on (i) persons entitled to make a MAP request; (ii) cases that can be the subject of a MAP request; and (iii) acceptance or denial of a MAP request and related remedies. The book then moves to article 25(2), where interaction between MAP and domestic procedures and involvement of domestic courts in the MAP process are scrutinized. The book then highlights the differences between the MAP provided for by article 25(1) and (2) and those provided for by article 25(3) and the interpretative value of MAPs concluded under paragraph 3. The way in which competent authorities may consult together for the resolution by mutual agreement of a case under article 24(4) is also examined. The scope of arbitration under the OECD and UN Model provisions is also discussed, including an in-depth analysis of the coordination with the EU Dispute Resolution Directive and the EU Arbitration Convention.Furthermore, the book deals with the resolution of disputes arising from the interpretation and application of the GloBE rules relating to Pillar Two, as well as suggestions to improve taxpayers’ rights in the context of both MAPs and tax treaty arbitration and, more in general, to improve the whole procedure by drawing inspiration from dispute resolution mechanisms adopted in other domestic or non-tax treaty rules. Finally, as mentioned earlier, individual country reports provide an in-depth analysis of the whole set of treaty dispute resolution mechanisms related to taxes of several EU and non-EU Member States, namely Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, India, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States.This book provides a unique and detailed analysis of some of the most important issues concerning tax dispute resolution mechanisms, with a special focus on tax treaty disputes. As such, it is an essential reference for international tax students, practitioners and academics.
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 | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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".