Financial-legal means of countering unscrupulous practices of business fragmentation in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Countering the practice of conducting business through several companies for obtaining tax benefits, or in other words, the practice of businesses is fragmentation is a relevant problem not only in the Russian Federation, but also foreign countries. Namely in Canada, small business are qualified for reduction in corporate tax – small business deduction (SBD). At the same time, it substantiated the need for the development of special financial-legal means for preventing taxpayers from misusing it. This article examines the Canadian experience of countering business fragmentation, and discusses various legal means implemented by the Canadian legislator. Special attention is given to the analysis of law enforcement practice of these legal means, including introduction of the “deemed association rule” (Paragraph 2.1, Section 256 of the Law “On Income Tax”). Foreign experience pertinent to legal regulation of countering the practice of business fragmentation has not previously become the subject of detailed analysis, which defines the scientific novelty of this article. The conclusion is made that Canada has a separate legal regulation in form of  the general and special rules aimed at prevention of unscrupulous practices of business fragmentation. The Canadian tax authorities may apply certain special norms prior to resorting to broader discretion. Application of the “deemed association rule”  based on determination of the purpose of separate existence of corporations, draws particular attention. The Canadian law enforcement practice developed the approach, according to which the implementation of this rule should be founded on the objective component and documentary evidence.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".