Going Where No Taxman Has Gone Before: Preliminary Conclusions and Recommendations Drawn from a Decade of Debate on the International Taxation of E-Commerce
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I. INTRODUCTION The advent of e-commerce has forever changed how business is done. Internet operations have launched even smallest of undertakings into global markets and have made them part of an important industry with enormous potential. Such potential has led to enormous success: in 2008, despite recession, online retail sales in United States alone reached $133.6 billion, (1) up from overall sales of $22 billion in 1998. (2) Governments throughout world and relevant international organizations have recognized that if e-commerce remains beyond purview of tax authorities, it will present a significant problem for public finances. (3) In face of aging populations and their strain on national pension systems, lost tax revenue from e-commerce is not just another tax leak that budgets can afford. However, the application of today's taxing regimes to contemporary world of telecommunications and electronic commerce is uncertain, inconsistent, and complex. (4) The challenge for governments is to design a tax regime fit for this new cross-jurisdictional electronic environment. The power to tax is one of most fundamental prerogatives of every sovereign state. Raising tax revenue is a state's powerful instrument of macroeconomic management. Taxation affects legal, economic, social, political and fiscal conditions in any country. Therefore, it is not surprising that e-commerce was quick to appear on governments' tax radars. However, world's governments have been guarded in their reactions to suggested changes in their tax systems, as well as in existing system of international taxation. (5) As more and more businesses and individuals rely on Internet as their primary source of revenue, tax authorities around world are seeking a uniform solution for taxing e-commerce. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), European Union (EU), and U.S., Australian, and Canadian governments, among others, have issued reports identifying critical tax issues raised by advent of e-commerce. (6) Unfortunately, current position of governments worldwide can best be characterized as wait and see. (7) Despite a number of forums convened, commissions appointed and white papers issued, there remains little international accord, national legislation, or case law on taxation of e-commerce. In United States, Congress continues to ignore Supreme Court's invitation in Quill v. North Dakota to legislate on sales/use tax issue (8) and continues to extend moratorium on new Internet access taxes, which was originally imposed in 1998. (9) The World Trade Organization (WTO) has also maintained its own moratorium on customs duties on e-commerce, (l0) introduced as early as 1998. (11) Similarly, academia addressed various issues of taxing Internet business with great enthusiasm in early days of e-commerce, but now seems to be losing interest in issue. (12) Since governments and relevant international organizations are not taking action on Internet taxation, academics are writing less on subject. At same time, [w]hile talk about e-commerce tax issues has decreased in past few years, existence, and perhaps extent, of such issues has not decreased. (13) What is more, [t]he Internet continues to grow, sales continue to increase, and consequently [one] must implement solution now or risk repairing havoc later. (14) This is exactly why inquiries into tax aspects of doing business online should continue. This article reflects on past decade of debate regarding proper design of an international taxation regime that would fully reflect new economic realities brought about by e-commerce. It starts with both challenging and confirming some presumptions about contemporary e-commerce taxation and then offers a set of guidelines for reforming international taxation regime. …
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".