Two Types of Payments of Tax on Profit: Advanced Payments and at the End of Periods: Consideration within BFO Theory with Variable Profit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two modifications of a modern theory of capital structure—the Brusov–Filatova–Orekhova (BFO) theory—with variable income are considered: (1) with the income tax payments at the end of periods and (2) with advance income tax payments. BFO formulas for the WACC, and for company capitalization, V, were derived for these two cases. Using the obtained formulas, the dependence of the weighted average cost of capital, WACC; the discount rate; WACC–g (here, g, is the growth rate); company value, V; and the equity cost, ke, on the leverage level, L, at different values of g, at different values of the debt capital cost, kd, and at different values of company age, n, were studied. Comparing the results for cases (1) and (2) shows that case (2) is always preferable for both the company and the regulator. Recommendations have been developed for both parties to expand the practice of advance income tax payments. The managerial implications are as follows. Companies may choose to pay income tax either in advance or at the end of the reporting period in accordance with current results and tax laws. The developed methodology makes it possible to study companies with growing profits and companies with falling profits, which is very important in practice. It also allows the study of companies for which profits could rise and fall in different periods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".