MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414520587 · doi:10.1111/1911-3838.12417

Marginal Tax Rates of Canadian Public Firms and the Applicability of Marginal Tax Rates in Corporate Decisions*

2025· article· en· W4414520587 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Khin Phyo Hlaing, Bin Xing

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting Perspectives · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Taxation and Avoidance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepreciation (economics)Corporate taxDebtStatutory lawTax rateRelation (database)Value-added taxEndogeneityInvestment (military)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT While several US studies demonstrate the importance of using marginal tax rates (MTRs) to study corporate decisions and tax incentives, research using MTR in the Canadian setting is limited. The MTR literature has made several improvements on the estimation process using US firms, but these advances have not been made available for Canadian firms. In this study, we first incorporate the improved MTR simulation procedure based on the US literature for 19,551 firm‐years of publicly listed nonfinancial Canadian firms from 2006 to 2021. We then explicitly test the relation between our simulated MTR and two corporate decisions: debt policy and investment choice. We find that only our simulated MTR shows a positive and statistically significant relation with debt, while other tax rate proxies, including the trichotomous measures, fail to show this theorized relation. We find that both MTR and statutory tax rate show a significantly negative relation with investment, and the negative relation is mitigated by accelerated tax depreciation policies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.252
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccounting PerspectivesSame topicCorporate Taxation and AvoidanceFrench-language works237,207