À Qui Le Droit De Taxer? Être Membre D'Un État Et Les Enjeux Fiscaux Qui En Découlent (Who Has the Right to Tax? International Tax and the Membership Principle)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Le theme central du livre est celui de la competition fiscale qui oppose les Etats a l’echelle internationale. Abordant cet enjeu, Dietsch presente une solution interdisciplinaire au probleme qui touche tant l’economie que le droit et la philosophie. Notre recension discute une partie specifique de l’argument de Dietsch : le principe d’appartenance. En premier lieu il est suggere que le principe d’appartenance ne tient pas compte d’importantes caracteristiques distinguant les individus des entreprises au niveau fiscal. Nous y defendons par ailleurs qu’une approche au principe d’appartenance s’appuyant uniquement sur l’idee de benefice sera conflictuelle au niveau international, car les interets des pays les obligeront a adopter des definitions divergentes du concept de benefice.English Abstract: In the Ethics of Tax Competition, Peter Diestch explores the ethical dimensions of tax competition that interferes with or undermines autonomous state policymaking. Dietsch presents an inter-disciplinary solution to the problem of tax competition, drawing from the fields of economics, law, and philosophy. Our book review addresses one part of Dietsch’s argument: the so-called “membership principle,” which purports to explain which taxpayers owe obligations to which states based on a loose application of benefits principles. We argue that, as conceived or developed to date in philosophical literature, the membership principle does not account for important characteristics distinguishing individual taxpayers from corporations and the differing relationships of these distinct taxpayers to the state for tax purposes. We further argue that an approach to membership based on benefit would be divisive at an international level, because countries’ differing interests would lead to conflicting definitions of benefit.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".