MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026860979 · doi:10.1002/iir.140

Insolvency, tax and liquidation distributions: dividends, capital gains and the dead hand of the past

2006· article· en· W2026860979 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John Duns, John Glover

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Insolvency Review · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicTaxation and Compliance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsolvencyShareholderCreditorDividendEconomicsCapital (architecture)Monetary economicsBusinessCurrent liabilityDistribution (mathematics)FinanceDebtWorking capitalCorporate governance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Shareholders are normally entitled to the surplus, if any, which remains after a liquidator has paid off the company's creditors and discharged all of its outstanding liabilities. Surplus distribution to shareholders is an anticipated event in the liquidation of a solvent company. Shareholders in insolvent companies, by contrast, are likely to be pleasantly surprised to receive surpluses prior to the cancellation of failed investments. Taxation liabilities are likely to arise for the shareholders in both events—under independent and, to a degree, inconsistent regimes provided by the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cwth) (‘ITAA36’) and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cwth) (‘ITAA97’). This paper analyses Australian taxation of liquidation surpluses, noting historical factors and the approaches taken in four comparable tax jurisdictions. Company law applicable to liquidation surplus distributions is surveyed by way of introduction. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Insolvency ReviewSame topicTaxation and Compliance StudiesFrench-language works237,207