<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.3 20210610//EN" "JATS-journalpublishing1-3.dtd">
<article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.3" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xml:lang="ru"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">pravo</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title xml:lang="ru">Правоприменение</journal-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="en"><trans-title>Law Enforcement Review</trans-title></trans-title-group></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="ppub">2542-1514</issn><issn pub-type="epub">2658-4050</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Dostoevsky Omsk State University</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.52468/2542-1514.2026.10(2).35-45</article-id><article-id custom-type="elpub" pub-id-type="custom">pravo-1257</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Research Article</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="section-heading" xml:lang="ru"><subject>ПРИМЕНЕНИЕ НОРМ ПРАВА ОРГАНАМИ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОЙ ВЛАСТИ</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="section-heading" xml:lang="en"><subject>THE LAW ENFORCEMENT BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Эквивалентные бенефициары – «серые кардиналы» международных налоговых договоров</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="en"><trans-title>Equivalent beneficiaries – the “grey cardinals” of tax treaties</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3722-5089</contrib-id><name-alternatives><name name-style="eastern" xml:lang="ru"><surname>Хаванова</surname><given-names>И. А.</given-names></name><name name-style="western" xml:lang="en"><surname>Khavanova</surname><given-names>I. A.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><bio xml:lang="ru"><p>Хаванова Инна Александровна – доктор юридических наук, главный научный сотрудник  </p><p>117218, г. Москва, ул. Б. Черемушкинская, 34</p></bio><bio xml:lang="en"><p>Inna A. Khavanova – Doctor of Law, Chief researcher</p><p>34, B. Cheremushkinskaya ul., Moscow, 117218  </p></bio><email xlink:type="simple">fin@izak.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff-1"/></contrib></contrib-group><aff-alternatives id="aff-1"><aff xml:lang="ru"><institution>Институт законодательства и сравнительного правоведения при Правительстве Российской Федерации</institution><country>Россия</country></aff><aff xml:lang="en"><institution>Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation</institution><country>Russian Federation</country></aff></aff-alternatives><pub-date pub-type="collection"><year>2026</year></pub-date><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>22</day><month>07</month><year>2026</year></pub-date><volume>10</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>35</fpage><lpage>45</lpage><permissions><copyright-statement>Copyright &amp;#x00A9; Хаванова И.А., 2026</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2026</copyright-year><copyright-holder xml:lang="ru">Хаванова И.А.</copyright-holder><copyright-holder xml:lang="en">Khavanova I.A.</copyright-holder><license xml:lang="ru" license-type="creative-commons-attribution" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" xlink:type="simple"><license-p>Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.</license-p></license><license xml:lang="en" license-type="creative-commons-attribution" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" xlink:type="simple"><license-p>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.</license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://enforcement.omsu.ru/jour/article/view/1257">https://enforcement.omsu.ru/jour/article/view/1257</self-uri><abstract><p>Исследуется юридическая конструкция упрощенного положения об ограничении льгот, которое содержится в Многосторонней конвенции по выполнению мер, относящихся к налоговым соглашениям, в целях противодействия размыванию налоговой базы и выводу прибыли из-под налогообложения. Внимание автора сосредоточено на налоговых резидентах, признаваемых «квалифицированными лицами» для целей соглашений об избежании двойного налогообложения доходов, а также на концепции «эквивалентного бенефициара», которая является составной частью упрощенного положения об ограничении на льготы. Проводится сопоставление концепции «эквивалентного бенефициара» с концепцией «бенефициарного владельца» (лица, имеющего фактическое право на доход).