NAFTA Tax Law and Policy: Resolving the Clash between Economic and Sovereignty Interests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Canada, the United States, and Mexico continue to maintain their own distinct tax regimes, jealously guarding their sovereign right to do so. At times, these different tax systems harm the economic welfare of the trade bloc by imposing barriers to cross-border flows of capital. In NAFTA Tax Law and Policy, Arthur J. Cockfield analyzes these different tax systems and proposes a number of recommendations to reduce the harm caused by these barriers. Cockfield argues that it is unrealistic to expect the NAFTA countries to negotiate comprehensive reform efforts such as full-fledged tax harmonization. Rather, a strategy of heightened multilateral tax coordination is the appropriate solution as it permits the countries to maintain national tax differences, but strives to smooth over many of the problems created by the interaction of the tax regimes. The NAFTA countries should promote binding arbitration for transfer pricing disputes, multilateral tax treaty negotiations, the elimination of parent/subsidiary dividend withholding taxes, and enhanced administrative cooperation to reduce tax compliance costs for multinational firms. Only then, can NAFTA function in the way it was designed to.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".