Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines alternatives to the exempt VAT treatment of public bodies, non-profit organizations and charitable organizations (public service bodies). It focuses in particular on the Canadian VAT (the federal Goods and Services Tax) and its treatment of transactions involving public service bodies, including government to government transactions. Under the Canadian Goods and Services Tax rebate system, most supplies made by public service bodies are exempt but such bodies may claim a rebate for GST paid on purchases made to render such supplies. The rebate schedule is flexible and rebate rates may vary according to the nature of the activities and jurisdiction of operation (in the case of subnational VATs such as the Harmonized Sales Tax). The Canadian system therefore provides some compensation for VAT paid in purchases made in the course of providing exempt supplies and mitigates some of the inefficiencies and distributional impacts of a blanket exemption. Tax expenditure data for Canada suggest that this support is important. When compared to alternatives to exemption, the Canadian system lies between the extremes of the New Zealand and EU models. In New Zealand, nearly all transactions involving public service bodies are subject to VAT in the normal way, whereas nearly all such transactions are exempt in the EU, subject to an array of complex rules. The paper closes by arguing that the Canadian rebate system is more efficient and predictable than the EU system and should be given serious consideration as an alternative to that system, assuming that applying a New Zealand-style solution in the EU is far too radical a reform to contemplate.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".