The Implications of Pillar Two for Corporate Tax Reform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent proposals for corporate tax reform in Canada call for changing the existing tax on shareholder income to a tax on rents or above-normal profits. A feasible option would be an allowance for corporate equity (ACE) system based on the territorial principle. Canada has agreed to the approach to international corporate tax reform developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, including the pillar two minimum tax proposal. We explore the compatibility of adopting pillar two with the ACE system. Several elements of pillar two would complement moving to an ACE system. Large multinational corporations would be liable for a top-up tax if their effective tax rates in any given jurisdiction fell below 15 percent. The effective tax rates and the top-up tax would both use the territorial approach and consolidated accounting. The top-up tax would be similar to a tax on excess profits. Pillar two might also mitigate tax competition and reduce the constraints that countries face in increasing their tax rates on excess profits. For these reasons, pillar two would facilitate moving to an ACE system. At the same time, the minimum tax would deter adoption of an ACE if the deduction for the cost of equity finance reduced the pillar two effective tax rate. On balance, pillar two would be compatible with proposed corporate tax reforms.
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 | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".