MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1567748696

Tax Sparing: A Needed Incentive for Foreign Investment in Low Income Countries or an Unnecessary Revenue Sacrifice

2009· article· en· W1567748696 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kim Brooks

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Taxation and Avoidance
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsState income taxAd valorem taxIndirect taxValue-added taxDouble taxationTax creditTax reformTax incentiveTax avoidanceBusinessIncome taxDirect taxDividend taxInternational taxationGross incomePublic economicsEconomicsEconomic policy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low income countries often offer tax incentives to induce foreign investment, but the effectiveness of these measures may he limited by the domestic tax practices of investors' high income home countries. Most high-income countries provide a tax credit for the amount of tax paid to a foreign jurisdiction on the international profits of resident companies or individuals. Where no tax, or reduced tax, is paid to the foreign jurisdiction because of a tax incentive, the result is that the investor pays the same amount of tax they would have paid in the absence of the tax incentive, but simply pays a larger proportion of it to the resident (high income) state. In other words, the tax incentive offered by the low income country has operated as a revenue transfer from the treasury of the low income state to the treasury of the high income state. A tax sparing provision, included in a tax treaty negotiated between the two countries, preserves the tax incentive by reducing the tax owed to the high income country by the amount of tax that would have been paid to the low income country, but for the tax incentive. In theory, by incorporating tax sparing provisions into tax treaties with low income countries, high income countries assist those countries in their efforts to attract investment by protecting their ability to offer effective tax incentives. However, there has been much debate over whether these provisions are effective in practice.\nThe author outlines the history of tax sparing provisions in Canada, Australia, the U.K. and the U.S., and illustrates the early reluctance of these countries to follow the recommendations of international bodies regarding tax sparing. The OECD has opposed these incentives and has concluded they have long term shortcomings: they are vulnerable to abuse, may erode tax bases and may fail to achieve their purported goal: attracting investment to low income countries. The author argues that despite some recent empirical evidence to the contrary, tax sparing provisions are ineffective in preserving tax incentives designed to attract foreign investment. She concludes that tax sparing provisions used to support tax incentives are an ill designed mechanism through which to improve social and economic conditions in low income countries. Cognizant that some low income countries will continue to seek tax sparing provisions in their tax treaties, the author recommends design features of those provisions that should maximize their contribution to the development of the low income countries while minimizing the potential for their abuse.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicCorporate Taxation and AvoidanceFrench-language works237,207