MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W806544168

Global R&D Incentives Compared

2013· article· en· W806544168 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Laughlin Cutler, Douglas M. Sayuk, Camille Shoff, Clifton Douglas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of accountancy online/Journal of accountancy · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInnovation Policy and R&D
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaxpayerTax creditTax deductionBusinessIncentiveEconomicsTax exemptionTax incentiveActuarial scienceFinanceAccountingPublic economicsState income taxTax reformGross incomeMicroeconomicsMacroeconomicsLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, P.L. 112-240, extended the and development (R&D) credit under Sec. 41 for two years to cover expenditures paid or incurred on or before Dec. 31, 2013. Though U.S. business taxpayers welcomed the extension of this tax credit, the benefit is less generous than many other tax incentive programs abroad. The main tax benefits offered by countries generally result in a tax provision benefit and involve tax credits, superdeductions (deductions greater than 100%), and corporate tax rate reductions, including patent box rates for companies that own and use patents registered in that country. United States. The United States offers an annual deduction for R&D spending and a nonrefundable tax credit for incremental R&D spending. Under Sec. 41, the R&D credit is restricted to expenditures. It permits an incremental credit for qualified research and research equal to 20% of eligible expenses and basic amounts that exceed a certain calculated base amount of such expenditures. The base amount is a benchmark of the taxpayer's past spending and is designed to ensure that the credit is applied only where there is an increase in spending above prior levels. There is also an alternative simplified version of the credit that taxpayers can elect to take in lieu of the regular credit. The alternative simplified credit equals 14% of expenses over 50% of the average expenses for the preceding three tax years. The activities must be conducted within the United States. Because the credit is nonrefundable and cannot reduce tax liability below the corporation's alternative minimum tax, it typically is not beneficial until a taxpayer has used all of its net operating loss carryovers. These limited incentives, coupled with the top corporate statutory tax rate of 35% and top individual rate of 39.6%, may diminish the United States's appeal as a site for conducting R&D operations. A summary of the R&D incentives in other developed and developing countries follows. Australia. In Australia, corporate investment in innovation is rewarded through a 45% refundable R&D tax credit for revenue of less than AUD $20 million or a 40% nonrefundable tax credit for companies with revenues above that amount. The nonrefundable R&D credit can be carried forward and used in future years. In addition, Australia has a corporate statutory tax rate of 30%. Canada. Canada offers combined federal and provincial corporate statutory tax rates from 17.5% to 31%, along with a tax credit equal to 20% of expenditures related to scientific and experimental development. Small, private Canadian-controlled corporations can claim a 35% credit on the first CAD $3 million in expenditures. Excess credits may be carried forward 20 years and back three years. China. In China, the corporate statutory tax rate is 25%. China offers a reduced corporate income tax rate for certain entities, along with a 150% superdeduction. China also offers several other indirect tax incentives for R&D. France. France taxes corporations at a statutory rate of 33. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of accountancy online/Journal of accountancySame topicInnovation Policy and R&DFrench-language works237,207