Corporations and Taxation A Largely Private Matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As has long been recognized in the industrial organization literature, be-ginning with Berle and Means (1932), the performance of widely held cor-porations may differ from that of those that are closely held for a variety of reasons (see, e.g., Jensen and Meckling 1976; and Demsetz 1983). Private corporations may be governed better than public firms since managers in public firms have greater incentives to “shirk ” by enjoying nonpecuniary benefits (Williamson 1978), or controlling shareholders of public firms may make decisions that have negative consequences for new shareholders after an initial public offering (Bebchuk and Zingales, chap. 2 in this vol-ume). On the other hand, owners of private businesses may be less willing to take on risk (owing to a lack of opportunities to diversify risk) or might face constraints in raising equity finance. The purpose of this paper is to examine how taxation can influence businesses ’ choice between private and public status. In section 4.1, we begin with a review of the primary differences between U.S. and Canadian tax systems that might influence the extent to which corporations might be privately held. Our review suggests that the Canadian tax system may
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".