Abstract
Unlike 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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
