{"title":"OECD/G20 BEPS行动6中拟议的破局规则:对可能动机和手段的批判性审查，以及潜在的替代方案","authors":"Dhruv Sanghavi","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2834175","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, the author critically examines the proposed tiebreaker rule in the OECD’s Final Report on Action 6 of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project, and the motives behind the proposal. The author concludes by suggesting an alternative, which he argues is a more effective means to achieve the intended ends.","PeriodicalId":379196,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht University Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Proposed Tiebreaker Rule in OECD/G20 BEPS Action 6: A Critical Examination of the Possible Motives and Means, and a Potential Alternative\",\"authors\":\"Dhruv Sanghavi\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2834175\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this article, the author critically examines the proposed tiebreaker rule in the OECD’s Final Report on Action 6 of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project, and the motives behind the proposal. The author concludes by suggesting an alternative, which he argues is a more effective means to achieve the intended ends.\",\"PeriodicalId\":379196,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Maastricht University Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Maastricht University Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2834175\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Maastricht University Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2834175","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Proposed Tiebreaker Rule in OECD/G20 BEPS Action 6: A Critical Examination of the Possible Motives and Means, and a Potential Alternative
In this article, the author critically examines the proposed tiebreaker rule in the OECD’s Final Report on Action 6 of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project, and the motives behind the proposal. The author concludes by suggesting an alternative, which he argues is a more effective means to achieve the intended ends.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
