Bibliographic record
Abstract
Full and frank disclosure between corporate issuers and their auditors and accounting advisors is critical for maintaining access to the information required for audits and public confidence in the capital markets. While tax authorities in the United States, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom have the power to make broad requests for working papers, in all four jurisdictions, legislation or administrative practice reflects the determination that the best approach for balancing tax and capital markets requirements is for the revenue authorities to seek working papers only in exceptional circumstances. Additionally, limited forms of privilege for accountants have been recognized in all four jurisdictions. In contrast, Canada Revenue Agency practices require broad disclosure of corporate information and working papers. This paper suggests that the result of CRA practice is to restrict access for auditors to information necessary for the assessment of financial statements and required by capital markets. It argues that by driving corporations to seek tax advice from lawyers rather than accountants, CRA paradoxically is creating an environment where less information, not more, is available for tax authorities. The author proposes that the CRA adopt a policy of requesting working papers and information only in exceptional and well-defined circumstances. Such a policy would accord with recent corporate governance reforms aimed at encouraging more open and transparent financial reporting, and would bring Canadian practice in this area into step with recent international developments.
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 | 0.059 | 0.148 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".