Effective tax levels using the Devereux/Griffith methodology. Project for the EU Commission TAXUD/2013/CC/120: Intermediate report 2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Introduction] This 2015 report of the project TAXUD/2013/CC/120 presents estimates of the effective tax rates on investment in the EU member states, FYROM and Turkey as well as Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Japan and the United States. The work presented in this report updates for the year 2015 the analyses of the previous projects within the former Framework Contract TAXUD/2008/CC/099 and the current Framework Contract TAXUD/2013/CC/120. Following the methodology used in previous work, we apply the Devereux and Griffith framework to compute effective tax levels. The report considers primarily taxes on corporations in each country, but also includes analyses of personal taxes on investment and saving. It also considers both cross-border investment and investment by small and medium sized enterprises (SME). This report is organized as follows. Section A introduces the tax parameters for the period 1998 - 2015 covered by this report. These tax parameters form the basis of the computations of effective tax rates. Section B provides worked examples for several countries for a better understanding of the model. Section C then provides detailed results for domestic investment in all countries covered in this report. In addition to results focusing on the corporate level, this report comprehensively includes the analysis of personal taxes on investment and saving at the shareholder level for three different types of shareholders when calculating effective tax rates on domestic investment. Section D presents estimates for effective tax burdens of cross-border investment if all countries were either locations of investment or locations of the investor. Finally, Section E provides effective tax burdens of SMEs in selected countries. Please note that all results presented in this report refer to the legal situation as of 1 July 2015.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".