arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Comparing the New Zealand and Australian GAAR

John Tretola

Revenue Law Journal2017https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.6751article
ABDC B
Weight
0.34

What the paper says

This paper seeks to compare and contrast the Australian and New Zealand general anti-avoidance rules (GAAR) and to highlight what parts of each respective GAAR work well and which parts could be improved.

1 citation

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.6751

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{john2017,
  title        = {{Comparing the New Zealand and Australian GAAR}},
  author       = {John Tretola},
  journal      = {Revenue Law Journal},
  year         = {2017},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.6751},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Comparing the New Zealand and Australian GAAR

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.34

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.20 × 0.4 = 0.08
M · momentum0.20 × 0.15 = 0.03
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.