MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319710158 · doi:10.58886/jfi.v11i1.2506

Income Trusts in Canada - Value Loss from the Change in SIFT Taxation

2013· article· en· W4319710158 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ian Glew

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Finance Issues · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Taxation and Avoidance
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonetary economicsIndirect taxValuation (finance)EconomicsAd valorem taxBusinessCapital gains taxDeferred taxValue-added taxDouble taxationLabour economicsTax reformState income taxFinancePublic economicsGross income

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the market impact when Specified Investment Flow-Through (SIFT) trusts became liable to an entity tax, announced on October 31, 2006. After-tax valuation ratios indicate an initial after-tax loss of roughly 5% for Ontario taxpayers, which dropped to 3.5% when the legislation took effect in 2011. Tax integration is incomplete, as a 6.3% loss was moderated through beneficial treatment of the return of capital. Lastly, this study finds the after-tax loss for tax-exempt and foreign investors averages 25%, rather than the pre-tax charge of 31.5%. All investors were affected when income trusts were driven from the Canadian market.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Finance IssuesSame topicCorporate Taxation and AvoidanceFrench-language works237,207