CAP Forum on E‐Business: E‐Commerce and Tax Planning: Canadian Experiences*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This paper explores the deployment of e‐commerce by Canadian firms in the global marketplace, with an emphasis on the implications of e‐commerce for tax planning. The business press and various government task forces have discussed challenges raised by e‐commerce for traditional “source‐based” tax systems; however, these discussions have presented little evidence of firms' reliance on e‐commerce for tax‐planning purposes. Similarly, academic research has seldom examined whether firms' decisions to implement e‐commerce are by tax‐planning considerations. It is thus largely unknown whether firms actively consider taxation issues when evaluating e‐commerce, how the factors that have been identified as influencing decisions to implement e‐commerce systems are balanced against tax‐planning considerations, and what barriers might exist in practice to using e‐commerce for tax planning. We choose a qualitative interview‐based approach to explore these issues. Our findings suggest that tax planning is not considered by most of our respondent companies in their decisions to deploy e‐commerce. The companies we interviewed tended to implement e‐commerce over several years, starting with back‐office technologies like enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems. Accordingly, the ability to perform online sales transactions, which is a key component of using e‐commerce for tax planning, often was not yet in place. One implication of these results is that if concerns over tax revenue losses are realistic, tax policymakers may have some time to refine tax legislation to address the challenges raised by e‐commerce.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".