Dividend Taxation and Stock Returns: Time Series Analysis of Canada and Comparison with the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>This article examines the relationship between dividends and capital gains taxation differences and annual stock returns of Canadian public companies. Using the Compustat and Datastream databases over an 18-year period (1995-2012), we find this relationship to be positive for all stocks on the Toronto Stock Exchange and when using only the largest companies in Canada (S&P/TSX composite index firms), supporting a dividend tax premium being capitalized into stock returns. While our results are consistent with previous US studies, these findings were not obvious at the outset because in Canada the taxation of dividends and capital gains is different from the approach used in the US and because the difference between the dividend and capital gains tax rates is substantially smaller relative to the differences used in the long time series US studies. Our findings will be useful for investors and corporations because stock returns are affected by the method of payout used by corporations. In addition, Canadian policy makers will note that tax rules can affect capital markets. Our findings are robust to using two different methods of empirical investigation.</p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".