Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relative to at least some high-income countries, Canada has been willing to negotiate tax treaties that leave greater jurisdiction to tax (ie. more source jurisdiction) to low-income countries in its tax treaties. Nevertheless, Canada's tax treaty policy has not been overwhelmingly generous. This essay takes as its starting point Alex Easson's 1988 paper, Evolution of Canada's Tax Treaty Policy Since the Royal Commission on Taxation. Focusing on the evolution of Canada's tax treaty policy since 1988, the essay examines three aspects of Canada's tax treaties that might increase the scope for source-based taxation by low-income countries. First, it examines the ways in which Canada has expanded the scope for source taxation of business income: for example, by lowing the threshold for taxation of business profits, expanding the scope of what profit should be allocated to an enterprise, allowing the taxation of technical or management fees with minimal connection to the source state, and permitting the taxation of gains on the alienation of real property. Second, those treaty provisions that limit the withholding tax rates on passive investment income earned in the source country, including the withholding tax rates on payments of interest, dividends, and royalties, are reviewed. Third, the accommodations that Canada has made since 1988 through tax sparing provisions for tax incentives enacted in low-income countries are noted. The piece concludes with some reflections Canada's latest protocol with the United States, underlining what it might signal for Canada's future tax treaties with low-income 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".