MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2187436382 · doi:10.2308/jata.2006.28.1.1

A Model of Dynamic Tax Planning with an Application to Estate Freezes

2006· article· en· W2187436382 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kenneth J. Klassen, Richard C. Sansing

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Taxation Association · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Taxation and Avoidance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDatabase transactionDeferralBusinessTransaction costTax planningInvestment (military)Estate planningEvent (particle physics)FinancePlan (archaeology)Real estateDeferred taxTime horizonEstateEconomicsMicroeconomicsOperations managementComputer scienceTax reformDatabaseDouble taxationPublic economicsTax avoidanceState income tax

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper develops a model of dynamic tax planning in which the implementation of a tax plan involves exercising an option to execute an irreversible investment or financing structure transaction. The model considers four aspects of such transactions and shows that transactions are deferred if the tax savings from the transaction are lower or if the time horizon over which the transaction can be executed is longer. Deferral is also increasing in cost of a future unfavorable event to which the irreversibility of the transaction limits one's ability to respond, but may increase or decrease with a change in the probability that an unfavorable event occurs. We apply the model to a common estate freeze tax plan in Canada. Undertaking an estate freeze requires a private company's owner-manager to choose how one's business assets are to be distributed at death. In contrast to the conventional wisdom regarding the timing of this strategy, we find that waiting to implement the strategy is often optimal. We test the model using data on family-owned businesses in Canada and find strong support for the model's predictions.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Taxation AssociationSame topicCorporate Taxation and AvoidanceFrench-language works237,207