</p></abstract><trans-abstract xml:lang="en"><sec><title>The subject</title><p>The subject. The article is devoted to the study of the legal structure of the Simplified Limitation on Benefits Provision (SLoB clause) in the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (MLI). The author's attention is focused on tax residents of the Contracting States who are recognized as qualified persons for the purposes of double taxation agreements, as well as the concept of an “equivalent beneficiary”.</p><p>The purpose of the study is to critically analyze the Simplified Limitation on Benefits Provision (SLoB clause) in the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (MLI), considering both the conceptual and practical aspects inherent in its main elements. The study is based on empirical methods of comparison and description, theoretical methods of formal and dialectical logic.</p></sec><sec><title>The main results</title><p>The main results. The author reveals the legal construction of the Simplified Limitation on Benefits Provision (SLoB clause). The article compares the concept of an “equivalent beneficiary” with the concept of a “beneficial owner” (a person who has the actual right to income). The author reveals the sequence of application of the main purpose test and the simplified provision on the limitation of benefits provided for in Article 7 of the multilateral tax convention.</p></sec><sec><title>Conclusions</title><p>Conclusions. The author concludes that the analyzed rule is designed in such a way that the SLoB clause does not restrict access to preferences that are not the result of reciprocity between partner states based on the status of a tax resident of a Contracting State. The concept of an “equivalent beneficiary” is based on a comprehensive assessment of the system of double taxation agreements (other international agreements) and related parties (“test groups”). The SLoB clause takes a slightly different approach to providing tax benefits than is provided for by the classical concept of the beneficial owner (Articles 10 (Dividends), 11 (Interest), 12 (Royalties), less often – Article 21 (Other income)). At the same time, the SLoB clause design also relies on “test groups”. And this is evident not only in relation to an equivalent beneficiary, whose potential right to benefits – similar or more beneficial – opens access to benefits for a resident of a Contracting State in whose authorized capital equivalent beneficiaries participate (directly or indirectly, at least 75%). A similar approach can be observed in the sub-item “b” clause 10 of Article 7 of the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (MLI), where the income of a “connected persons” is interwoven into the permissive perimeter.</p></sec></trans-abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="ru"><kwd>Эквивалентный бенефициар</kwd><kwd>упрощенное положение об ограничении на льготы</kwd><kwd>Многосторонняя налоговая конвенция</kwd><kwd>налог</kwd><kwd>налоговое соглашение</kwd><kwd>бенефициарный владелец</kwd></kwd-group><kwd-group xml:lang="en"><kwd>Equivalent beneficiary</kwd><kwd>Simplified Limitation on Benefits Provision / SLoB</kwd><kwd>Multilateral Tax Convention</kwd><kwd>tax</kwd><kwd>tax treaty</kwd><kwd>beneficial owner</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="cit1"><label>1</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Petutschnig M. Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base and Limitation on Benefits Clauses / M. Petutschnig // British Tax Review. – 2018. – Iss. 1. – P. 68–93.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Petutschnig M. Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base and Limitation on Benefits Clauses. British Tax Review, 2018, iss. 1, pp. 68–93.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit2"><label>2</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Кучеров И. И. Трансформация международного налогово-правового регулирования и национальные интересы / И. И. Кучеров, И. А. Хаванова // Журнал российского права. – 2024. – Т. 28, № 4. – С. 103–118. – DOI: 10.61205/S160565900029735-2.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Kucherov I., Khavanova I. Transformation of International Tax Regulation and National Interests. Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2024, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 103–118. DOI: 10.61205/S160565900029735-2. (In Russ.).</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit3"><label>3</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Хаванова И. А. Каверзы отсылок к временно недействующим нормам международных налоговых до говоров / И. А. Хаванова // Правоприменение. – 2024. – Т. 8, № 4. – С. 133–142. – DOI: 10.52468/2542 1514.2024.8(4).133-142.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Khavanova I.A. The complexity of references to the temporarily suspended norms of international tax treaties. Pravoprimenenie = Law Enforcement Review, 2024, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 133–142. DOI: 10.52468/2542 1514.2024.8(4).133-142.