{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01873767258382643, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01282051282051282, 'mean_word_length': 5.041666666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The 'OECD Saving Clause': An American-Tailored Provision Made to Measure the World

This article argues that the “saving clause” provision introduced in the 2017 OECD Model conflicts with the entitlement to double taxation relief under Article 23 OECD Model, especially in cases involving the use of hybrid entities. Although this issue is pragmatically solved in the new paragraph 11.1 of the commentaries on Articles 23A and 23B OECD Model, which provides no obligation for the Contracting States to relieve double taxation to the extent that taxation is based exclusively on the residence of the taxpayer, it leaves the taxpayer in the residence state with a potential permanent double taxation status. The foregoing may be however avoided with an optional “reverse saving clause”. Such an option seems to be not only more coherent with the traditional object and purpose of tax treaties (double taxation relief), but it also reflects the tax treaty practice already in force in some countries around the world.