MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123074221

Corporate tax harmonization in the European Union

2012· preprint· en· W2123074221 on OpenAlex
Zsófia Dankó

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMunich Personal RePEc Archive (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich) · 2012
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTaxation and Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApportionmentEuropean unionHarmonizationCorporate taxTax harmonizationBusinessFormularyMember statesDirect taxTax reformValue-added taxDouble taxationInternational economicsEconomic policyAccountingTax avoidanceFinanceAd valorem taxTax competitionPublic economicsEconomicsPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent financial and economic crisis of the European Union had exposed the necessity to complete monetary union with an economic union. One of the assets of a stronger economic integration is the harmonization of the tax systems (e.g. the corporate tax regimes) of the 27 Member States. Having this in mind, the European Commission proposed a common mechanism for the calculation of the corporate tax base, the consolidation of the tax bases incurred in the different Member States and the subsequent allocation of the consolidated tax base between the Member States effected (formulary apportionment) in 2011. The system envisaged by the European Commission is already introduced by the world highly integrated economies, like the United States of America and Canada on a domestic level, where the corporate tax base shall be also allocated between the states and the provinces based on the formulary apportionment method. This current article aims to present and compare the elements (factors) of the formulary apportionment method applied by the United States of America and Canada, and the elements of the allocation method proposed by the European Commission.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.168 · 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