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit4"><label>4</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Брук Б. Я. Предотвращение неправомерного использования льгот, предусмотренных соглашениями (договорами, конвенциями) об избежании двойного налогообложения: настоящее и будущее / Б. Я. Брук // Закон. – 2016. – № 5. – С. 122–136.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Bruk B.Ya. Prevention of unlawfuluse of benefits contemplated by the double taxation avoidance agree ments (treaties, conventions): present and past. Zakon, 2016, no. 5, pp. 122–136. (In Russ.).</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit5"><label>5</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Соколова С. Г. Тест косвенных выгод положения об ограничении льгот / С. Г. Соколова // Налоговед. – 2018. – № 11. – С. 60–70.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Sokolova S.G. Test of indirect benefits of the provision on the limitation of benefits. Nalogoved, 2018, no. 11, pp. 60–70 (In Russ.).</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit6"><label>6</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Право и экономическая деятельность: современные вызовы : моногр. / отв. ред. А. В. Габов. – М. : Ин-т законодательства и сравнит. правоведения при Правительстве Рос. Федерации : Статут, 2015. – 400 с.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Gabov A.V. (ed.). Law and economic activity: modern challenges, Monograph. Moscow, Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation Publ., Statut Publ., 2015. 400 p. (In Russ.).</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit7"><label>7</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Кантор Н. Е. Контроль бенефициара как критерий определения национальности юридического лица / Н. Е. Кантор // Журнал российского права. – 2025. – Т. 29, № 5. – С. 91–104. – DOI: 10.61205/S160565900033094-7.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Kantor N. Beneficiary’s Control as a Criterion for Determining the Nationality of a Legal Entity. Zhurnal ros siiskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2025, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 91–104. DOI: 10.61205/S160565900033094-7. (In Russ.).</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit8"><label>8</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Lin P. Anti-abuse Rules In Tax Treaty Under BEPS Action 6------Based on China / P. Lin // Transactions on Economics, Business and Management Research. – 2024. – Vol. 9 : 4th International Conference on Global Business and Management Science (GBMS 2024). – P. 202–212. – DOI: 10.62051/v9e50723.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Lin P. Anti-abuse Rules In Tax Treaty Under BEPS Action 6------Based on China. Transactions on Economics, Business and Management Research, 2024, vol. 9: 4th International Conference on Global Business and Manage ment Science (GBMS 2024), pp. 202–212. DOI: 10.62051/v9e50723.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit9"><label>9</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Adugna A. B. Tax Treaty Shopping in Ethiopia: The Need to Integrate Anti-Treaty Shopping Rule into Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements and domestic income tax law / A. B. Adugna // Bahir Dar University Journal of Law. – 2021. – Vol. 11, No. 2. – Р. 197–226.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Adugna A.B. Tax Treaty Shopping in Ethiopia: The Need to Integrate Anti-Treaty Shopping Rule into Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements and domestic income tax law. Bahir Dar University Journal of Law, 2021, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 197–226.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit10"><label>10</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Хабриева Т. Я. «Традиция заимствований» и развитие национального права / Т. Я. Хабриева // Жур нал зарубежного законодательства и сравнительного правоведения. – 2025. – Т. 21, № 3. – С. 5–13. – DOI: 10.61205/jzsp.2025.3.1.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Khabrieva T.Y. The “Tradition of Borrowing” and the Development of National Law. Zhurnal zarubezhnogo zakonodatel'stva i sravnitel'nogo pravovedeniya = Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law, 2025, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 5–13. DOI: 10.61205/jzsp.2025.3.1. (In Russ.).</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit11"><label>11</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Хаванова И. А. Тест основной цели: трудности официального перевода международных налоговых правил / И. А. Хаванова // Налоговед. – 2019. – № 7. – С. 24–30. 