The role of international tax planning in ensuring the competitiveness of an enterprise in the international market
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to identify opportunities and risks of international tax planning in ensuring the competitiveness of enterprises in the international market. The methodology was based on a comparative analysis of tax systems, transfer pricing and double taxation treaties in different countries, namely Germany, France, the USA, and Ukraine. It is determined that the key opportunities for international tax planning, including optimisation of the tax burden, use of double taxation treaties and transfer pricing, are the key opportunities for international tax planning. The risks associated with tax sanctions, legislative instability and reputational losses that may affect the competitiveness of enterprises in the global environment are identified. The study found that in countries with transparent and stable tax laws, such as Germany and Canada, businesses had more opportunities for effective tax planning, which helped to increase their competitiveness. In particular, holding structures were widely used in Germany to optimise the tax burden, while in the US, special attention was paid to compliance with transfer pricing rules, which helped to avoid double taxation and reduced the risk of sanctions. In Ireland, tax planning was aimed at using low-tax regimes, which attracted international corporations. In developing countries, such as Ukraine, the main challenges remained the instability of tax regulations and the complexity of administration, which made it difficult to implement effective strategies. The practical value of the study lies in the possibility of applying the results obtained to develop optimal tax planning strategies that will help reduce the tax burden, increase financial stability and competitive advantages of enterprises in different jurisdictions
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".