Withholding Taxes on Income Paid to Non-Residents: Removing a Canadian-US
Bibliographic record
Abstract
on income paid to investors from the other country. Such taxes act as a tariff on crossborder investments. Although withholding taxes provide revenues to each government, the taxes significantly deter investment and reduce the income earned in both countries. I estimate that, for Canada, the increased income earned from new capital expenditures and employment would more than offset the small loss in government revenues, especially in the case of the withholding tax on interest. From Canada’s perspective, the bilateral elimination of withholding taxes would substantially improve the efficiency of capital markets, attract foreign direct investment to the country, and help Canadians penetrate the North American market on a more competitive basis. Recently, Canadian federal and provincial governments have takensteps to make Canada more attractive for foreign investment. Forexample, they are planning, by 2005, to have lowered generalfederal-provincial corporate income tax rates from an average of 43 percent to 32 percent, well below the combined US federal and state average rate of 39 percent. However, other significant taxes continue to inhibit businesses from locating in Canada to serve the North American market. An important irritant is the regime of withholding taxes on income that Canadian companies pay to foreign investors. Although Canada could unilaterally eliminate its withholding taxes (as it has the interest withholding tax
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".