The Disjunction Between Corporate Residence and Corporate Taxation: Is Improvement Possible?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, the author analyzes the concept of corporate residence, with particular reference to the law in the United Kingdom and Canada. Accepting that the taxation of corporations has some justification, there is nonetheless a disjunction between meaningful residence-based taxation and current definitions of corporate residence in domestic law and tax treaties. This disjunction occurs because the various legal meanings ascribed to corporate residence require little in the way of economic attachment to the purported home state. The author begins with a brief review of the phenomenon of tax-driven corporate mobility, followed by a summary of government responses to corporate mobility. In the main body of the article, he argues that residence concepts that were originally intended to reflect substantial activities of corporate management were largely eclipsed by legislated incorporation tests in the United Kingdom and Canada, and were otherwise devitalized by judicial interpretations of "central management and control" when applied to multinational enterprises. The author then argues that although the treaty concept of "place of effective management" has promise because it could denote real and substantive management, to date this interpretation has been eschewed by higher courts, at least in the case of corporations. Recent cases on the residence of trusts are noted because they illustrate a contrasting, and perhaps preferable, approach to entity residence. Given that current formulations of corporate residence appear to be deficient, the author makes tentative suggestions regarding how corporate residence definitions could be improved to focus on the objective reality or unreality of corporate establishment.
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 | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".