CAP Forum on E‐Business: E‐Commerce and Tax Planning: Canadian Experiences*
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it