MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2297900966

Burgers, Doughnuts, and Expatriations: An Analysis of the Tax Inversion Epidemic and a Solution Presented Through the Lens of the Burger King-Tim Hortons Merger

2016· article· en· W2297900966 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chris Capurso

Bibliographic record

VenueWilliam & Mary Business Law Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Taxation and Avoidance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInversion (geology)Law and economicsEconomicsMathematical economicsLawPolitical scienceGeologySeismology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently, the concept of tax inversion is a major corporate phenomenon. In the United States, companies pay taxes on all earnings, whether or not they were accumulated here. With one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, this is a major expense for U.S. corporations competing in the world market. While most companies simply deal with the tax burden, some U.S. corporations buy foreign companies and relocate the company headquarters to the acquisition’s home country. This corporate expatriation allows companies to avoid U.S. taxes on earnings in a number of ways. This Note will examine tax inversion through the lens of the 2014 Burger King-Tim Hortons merger and the resulting expatriation of the American burger purveyor from Florida to Canada. In particular, this Note will (1) examine why tax inversions have come about, (2) look at how politicians and academics have reacted to the phenomenon, (3) analyze the intricacies of the Burger King-Tim Hortons merger, and (4) propose a new solution that would actually curtail tax inversions and corporate expatriations within the United States.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.010
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.006
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWilliam & Mary Business Law ReviewSame topicCorporate Taxation and AvoidanceFrench-language works237,207