12. Avi-Yonah R. S. Limitation on Benefits or Principal Purpose Test? Part 2 / R. S. Avi-Yonah // Tax Notes International. – 2024. – Vol. 115. – P. 1033–1036.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Khavanova I.A. The test of the main goal: the difficulties of the official translation of international tax rules. Nalogoved, 2019, no. 7, pp. 24–30. (In Russ.).</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit12"><label>12</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Пономарева К. А. Акты налогового права Европейского Союза и соглашения об избежании двойного налогообложения: проблемы соотношения при установлении правил борьбы с налоговыми злоупотреблениями / К. А. Пономарева // Правоприменение. – 2021. – Т. 5, № 4. – С. 175–186. – DOI: 10.52468/2542-1514. 2021.5(4).175-186.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Avi-Yonah R.S. Limitation on Benefits or Principal Purpose Test? Part 2. Tax Notes International, 2024, vol. 115, pp. 1033–1036.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit13"><label>13</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Sumberg B. Editorial: Qualifying for Treaty Benefits Under the “Derivative Benefits” Article / B. Sumberg // JD Supra. – September 8, 2014. – URL: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/editorial-qualifying-for-treaty-benefit 67684/ (дата обращения: 10.01.2026).</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Ponomareva K.A. The acts of the EU tax law and double tax treaties: the problems of correlation in establishing anti-tax avoidance rules. Pravoprimenenie = Law Enforcement Review, 2021, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 175–186. DOI: 10.52468/2542-1514.2021.5(3).175-186.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit14"><label>14</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Heale A. The Limitation-on-Benefits Provision of the Canada-US Tax Treaty / A. Heale, M. N. Kandev, J. Lee // 2023 Conference Report : Report of Proceedings of the Seventy-Fifth Tax Conference. – Canadian Tax Foundation, 2023. – Conference Report 34. – URL: https://www.ctf.ca/common/Uploaded%20files/Conferences/2023/ACCR23/2023CR34-Heale-etal.pdf (дата обращения: 10.01.2026).</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Sumberg B. Editorial: Qualifying for Treaty Benefits Under the “Derivative Benefits” Article. JD Supra,  Sep tember 8, 2014, available at: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/editorial-qualifying-for-treaty-benefit-67684/ (ac cessed: January 1, 2026).</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit15"><label>15</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Kuźniacki B. The Limitation on Benefits (LOB) Provision in BEPS Action 6/MLI: Ineffective Overreaction of Mind-Numbing Complexity – Part 1 / B. Kuźniacki // Intertax. – 2018. – Vol. 46, Iss. 1. – Р. 68–79.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Heale A., Kandev M.N., Lee J. The Limitation-on-Benefits Provision of the Canada-US Tax Treaty, in: 2023 Conference Report, Report of Proceedings of the Seventy-Fifth Tax Conference, Canadian Tax Foundation Publ., 2023, Conference Report 34, available at: https://www.ctf.ca/common/Uploaded%20files/Conferences/2023/AC CR23/2023CR34-Heale-etal.pdf (accessed: January 1, 2026).</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit16"><label>16</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Хаванова И. А. «Налого-мотивированные» трансграничные сделки: тест основной цели, стандарт и бремя доказывания / И. А. Хаванова // Налоговед. – 2020. – № 4. – С. 68–78.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Kuźniacki B. The Limitation on Benefits (LOB) Provision in BEPS Action 6/MLI: Ineffective Overreaction of Mind-Numbing Complexity – Part 1. Intertax, 2018, vol. 46, iss. 1, pp. 68–79.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit17"><label>17</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Pérez J. D. Are the LOB provisions efficient measures to prevent tax treaty hopping by taxpayers? : Master Thesis. – 2017. – 52 р. – URL: https://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=143947 (дата обращения: 10.01.2026).</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Khavanova I.A. “Tax-motivated” cross-border transactions: a test of the main purpose, standard and burden of proof. Nalogoved, 2020, no. 4, pp. 68–78. (In Russ.).</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit18"><label>18</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Shukla G. Tax Avoidance and Limitation of Benefit / G. Shukla, J. Ghosh // Indian journal of tax law. – 2015. – Vol. II. – P. 1–20.