MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125280693 · doi:10.1017/s0008423905040175

Taxpayers or Governments? Default as Determinant in Canadian and US Supreme Court Tax Decisions

2005· article· en· W2125280693 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alexandra Flynn

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTaxation and Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtTaxpayerStatutory interpretationLawPolitical scienceTax courtStatutory lawTax lawDefaultEconomicsTax reformBusinessFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. This paper demonstrates that an important and overlooked guide to understanding Canadian and US Supreme Court decision making in tax cases is the “default,” or the party to whom the court will decide in favour of if tax language is ambiguous. While statutory interpretation methods influence the overall manner in which courts approach tax-law decision making, the default is a more concrete guide to evaluating Canadian and US Supreme Court decisions. The paper first explores the statutory interpretation approaches referenced in Canadian and American Supreme Court tax law cases. The paper then examines the histories of defaults, including the cases in which they emerged and the rationales given for their adoption. Third, based on original research, the paper concludes that defaults have a profound effect on income tax decisions by, in Canada, the Supreme Court favouring the taxpayer and, in the United States, the Court deferring to the Internal Revenue Service. Résumé. Cet article démontre que la partie à laquelle les Cours suprêmes du Canada et des États-Unis donnent gain de cause lorsque la loi est ambiguë, appelée “ défaut ”, constitue un point de repère important, souvent négligé, pour comprendre les décisions de ces tribunaux en matière de droit fiscal. Bien que les méthodes d'interprétation de la loi influencent la prise de décision de ces tribunaux dans des causes fiscales, le “ défaut ” représente un point de repère plus concret pour évaluer les décisions des Cours suprêmes du Canada et des États-Unis en ces matières. L'article qu'on va lire examine d'abord les interprétations de la loi rencontrées dans la jurisprudence fiscale des Cours suprêmes du Canada et des États-Unis. Il présente ensuite l'historique des “ défauts ”, les cas où ils ont surgi, ainsi que les arguments et les justifications qui les accompagnent. Enfin, l'article conclut, sur la base d'une recherche inédite, que les “ défauts ” ont des effets profonds sur les décisions des Cours suprêmes en matière de droit fiscal tant au Canada, où la Cour suprême donne le plus souvent gain de cause au contribuable, qu'aux États-Unis où la Cour suprême se range plutôt à l'avis de l'Internal Revenue Service.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.577
Threshold uncertainty score0.789

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.253 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Political ScienceSame topicTaxation and Legal IssuesFrench-language works237,207