MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147954131 · doi:10.2308/jltr.2009.7.1.76

A Comparison of the New U.S. Expatriation Tax and the Canadian Departure Tax

2009· article· en· W2147954131 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alexander M.G. Gelardi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe ATA Journal of Legal Tax Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTaxation and Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaxable incomeTaxpayerEarningsTax lawIncome taxBusinessTax avoidanceAd valorem taxEstateExpatriateTax reformState income taxRevenueIndirect taxEconomicsDouble taxationLaw and economicsAccountingLawFinancePublic economicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: The Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008 amended the anti-avoidance provisions of the Internal Revenue Code for an expatriating taxpayer. The new law requires expatriating taxpayers to report a deemed taxable sale and repurchase of assets at the time that they expatriate. This is a change from the prior law where an expatriating taxpayer could be taxed by the U.S. for ten years after expatriation. The new U.S. rules are similar to rules that have been used by Canada to tax expatriating Canadian residents. This paper sets out the new U.S. rules and compares them to the Canadian departure tax. As can be seen, there are a number of similarities between the two countries' laws. However, there are also some major differences. The U.S. rules are more limited in application than the Canadian rules. As well as income tax, the U.S. legislators are concerned with estate and gift taxes, whereas the Canadian legislators are not.

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)0.011
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.696

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.298 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe ATA Journal of Legal Tax ResearchSame topicTaxation and Legal IssuesFrench-language works237,207