La Déductibilité Des Frais Juridiques En Matière De Droit De La Famille: Les Enjeux Fiscaux Soulevés Par La Politique Administrative (The Deductibility of Legal Expenses Incurred in Family Law Matters: Tax Issues Raised by Administrative Policy)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'application des regles fiscales en matiere de deductibilite des frais juridiques dans les litiges en droit de la famille a ete obscurcie par la complexite relative de la Loi de l'impot sur le revenu, par le partage des competences de matiere de droit de la famille et les droits crees par les deux ordres de gouvernement et finalement, par la pratique administrative de l'Agence de revenu du Canada. Or les frais juridiques engages dans les litiges en droit de la famille sont assujettis a des traitements fiscaux differents. Une discussion de l'imbrication des cadres legislatifs pertinents et de l'evolution de la pratique administrative ainsi que de la valse-hesitation de la jurisprudence en la matiere revele la necessite d'une intervention legislative du Parlement. C'est avant tout une question d'acces a la justice mais aussi d'equite pour l'ensemble des contribuables. The tax treatment of legal expenses incurred in family law related matters has been made more convoluted by the relative complexity of the Income Tax Act, by the division of powers in family law matters and the rights created by the two orders of government, as well as by the Canada Revenue Agency's administrative policy. Hence, legal expenses incurred in various types of family law related matters have received varying tax treatment with regards to deductibility. A discussion of the interweaving of the relevant legislative schemes and the evolution of the assessing policy as well as the oscillation of the case law reveals the necessity for a legislative amendment specifically addressing the deductibility of legal expenses in this context. It is above all an issue of access to justice and equity for all taxpayers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".