The Alberta NHL Players Tax: The Jock Tax Comes to Alberta - or Does it?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Alberta government introduced the Alberta NHL players tax in 2002. This tax is controversial in two respects. First, it exclusively targets a single profession, namely, players in the National Hockey League. Second, the revenue generated from the tax is channelled directly back to the owners of the Alberta NHL franchises, the Calgary Flames and the Edmonton Oilers. For players employed by the Alberta teams, the tax collects approximately 3 percent of the players' salaries and transfers it back to their employers. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Alberta NHL players tax in the larger context of the taxation of professional athletes. Owing to their large salaries and high public profile, professional athletes have often attracted the attention of taxation authorities. At the federal level, Canadian and US authorities have worked out a fairly simple and effective compromise under the Canada-US tax treaty to deal with the taxation of professional athletes. However, at the subnational level in the United States, the taxation of professional athletes has become complicated and retaliatory as a result of the imposition of jock taxes by many states and cities. Essentially, jock taxes require visiting professional athletes to pay income tax on the portion of their salary attributable to the time spent in that particular state or city. This paper considers the US approach to the jock tax, and the many criticisms of and proposed reforms to the jock tax system. Then the Alberta NHL players tax is discussed in detail, and compared and contrasted with the US jock taxes. Finally, the paper considers the justifications given by the Alberta government for the unique structure of the NHL players tax. In particular, the application of the tax to all NHL players, whether resident in Alberta or not, and the use of the tax revenue to subsidize the two Alberta NHL franchises are discussed in terms of both tax policy and potential conflict with the North American free trade agreement. The paper concludes by noting that, while the Alberta NHL players tax is indeed a variant of the US approach to the jock tax, several functional improvements have been made. However, both the Alberta tax and the US jock taxes clearly disregard the principles of simplicity and transparency reflected in the Canada-US tax treaty. Finally, the Alberta NHL players tax is questionable at a policy level. While the tax may be somewhat justified as a means of recovering revenue lost to US jock taxes, it sets a dangerous precedent that could tempt taxation authorities to subject other high income earners to extra taxation based on profession.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,013 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».