MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W287831596

Complementary and alternative medicine and the medical expense tax credit: a case for legislative reform.

2006· article· en· W287831596 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Mary Shaw

Notice bibliographique

RevuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueTaxation and Legal Issues
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Victoria
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTaxable incomeTaxpayerDeductibleBusinessTax creditIncome taxIndirect taxValue-added taxTax deductionRevenueAccounts payableJurisdictionStatutory lawTax reformState income taxFinancePublic economicsEconomicsAccountingGross incomeActuarial scienceLawPaymentPolitical science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Since 1942, Canada's Income Tax Act has provided tax relief to taxpayers who spend substantial amounts of their income on out-of-pocket medical expenses. (1) Since 1988, this relief comes in the form of a tax credit, an amount that is directly deductible against income tax payable. (2) Not all medical expenses are eligible. In particular, the statutory scheme excludes some, but not all, medical services and treatments that can be broadly categorized under the term 'complementary and alternative medicine. (3) Specifically, the Income Tax Act provides that only amounts paid for services provided by practitioners who are authorized to practice in the jurisdiction where the service is provided are creditable. Thus, availability of the medical expense tax credit [METC] will depend on whether a taxpayer's province of residence has chosen to regulate a particular area of practice. Consequently, some taxpayers who turn to alternative medicine are denied tax relief for their medical expenses. Also not eligible for the credit are the natural health products that make up the pharmacopoeia of many alternative practitioners. As a result, many Canadians are fully taxable on amounts paid for medical treatment. Frank Tall, a Toronto math professor who suffers from allergies and environmental sensitivities, is one of these. (4) Mr. Tall spends approximately $5000 per year on homeopathic treatments. Since the 2001 tax year, he has attempted to claim the medical expense tax credit, but the Canada Revenue Agency [CRA], which is responsible for administering the Income Tax Act, has denied the claim. Mr. Tall contends that the denial of his claim constitutes a breach of his equality rights under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (5) He argues that a statutory scheme that disallows claims for amounts spent on alternative medicine discriminates against members of ethnic and religious minorities who, by reason of their ethnicity and/or religion, feel compelled to seek medical treatment outside the Western allopathic model. (6) A detailed analysis of section 15 jurisprudence is required in order to predict whether such a claim, and in particular Mr. Tall's claim, is likely to succeed. This paper offers such an analysis and concludes that the METC provisions do not offend Charter equality rights. However, regardless of the outcome of the Charter analysis, there is an important policy question about whether or not the medical expense credit should provide relief to Canadians who use alternative medicine, given its increasing importance as a primary health care tool. All Canadian provinces have seen fit to regulate at least one, and in many cases more than one category of alternative medical practitioner, and the trend is toward extending regulation to cover previously unregulated service providers. (7) Some provinces even provide public insurance for certain alternative medical services, and all Workers' Compensation Boards cover them. (8) In addition, employer-paid group health insurance plans, which are not a taxable benefit, often provide coverage for a variety of alternative medical services. (9) Under these circumstances, it is difficult to justify a regime that denies tax relief to Canadians who are not so fortunate as to be covered by an insurance plan. In fact, there are several compelling arguments for expanding the METC to alternative medical treatments and services. The third section of this paper will briefly consider these arguments, as well as those against inclusion. A detailed explanation of the METC provisions will provide the basis for both the Charter and policy analysis. I will therefore begin by examining the statutory scheme that determines which expenses qualify, which do not, and for whom. The Statutory Scheme The medical expense tax credit is found in subsection 118.2 of the Income Tax Act. (10) It is unnecessary to elaborate on the formula used to calculate the credit (found in subsection 118. …

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,033
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,252
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,502

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0330,055
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0180,039
Communication savante0,0180,021
Science ouverte0,0040,009
Intégrité de la recherche0,0530,045
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0100,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,040
Tête enseignante GPT0,264
Écart entre enseignants0,224 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2006
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePubMedMême sujetTaxation and Legal IssuesTravaux en français237 207