MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Global Corporate Minimum Tax: A Cure or Not?

2022· article· en· W4321513747 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jack Mintz

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Tax Journal/Revue fiscale canadienne · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Taxation and Avoidance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTax avoidanceCorporate taxIndirect taxAd valorem taxValue-added taxBusinessTax creditTax reformState income taxDouble taxationEconomicsMonetary economicsPublic economicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines how the corporate income tax base is to be shared with the proposed global corporate minimum tax, which has been agreed to by more than 130 countries. The aim of the global minimum tax is to reduce the incentive for profit shifting by putting a floor on corporate tax rates so that they do not fall below 15 percent of adjusted accounting profits. However, the global minimum tax itself will introduce new capital market inefficiencies. Foreign-owned capital can be taxed more heavily than domestic capital. The minimum tax distorts capital allocation by favouring labour-intensive projects over capital-intensive projects when the tax is paid. It also distorts the accounting decisions of corporations when they seek to avoid paying the tax. The corporate tax gains to Canada, net of personal tax revenue losses, are small, between $170 million and $645 million annually, depending on whether host countries adopt a top-up tax or not. After adjustments are made for economic losses, the annual net gain to the Canadian economy ranges from $95 million to $360 million, exclusive of administrative and compliance costs. Overall, it is not clear that the global minimum tax will work any better than other policies aimed at reducing corporate profit shifting.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.165 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Tax Journal/Revue fiscale canadienneSame topicCorporate Taxation and AvoidanceFrench-language works237,207