MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2247451281

Prefilled Personal Income Tax Returns: A Comparative Analysis of Australia, Belgium, California, Quebec and Spain

2011· article· en· W2247451281 on OpenAlexaffabout
François Vaillancourt, Chris Evans, Binh Tran‐Nam, Magali Verdonck, Brian Erard, José María Durán‐Cabré

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicTaxation and Compliance Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonal income taxFiscal yearGovernment (linguistics)Income taxBusinessState income taxPublic economicsGross incomeEconomicsTax reformFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The genesis of this set of five papers on prefilled (or pre-populated) personal income tax returns was the observation that the Quebec government had initiated in December 2007 a prefilled personal income tax program. A target group of 100,000 tax filers, 80% of whom were age 65 or older were to receive a prefilled form for the 2007 tax year. The stated intent was that, for the 2008 fiscal year, 300,000 individuals filing a paper form should receive a prefilled form; for the 2009 fiscal year, this should be offered electronically to 1,000,000 tax filers; and for the 2010 fiscal year almost all Quebec tax filers would receive a prefilled form. This program of using prefilled tax returns was ambitious both in its intended coverage and in the speed with which it was to be rolled out. It was also only the second subnational program we are aware of. It thus seemed appropriate to carry out a study of that program’s implementation in 2008, something that could be done only when the relevant data became available in late 2008. Chapter 4, by Francois Vaillancourt, examines the Quebec program. It also seemed appropriate to compare Quebec’s experience with prefilled tax forms to that of other tax jurisdictions implementing such a program. The most obvious candidate for inclusion in this comparison is California’s ReadyReturn program since it is the other program at the subnational level. Chapter 3, by Brian Erard, discusses this. One was then left with choosing other countries. After examining a list found in a publication of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (Forum on Tax Administration Taxpayer Services Sub-group, 2006) and drawing on our knowledge of tax collection arrangements, we selected three countries — Australia, Belgium and Spain — that like Canada are federal in the nature of their intergovernmental financial and tax arrangements, if not in their constitutions, and for which information on the prefilled program could be found. Thus, we also have Chapter 1, by Chris Evans and Binh Tran-Nam, on Australia, Chapter 2, by Magali Verdonck, on Belgium, and Chapter 5, Jose M. Duran-Cabre, on Spain.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.157 · 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.

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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTaxation and Compliance StudiesFrench-language works237,207