MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2364987701

Taxation and the Third Country Dimension of Free Movement of Capital in EU Law: The ECJ's Rulings and Unresolved Issues

2009· article· en· W2364987701 on OpenAlexaff
Martha O’Brien

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTaxation and Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFree movementTreatyMember stateCapital (architecture)European unionPolitical scienceLawEuropean Union lawTax treatyMember statesTreaty of LisbonLaw and economicsInternational tradeTax lawEconomicsDouble taxationGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The free movement of capital guaranteed by Article 56(1) of the EC Treaty applies not only within the European Union (EU), but also to movements of capital between EU Member States and non-EU (or third) countries. Over the last 15 years the Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ) has ruled repeatedly in intra-EU cases that Member States' direct tax laws must not impede exercise of the fundamental freedoms, including free movement of capital. The ECJ has now begun to define how Article 56(1) applies to direct tax restrictions on capital movements between the EU and third countries, providing some important indications, but also raising many questions, as to the differences and similarities in the way the ECJ will approach third country cases as compared to intra-EU cases. This article provides an analytical overview of the EC Treaty provisions on free movement of capital, the range of intra-EU cases that have held Member State tax laws incompatible with free movement of capital, and discusses the implications of recent third country decisions and the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon on the future evolution of the third country dimension.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0080.029
Scholarly communication0.0310.012
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0180.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations15
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicTaxation and Legal IssuesFrench-language works237,207