E-Commerce and Tax Planning: Canadian Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this qualitative research, we explore the deployment of electronic commerce by Canadian firms in the global marketplace, with an emphasis on the implications of e-commerce for tax planning. The business press and various governmental task forces discuss concerns created by e-commerce for traditional source-based tax systems; however, these discussions have presented little evidence on firms' reliance on e-commerce for tax planning. Similarly, academic research seldom examines whether tax planning affects firms' decisions to deploy e-commerce. It is thus largely unknown whether firms are actively considering tax issues in evaluating e-commerce, how the factors that have been identified as influencing e-commerce implementation decisions are balanced against tax planning considerations, and what barriers might exist in practice to using e-commerce for tax planning. We choose a qualitative interview-based approach to begin to explore these issues. Our findings suggest that tax planning is not considered by most of our respondent companies in their decisions to deploy e-commerce. The companies we interviewed tended to implement e-commerce over several years, starting with back-office technologies like ERP systems. As such, the ability to perform online sales transactions, which is a key component of using e-commerce for tax planning, often was not in place yet. These results are likely partly a function of size and age of company; larger, more established companies are likely to be in a better position to have the necessary infrastructure and to consider tax planning issues in deploying e-commerce. One implication of our results is that if concerns over tax revenue losses are realistic, tax policy makers may have some time to refine tax legislation to address the challenges raised by e-commerce, particularly for smaller and medium size companies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.048 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".