International trends in company tax collective investment vehicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The world has become an increasingly integrated and global place, creating opportunities for businesses to expand their networks beyond physical borders. This presents both opportunities and challenges to the corporate tax system, as the rise of intangibles and the digital economy creates difficulties in assessing and taxing profits and capital. This study aims to provide a cross-country comparison, drawing out the similarities and differences between corporate tax systems. Australia's corporate tax system was chosen as the centre of this study. The major North American (United States and Canada), European (United Kingdom, Germany, France, Netherlands and Ireland) and Asian (China, India, New Zealand, Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore and Indonesia) economies were selected, as they were identified as major players in the global economy and important trading partners to Australia. This is not an in-depth cross-country analysis, rather this study aims to provide a snapshot of key trends of corporate tax systems around the world. Four common indicators have been chosen for this study. The ratio of company tax to GDP has been chosen as an indicator to assess a country's reliance on the company tax base. The statutory company tax rate and thin capitalisation rules have been chosen as levers available to governments in shaping the corporate tax system. Collective investment vehicles were also chosen as an interesting and alternate lever available to governments in attracting foreign investment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".