MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285012963 · doi:10.32721/ctj.2022.70.2.pfp

Planification fiscale personnelle : Les enjeux pour les bénéficiaires américains de successions canadiennes

2022· article· fr· W4285012963 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Tanzeela Ayub, Michael Pereira

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Tax Journal/Revue fiscale canadienne · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTaxation and Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article donne un aperçu des questions fiscales américaines auxquelles sont susceptibles d'être exposées les successions étrangères dont les bénéficiaires sont des particuliers américains. Même si les familles peuvent mettre en œuvre des stratégies de planification pour gérer efficacement le transfert de patrimoine du point de vue national, les lois fiscales américaines peuvent créer des problèmes complexes et entraîner des conséquences négatives pour les imprudents. Cet article vise à présenter les considérations générales sur la fiscalité américaine pour une succession étrangère, y compris l'application possible des règles anti-report d'impôt régissant les sociétés de placement étrangères passives (SPEP) et les sociétés étrangères contrôlées (SEC). L'article comporte une étude de cas qui illustre comment ces règles peuvent s'appliquer aux bénéficiaires américains d'une succession canadienne si celle-ci détient des actions d'une SPEP ou d'une SEC. Il propose également quelques lignes directrices et stratégies pour réduire les conséquences américaines potentiellement néfastes et atténuer certains risques fiscaux.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Tax Journal/Revue fiscale canadienneSame topicTaxation and Legal IssuesFrench-language works237,207