MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2529979018

Income Tax Treatment of Credit Swaps in Canada: Enhancing Tax Neutrality

2009· dissertation· en· W2529979018 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Rinat Begaliyev

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2009
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsTax creditNeutralityDouble taxationIndirect taxValue-added taxPublic economicsTax avoidanceAd valorem taxBusinessState income taxTax reformConsistency (knowledge bases)EconomicsContext (archaeology)AccountingPolitical scienceLawComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the issue of tax neutrality of the income tax treatment of credit swaps in Canada in domestic context. It analyzes the applicable tax regime consisting of rules on tax characterization, timing and tax rates through the lenses of symmetry, consistency and certainty approaches. The study argues that the Canadian tax policy focuses on achieving symmetry in income tax treatment, rather than consistency. This is because introducing consistency would contradict the fundamental principles of the Canadian law. The study finds that the current tax regime is only partially neutral because symmetry has not been achieved in respect to credit swaps entered between non-financial organizations. To enhance symmetry, the study proposes to adopt a mandatory mark-to-market basis of taxation of credit swaps for the non-financial organizations. Further, to make income tax treatment more certain, the study proposes that the CRA should issue a non-binding guidance on credit swaps.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.311 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207