Delineation of Powers between the Federal and Regional Levels of Power in the Field of Tax Relieves: Fiscal Consequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article's objective is the research of delineation of tax powers with regard to stating tax preferences in the Russian Federation and their influence on the nature of tax competition and the consequences for budgets. It emphasizes that no analysis of the fiscal effect of tax preferences and control of the shortfall in tax revenues of the budget is performed on the government level. It is partially related to the unsolved state of the problem of tax relieves identification. It shows that the adopted in Russia mechanism of granting tax relieves for the regional corporate property tax includes excessive government control on the federal level, which incurs reduction of the level of vertical tax competition. As a result of such distortion, a shortfall in revenues of regional budgets emerges. Assessment of such revenues is neither made by the federal authorities nor by the regional are ones; and the respective losses of regional budgets not compensated by the federal budget. Through the example of the corporate property tax, it is illustrated that the main part of the shortfall in revenues relates to the preferences provided at the federal level. It is also revealed that the establishment of the institution of a consolidated group of taxpayers in the Russian Federation since 2012 had adverse impact on the powers of the regions of the Russian Federation in terms of their administration of the tax base of the territory. The distortion of the horizontal tax competition between regions for the taxpayer took place, as within a consolidated group of taxpayers, the net financial result of the group members suffers the tax, which contributes to erosion of the tax base (Base Erosion) with regard to the corporate profit tax. As a result, the amount of tax revenues to the regional budget does not depend on the actual contribution of each region to creation of favorable tax climate for investors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".