The Concept of De Facto Control in Canadian Tax Law: Taber Solids and Beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The legal concept of control is both highly significant to the operation of Canadian tax law and, perhaps surprisingly, still somewhat unsettled in terms of its interpretation. This is particularly true of the scope given by the courts to control in fact (de facto control) where two different and sometimes competing tests have appeared in the case law. The starting point presented in this paper for considering these rival tests for control in fact begins the 2002 Federal Court of Appeal decision in Silicon Graphics and its ‘board control’ test for control in fact before turning to the opposing ‘operational control’ test to have emerged in the subsequent case law. While the Taber Solids decision of the Tax Court of Canada in late 2009 might have resolved the tension between the dueling approaches – and to some extent the case has laid some of the groundwork for an eventual reconciliation, this paper argues that Taber Solids stands for a continuing misreading of Silicon Graphics. Instead, based on an examination of legislative text, context, and purpose, this paper argues that the meaning attributed to the concept of de facto control should be returned to its earlier and narrower interpretation.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".