Le régime enregistré d'épargne-actions: la fin du moratoire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of the 2003-2004 budget, the finance minister announced the imposition of a moratorium on certain fiscal policies related to the REA. In the advent of the termination of the moratorium in the next budget (2005-2006), the goal of this study is to find certain alternatives which could be applied to the REA. The first part will briefly expose all the phases that the REA went trough since its inception, as well as its utilization rate. In the second part, some propositions are explored on possible modifications of its application in relation to the financial support of small businesses that go public and the implication to the tax payers who acquire their shares. Those modifications aim at increasing the attractiveness of the program while maintaining a neutral cost for the government. Dans son budget 2003-2004, le ministre des Finances du Québec a annoncé sa décision d'appliquer un moratoire à certaines mesures fiscales pour en revoir la pertinence. Ce moratoire touche notamment les nouvelles émissions effectuées dans le cadre du régime d'épargne-actions. Dans l'éventualité où le ministre annoncerait la fin du moratoire lors de la présentation du budget 2005-2006, cette étude a pour but d'énoncer quelques pistes à explorer quant à des modifications possibles du RÉA. La première partie présente succinctement les diverses phases que ce régime a traversées depuis sa création ainsi que son taux d'utilisation. Dans la seconde partie, des propositions de modification à son fonctionnement actuel sont proposées sous l'angle de l'aide accordée aux PME procédant à une émission publique d'actions et aux contribuables-investisseurs les achetant. Ces modifications visent à accroître l'attraction du RÉA tout en étant relativement neutres en terme de coût pour le gouvernement.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".