How Did the CRA Expect the Adoption of IFRS To Affect Corporate Tax Compliance and Avoidance?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From 2008 to 2011, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) developed a series of bulletins distributed to its internal auditors, alerting them to the fact that the adoption of international financial reporting standards (IFRS) may affect corporate tax reporting. In this study, we review 10 CRA IFRS internal bulletins and one internal memorandum from the office of the director general. We discuss the accounting issues addressed in each bulletin, the tax risks and taxpayer actions identified by the CRA that could lead to corporate tax avoidance, and finally the CRA's prescriptions for detecting or deterring corporate tax avoidance. We found that the CRA did have concerns that the adoption of IFRS in 2011 and prior years, coupled with the discontinuation of Canadian generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), could lead to various accounting issues, including increased risk that inappropriate tax adjustments would be made for certain enumerated items. This article presents preliminary evidence that accounting standards may affect corporate tax compliance and avoidance. The CRA's concerns are plausible since the starting point for the computation of taxable income is accounting net income. Many firms may engage in tax-avoidance behaviour when they adopt an accounting standard that lends itself to aggressive reporting. The interaction effects of the uncertainty created by the change in GAAP and the tax authority's heightened concern about corporate tax avoidance could be an important area for future study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".