000			01594nab a2200229 c 4500
999			_c144380 _d144380
003			ES-MaIEF
005			20210625104227.0
007			ta
008			210624t2021 ne ||||o |||| 00| 0|eng d
040			_aES-MaIEF _bspa _cES-MaIEF
100	1		_969116 _aLandsiedel, Spencer
245		4	_aThe principal purpose test's burden of proof _helectrónico _bshould the OECD Commentary on article 29(9) specify which party bears the onus? _c Spencer Landsiedel
260			_c2021
500			_aDisponible únicamente en formato electrónico.
500			_aResumen.
520			_aUnlike many other provisions of the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital (2017), the principal purpose test (PPT) of article 29(9) is new and untested by domestic tax authorities and national courts. Much remains unknown about how the PPT will be implemented in practice, particularly with respect to its burden of proof. Recent academic literature has raised the concern that divergent interpretation and application of the PPT's burden of proof may either undermine the PPT's own purpose or unfairly favour one party over the other. This article examines whether these concerns are justified and, if so, whether the Commentary on Article 29(9) should include more prescriptive language with respect to the burden of proof in order to address them.
650		4	_967760 _aMODELO DE CONVENIO OCDE
650		4	_967871 _aCLÁUSULA DEL PROPÓSITO PRINCIPAL
650		4	_944303 _aFISCALIDAD INTERNACIONAL
773	0		_9165321 _oWTJ/2021/1 _tWorld Tax Journal _w(IEF)62814 _gv. 13, n. 1, 2021, 22 p.
942			_cRE