MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2779390683 · doi:10.55016/ojs/sppp.v7i1.42489

Not Just for Americans: The Case for Expanding Reciprocal Tax Exemptions for Foreign Investments by Pension Funds

2014· article· en· W2779390683 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jack Mintz, Stephen R. Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe School of Public Policy Publications · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPensionReciprocalBusinessFinanceEconomicsActuarial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From provision of OAS, GIS and CPP to the favourable taxation of Registered Pension Plans and RRSPs , Canada’s government has long focused policy efforts on better ensuring that working Canadians approach retirement with sufficient income supports in place. If the government wants to continue to move in this direction by trying to help maximize returns to pension plan members, while decreasing the portfolio risks faced by those pension plans, one step it could consider would be: Expanding the exemption for withholding taxes on foreign dividends and interest earned by pension plans. The exemptions for foreign interest and dividends are already available to U.S. investments, part of a reciprocal arrangement spelled out in the Canada-U.S. Tax Convention. Those exemptions allow U.S. and Canadian pension funds to participate in cross-border investments that would otherwise be too costly. Pension funds rely on international investments to optimize diversification and returns. And tax conventions between countries are typically designed to protect investors from the participating countries from being double taxed by both their resident country and the foreign jurisdiction where they invest. This good policy has certainly been Canada’s model in its numerous bilateral tax treaties. But while the U.S.-Canada Tax Convention extends the benefit of tax exemption to dividends and interest earned from cross-border investments by tax-exempt pension funds, when it comes to all other countries, there is no equivalent result. Yet, aspects of these same exemptions exist in certain bilateral treaties between other countries in treaties with one another. That certainly suggests that there are other trading partners, besides just the U.S., that are open to the possibility of these particular exemptions. If Canada could negotiate broadening these exemptions to countries beyond the United States, it would realize important advantages with little cost. By not moving further in this direction for non-U.S. foreign interest and dividend income of Canadian pension funds, these funds are left with lower benefits or higher contribution rates for pension plan members. It is also inevitably distorting the investment decisions being made by pension fund managers, producing a negative impact on risk-adjusted returns to their portfolios. While Canada may lose some revenue by forsaking some withholding tax, that would almost certainly be outweighed by the total economic gains as pension returns increase and, in reciprocal arrangements, Canada becomes more welcoming to foreign capital. With a number of countries already evidently open to the idea of tax exemptions for foreign interest and dividends earned by pension funds, and the economic effects for doing so overwhelmingly positive, the Canadian government should seriously consider getting started on negotiating reciprocal arrangements for cross-border pension fund investment with other countries.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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 score0.796
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.015
Scholarly communication0.0140.014
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0170.027
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe School of Public Policy PublicationsSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207