MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229046686 · doi:10.5744/ftr.2004.1061

Sharing Bank Deposit Information With Other Countries: Should Tax Compliance or Privacy Claims Prevail?

2022· article· en· W4229046686 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cynthia Blum

Bibliographic record

VenueFlorida Tax Review · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTaxation and Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpposition (politics)Administration (probate law)ProsperityPaymentGovernorBusinessLegislationPolitical scienceLawPublic administrationFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A proposed regulation issued as one of the final acts of the Clinton Administration would have required U.S. banks to routinely file with the IRS reports identifying nonresident alien individuals receiving payments of interest and the amount of such interest. U.S. bank deposit interest paid to nonresident aliens is exempt from U.S. tax, and previously only payments to Canadians were required to be reported to the IRS. Intense opposition to this regulation was expressed by bankers and other organizations, such as the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, as well as by Governor Jeb Bush of Florida (where bank deposits are held by many residents of Latin America). This opposition led the Bush Administration to withdraw the proposed regulation but to replace it with a similar proposed regulation applicable only to residents of 16 countries (12 member countries of the European Union, as well as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Norway). While the new proposed regulation has also attracted fierce opposition, the Bush Administration has continued to defend it (but has not yet finalized it).

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.094
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.094
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.009
Scholarly communication0.0160.014
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0180.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFlorida Tax ReviewSame topicTaxation and Legal IssuesFrench-language works237,207