Argentina and Brazil: Fiscal Harmonization and Subnational Sales Taxation – State / Provincial VAT versus State / Provincial Retail Sales Tax
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper the problem of “Dual Sales Taxation in a Federal Country” is discussed; and, particularly, “Sub-national VAT versus Provincial Retail Sales Tax” in “Federal/Provincial Sales Tax Coordination”, essentially thinking over two federations -Argentina and Brazil– with different institutional characteristics. First, let me cite three blocks of basic references I recommend on this theme. In author’s alphabetic order, they are: 1) Bird, R. (2005), McLure, Jr., (2005) and Piffano (2003, 2005b) – for direct treatment of the issue -. 2) Cnosen (1987, 2002); McLure, Jr. (1997, 1999); and, Zodrow and Mieszkowski (2002) – about National VAT versus National Retail Sales Tax written when “fundamental tax reform” were discussed in USA - ; and, 3) Bird (1994, 1999); Bird and Gendron (1998, 2001); Keen and Smith (1996, 1999); McLure, Jr. (2000, 2005); Mintz, Wilson, and Gendron (1994), Piffano (1999b, 1999c, 2003, 2005b); and, Varsano (1995, 1999) – when Sub-national taxation and several variants of dual and/or provincial VAT were discussed -. Discussion on this theme is rather complex because, beyond the theory, few country’s experiences are at hand to corroborate theories. Only Canadian case is perhaps the best (good?) example and Brazilian case (the bad one?), apart from the limited example of Argentina and India cases (not so good). The rest of federal countries have only one tier sales taxation (federal, not state or provincial) -of VAT type with some kind of revenue or tax sharing mechanism-, and USA with no federal sales taxation (only states RST).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".