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Pérez J.D. Are the LOB provisions efficient measures to prevent tax treaty hopping by taxpayers?, Master Thesis. 2017. 52 р. Available at: https://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=143947 (accessed: January 1, 2026).</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit19"><label>19</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Hamra C. Beneficial Ownership Interpreted, To What Extent Are the OECD and the EU on the Same Wavelength? / C. Hamra, J. J. A. M. Korving // Intertax. – 2021. – Vol. 49, Iss. 3. – P. 254–277.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Shukla G., Ghosh J. Tax Avoidance and Limitation of Benefit. Indian journal of tax law, 2015, vol. II, pp. 1–20.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit20"><label>20</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Летопись российской юридической науки : в 5 т. / отв. ред. Т. Я. Хабриева. – М. : Юриспруденция, 2023. – Т. IV : Научные школы Института законодательства и сравнительного правоведения (публичное право). – 349 с.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Hamra C., Korving J.J.A.M. Beneficial Ownership Interpreted, To What Extent Are the OECD and the EU on the Same Wavelength?. Intertax, 2021, vol. 49, iss. 3, pp. 254–277.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit21"><label>21</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Anders D. The Limitation on Benefit Clause of the U.S.- German Tax Treaty and its Compatibility with European Union Law / D. Anders // Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business. – 1997. – Vol. 18, Iss. 1. – P. 165–216.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Khabrieva T.Ya. (ed.). Chronicle of Russian legal science, in 5 volumes, Moscow, Yurisprudenstiya, 2023. Vol. IV: Scientific schools of the Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law (public law). IX + 349 p. (In Russ.).</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit22"><label>22</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Lang M. BEPS Action 6: Introducing an Antiabuse Rule in Tax Treaties / M. Lang // Tax Notes International. – 2014. – Vol. 74, No. 7. – P. 655–664.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Anders D. The Limitation on Benefit Clause of the U.S.- German Tax Treaty and its Compatibility with European Union Law. Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business, 1997, vol. 18, iss. 1, pp. 165–216.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit23"><label>23</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Wheeler J. Persons Qualifying for Treaty Benefits / J. Wheeler. – New York, N.Y. : United Nations, May 2013. – 48 p. – (Papers on Selected Topics in Administration of Tax Treaties for Developing Countries; Paper No. 2-A). – URL: https://www.un.org/esa/ffd/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/20130530_Paper2A_Wheeler.pdf (дата обращения: 10.01.2026).</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Lang M. BEPS Action 6: Introducing an Antiabuse Rule in Tax Treaties. Tax Notes International, 2014, vol. 74, no. 7, pp. 655–664.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit24"><label>24</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Kuźniacki B. The Limitation on Benefits Provision in BEPS Action 6/Multilateral Instrument: Ineffective Overreaction of Mind-Numbing Complexity – Part 2 / B. Kuźniacki // Intertax. – 2018. – Vol. 46, Iss. 2. – Р. 124–139.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Wheeler J. Persons Qualifying for Treaty Benefits, Papers on Selected Topics in Administration of Tax Trea ties for Developing Countries; Paper No. 2-A. New York, N.Y., United Nations Publ., May 2013. 48 p. Available at: https://www.un.org/esa/ffd/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/20130530_Paper2A_Wheeler.pdf (accessed: January 1, 2026).</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit25"><label>25</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Kuźniacki B. The Limitation on Benefits Provision in BEPS Action 6/Multilateral Instrument: Ineffective Overreaction of Mind-Numbing Complexity – Part 2. Intertax, 2018, vol. 46, iss. 2, pp. 124–139.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Kuźniacki B. The Limitation on Benefits Provision in BEPS Action 6/Multilateral Instrument: Ineffective Overreaction of Mind-Numbing Complexity – Part 2. Intertax, 2018, vol. 46, iss. 2, pp. 124–139.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref></ref-list><fn-group><fn fn-type="conflict"><p>The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.</p></fn></fn-group></back></article>
