MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ownership Concentration, State Ownership, and Effective Tax Rates: Evidence from China’s Listed Firms*

2010· article· en· W1568255000 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting Perspectives · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Taxation and Avoidance
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShareholderBusinessState ownershipChinaStatutory lawGovernment (linguistics)AccountingMonetary economicsCorporate governanceEmerging marketsFinanceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper examines the effect of ownership concentration and state ownership on the tax reporting practices of China’s publicly listed firms. I argue that ownership concentration and state ownership are important for tax reporting practices in China because listed firms have high ownership concentrations and high levels of state ownership. Using a sample of 758 listed Chinese firms over the 1998–2008 time period, I find that firms with concentrated share ownership have lower effective tax rates. I also find that firms whose largest shareholders are government‐related have higher effective tax rates compared to firms whose largest shareholders are nongovernment related. In other words, the nature of the largest shareholder (government vs. nongovernment) matters. I also show that ownership‐concentrated firms are able to achieve preferential statutory tax rates compared to firms with low ownership concentration regardless of the identity of the largest shareholder.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.232 · 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