MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953813743 · doi:10.59403/ezx63v

Designing a General Anti-Avoidance Rule for the East African Community – A Comparative Analysis

2019· article· en· W2953813743 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Afton Titus

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Tax Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTaxation and Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBase erosion and profit shiftingTax avoidancePolitical scienceContext (archaeology)DirectiveInternational taxationInternational communityDouble taxationPublic administrationLawInternational tradePoliticsEconomicsTax reformGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The East African Community (EAC) is a regional integration project working towards the formation of a political federation. As a grouping of developing states, most EAC Partner States have legislated their own general anti-avoidance rules (GAARs) as a means to prevent base erosion and profit shifting. This article argues that the EAC federation, once formed, should continue this practice and legislate its own GAAR to protect its corporate tax base – one of the most important tax bases for African countries. This article further proposes a GAAR for the EAC that builds on the existing GAARs in the EAC Partner States and draws from international best practice through a comparative analysis of the GAARs in the EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive, the Income Tax Act in Canada and the Income Tax Act in South Africa. In so doing, the author proposes a GAAR for the EAC that is in keeping with international developments while adapting such developments to the EAC context.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Tax JournalSame topicTaxation and Legal IssuesFrench-language works237,207