MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134888725

How Should the United States Treat Government Entities, Nonprofit Organizations, and Other Tax Exempt Bodies Under a VAT?

2010· article· en· W3134888725 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre-Pascal Gendron

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicTaxation and Compliance Studies
Canadian institutionsHumber College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNonprofit sectorTaxable incomeTax exemptionBusinessGovernment (linguistics)Public economicsPublic sectorEconomic policyPublic administrationFinanceAccountingEconomicsPolitical scienceLawEconomy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Goods and services supplied by government entities, public sector bodies, nonprofit organizations, charitable organizations, and similar tax-exempt bodies (the PNC sector) are usually exempt under VAT. While there are very few conceptual arguments against the full taxation of such supplies under VAT, concerns around social objectives and income distributions are often mentioned in defense of the exemption. This article reviews the case for exemption as well as its economic effects. Lessons for the United States include: (i) the case for full taxation of the PNC sector under VAT is strong; (ii) the Australian-New Zealand model would offer the best practical method to apply VAT to the sector; and (iii) to address the issue of states as taxable persons, a US federal VAT should provide states and local governments with a voluntary option to collect tax. The suggested design would result in the lowest efficiency costs, and likely the lowest compliance and administrative costs as well.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicTaxation and Compliance StudiesFrench-language works237,207