Assessing the Likely Impact of the Tax Working Group on Tax Administration in New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the establishment of the New Zealand (NZ) government’s Tax Working Group (TWG) in late 2017, the level of interest in the TWG’s deliberations, the extent of submissions received, and subsequent recommendations, is arguably unprecedented in NZ tax history. While its Terms of Reference significantly constrained the scope of the review, the major feature is the development of a possible capital gains tax (CGT) for NZ. A CGT in itself will create significant administration issues, dependent principally on the choice of CGT that is eventually implemented (assuming this actually occurs). The TWG also made important recommendations directly affecting tax administration, including tax collection, establishing a taxpayer advocate service and providing additional support for the Office of the Ombudsman. This paper examines the TWG’s deliberations and reports, including making the observation that yet again the proposals for reform are politically charged. A proposal for the establishment of an independent ‘permanent’ body in Canada is recommended for further exploration in NZ, being a superior method for undertaking tax reviews.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".