Resumen.

This article investigates whether the general introduction of a Mutual Agreement Procedure under Article 4 section 3 OECD Model through BEPS Action Point 6 is more capable of effectively and practically breaking the tie for dual resident companies than the former place of effective management criterion. Based on an empirical analysis of the tie-breaker-rule in treaty practice in more than 2,000 Double Tax Conventions concluded by the OECD Member and Partner States it is demonstrated that the place of effective management criterion is still predominant in treaty practice and that the application of a Mutual Agreement Procedure under Article 4 section 3 OECD Model only slightly increased following the MLI implementation process. Furthermore, it is shown that the cautious implementation of the new tie-breaker-rule can be explained due to various procedural shortcomings of the Mutual Agreement Procedure with respect to the core requirements that Article 4 section 3 OECD Model has to fulfil. Based on the empirical and theoretical assessment further suggestions for improvements to enhance the application of both, the MAP and place of effective management criterion, on a standalone basis, are provided. A combined application of both tie-breaker-rules within a two-step hierarchical test is presented as the preferred solution.