Income Tax Complexity Faced by Multinational Corporations: A Comparative Study of Canada, the United States, and Other Selected OECD Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the complexity of Canada's corporate income tax system from the perspective of multinational corporations and compares it with the complexity of the US system, also taking into account measures of complexity for 19 other member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The author finds that with regard to the Canadian tax code, the most complex laws are those on corporate reorganization, transfer pricing, and controlled foreign corporations, and with regard to the Canadian tax framework, the most complex areas are tax audits, tax-law enactment, and tax guidance. In comparison with other OECD countries, Canada is remarkably similar to the United States. Both countries have a medium level of overall complexity, and both have a more complex tax code but a less complex tax framework than other countries. However, a closer examination of the Canadian and US tax codes and tax frameworks reveals some significant differences in complexity levels, particularly in respect of certain tax laws.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".