Basis for Assessment, Arguments, and Assumptions: An Examination of the Underlying Policy Considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1998, in The Queen v. Continental Bank of Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada enunciated the principle that the minister of natural revenue should not be allowed to advance a new for a reassessment after the limitation period has expired. Shortly thereafter, the Department of Finance announced the introduction of a new provision, subsection 152(9) of the Income Tax Act. That provision was widely viewed as being intended to reverse the Supreme Court's decision. The Department of Finance then retreated somewhat from this apparent overreaction, and when subsection 152(9) was subsequently enacted, the language used was quite different. For the last several years, the courts have been struggling with two questions: 1. What constitutes a new for a reassessment? 2. What impact, if any, does subsection 152(9) have on the Continental Bank rule? In this article, the authors attempt to identify a principled approach to answering these questions. In the view of the authors, what is required is a balanced approach that seeks to preserve procedural fairness for both taxpayers and the minister. One of the most important tools necessary for analyzing the origins and operation of the Continental Bank rule is an understanding of the relationship between the principles of civil procedure in general civil litigation and the rules that have grown up in the context of income tax litigation. The authors analyze the Continental Bank rule in light of the treatment of comparable situations under normal principles of civil procedure. The authors explore the historical origins of the Continental Bank rule and the jurisprudence in the wake of that decision with a view to establishing principled criteria for identifying new bases within the meaning of that rule. While some of the post-Continental Bank jurisprudence suggests that subsection 152(9) has effectively legislated the rule out of existence, the authors think that as a matter of statutory interpretation and policy this provision has no bearing on the rule. In essence, it is a statutory codification in the area of income tax litigation of the general principles applicable to the amendment of pleadings in the context of civil litigation. The authors conclude by setting out a number of principles for ascertaining whether the minister has violated the Continental Bank rule by advancing a new basis for an assessment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".