"All benchmarks are likely, or at least they are so, theoretically speaking.
All benchmarks that are likely in theory are theoretically applicable in practice.
However, not all benchmarks that are theoretically applicable in practice are actually applicable to all concrete cases.
What’s more: some benchmarks that are theoretically applicable in practice may be practically unlikely and may result as being actually inapplicable (in some given concrete cases).
It is up to the interpreter to be able to discern between benchmarks that are likely from the ones that are not, evaluate whether the ones that are likely are possible, assess whether the ones that are possible are likely (in specific concrete cases).
The debate between the Tax Authorities and Taxpayers has the purpose of establishing a level of evident likelihood or a just as evident unlikelihood of the benchmark.
Balance and critical judgment support the ability to discern between what is an acceptable likelihood from an unacceptable unlikelihood.
The crux of the problem lies precisely in such antithetical interests that exist between the Tax Authorities and Taxpayers to the point that the unlikely becomes possible and the impossible becomes likely. Be it likely or unlikely as it may.
And to raise – with an ever-increasing likelihood – that which is unlikely to (the heights of) that which is possible."
In International Tax Avoidance (p.1227)