MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2580564076

International Appraisal of Effect of Capital Gains Tax on Investment in Small Business

2001· article· en· W2580564076 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pauline Downer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Financial Management and Analysis · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Taxation and Avoidance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapital gains taxCapital gainTaxable incomeFixed capitalEconomicsCost of capitalPhysical capitalMonetary economicsCapital (architecture)Return on capitalLabour economicsBusinessFinancial capitalFinanceDouble taxationCapital formationAd valorem taxMarket economyAccountingHuman capital
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction and Evolution of Capital Gains Taxation One of the aims of the Federal government in Canada is to promote small business growth and expansion. An integral part of this process is the manner in which small business income is taxed, both on the income earned and the increase in value of company shares. An examination of the history of capital gains taxation in Canada is important to put the current day legislation in context. A capital gain in Canada is defined as the excess of proceeds over the adjusted cost base of a capital property that is sold. Capital property includes tangible assets such as land, buildings and equipment as well as shares, and intangible property such as trademarks and goodwill. If the proceeds are less than the adjusted cost base, a capital loss results. Prior to 1972, capital gains realized by taxpayers in Canada were tax-free. In 1971, a major tax reform introduced a tax on capital gains. At that time, capital gains were included in income at 50 per cent of the amount realized. For example, if a taxpayer realized a capital gain of $ 100, the amount taxable would be $50. This would be taxable at the marginal rate of the taxpayer. Capital losses could only be used to reduce capital gains and could be carried back three years and forward indefinitely to reduce future capital gains. In Canada, capital losses cannot reduce ordinary income. The Carter Commission in 1966 argued that exempting capital gains from taxation was contrary to the principle of neutrality. While the Carter Commission proposed to include capital gains in income in their entirety, the government chose to introduce a tax on capital gains by requiring the inclusion of 50 per cent of the capital gains. The reason for rejection of the Carter Commission recommendation was the negative motivational effect on investors1. The actual tax rate on capital gains changed as the tax rates in Canada changed over time however, the requirement to include 50 per cent of the gain remained unchanged until 1988. In 1988, new rules were introduced to phase in an increase in capital gains inclusion rates from 50 per cent to 75 per cent. This was phased in over two years with an increase to 66 2/3 per cent for 1988 and 1989 followed by an increase to 75 per cent effective in 1990. Another change to the taxation of capital gains in Canada was introduced in 1985 when a lifetime capital gains exemption was introduced in Canada as an attempt to promote the growth of small business. The total exemption of $500,000 was available to individuals to shelter the tax on capital gains on the disposition of certain capital property. The total exemption was subdivided between a $100,000 exemption on all capital property such as shares in public companies and real estate, and a $ 400,000 exemption on shares in qualifying small business corporations. The importance of the capital gains exemption cannot be underestimated. In the Province of Nova Scotia, for example, a taxpayer who has realized a capital gain of $500,000 on the sale of capital property eligible for the full $500,000 exemption for qualifying small business corporation shares would save approximately $60,000 income tax in 2001-2002. The savings in 1999 would have been a substantial $182,925. The reduction in 2001-2002 is a result of Federal Government regulations in 2000, which decreased the capital gains inclusion rate from 75 per cent down to 50 per cent effective for dispositions after October 17,2001. In the Budget of May 1985, which originally introduced the exemption, a loss of revenue to the government from allowing this exemption was estimated to be $300 million in fiscal 1986-1987 alone.2 Obviously, the utilization of this exemption is one of the few, yet sizeable, tax breaks left for small business owners in Canada. The taxation of capital gains remained in a steady state until rates were lowered both provincially and federally in 2001. Canada is divided into ten provinces and three territories. …

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations4
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Financial Management and AnalysisSame topicCorporate Taxation and AvoidanceFrench-language works237,207