"Economic substance": Drawing the line between legitimate tax minimization and abusive tax avoidance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) in section 245 of the Income Tax Act is about drawing a line between legitimate tax minimization and abusive tax avoidance. However, the GAAR does not provide guidelines for determining whether a particular transaction is legitimate or abusive. In this article, the author argues that economic substance is a useful standard for drawing the line. It is not only called for by Parliament through the enactment of the GAAR, it is also justified on theoretical grounds, and is consistent with the textual, contextual, and purposive approach to statutory interpretation. Moreover, the author argues, economic substance is the best method for balancing conflicting policy concerns in Canadian income tax law. The Supreme Court of Canada also recognized the relevance of economic substance in the recent Canada Trustco decision. However, economic substance is a relatively new concept in Canadian tax law. The article advances our understanding of this concept by addressing four questions: (1) Why should economic substance analysis be relevant in GAAR cases? (2) What does “economic substance” mean? (3) What are the relevant factors in determining the economic substance of transactions? (4) How can an economic substance analysis be applied in GAAR cases?
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".