Pyramid ownership structure and tax avoidance among Canadian firms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to examine the relationship between pyramid ownership structure and tax avoidance. Design/methodology/approach This paper is an empirical work using a sample of Canadian listed firms. Findings Relying on several proxies for tax avoidance, the authors find that firms affiliated with pyramidal structures generally engage in more tax avoidance activities than non-affiliated firms; firms affiliated with more complex pyramids engage in more tax avoidance practices and firms located at the lower tiers of the pyramids avoid more taxes; and some pyramid-affiliated firms with larger deviation between controlling shareholders’ cash flow rights and control rights engage in more tax avoidance practices. Social implications A broader understanding of the relationship between pyramidal structure and tax avoidance can be pursued by including firms in other countries, where the pyramid groups (pyramid structure) are prevalent, but institutional environments differ from that of Canada. Originality/value This study highlights the importance of pyramid ownership in shaping tax avoidance activities among Canadian-listed firms. Canada provides an ideal setting for studying the impact of ownership structure, as it contains a diverse corporate ownership structure ranging from widely held freestanding firms to pyramidal business groups.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".