MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154157570 · doi:10.19030/iber.v4i8.3609

A Comparison Of The Effectiveness Of Tax Laws Between Countries For Firms Engaging In Research And Development

2011· article· en· W2154157570 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert J. Walsh

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInnovation Policy and R&D
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTax creditIncentiveAd valorem taxTax reformValue-added taxIndirect taxPublic economicsCarry (investment)BusinessTax incentiveEconomicsMonetary economicsLabour economicsMarket economyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The creation of new technology is seen as a driver for economic expansion and job growth worldwide. To encourage firms to innovate, many countries provide tax incentives. Two such tax incentives are the ability to carry back net operating losses and tax credits for research and development expenditures.This paper attempts to answer the question: Do these tax incentives truly lower the average tax rates paid by high-technology firms? Firms from Canada, Germany, and Japan are examined for the years 1993 to 1997.In general, this paper finds that the ability to carry back a loss, or to use the R&D tax credit, does not, in themselves, produce a lower average tax rate than a similar firm within the same country. However, the more tax options a country produces does lower average tax rates a larger combination of tax incentives allows firms more leeway towards tax minimization.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.427
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.013 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER)Same topicInnovation Policy and R&DFrench-language works237,207