MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2260143535

Exploring the Constitutional Sources of a First Nation's Right to Tax

2008· article· en· W2260143535 on OpenAlexaffabout
Devrin Froese

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTaxation and Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstitutionLawCharterSupreme courtPolitical scienceSection (typography)Power (physics)Law and economicsSociologyBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Taxation laws passed by First Nations pertaining to levies on property interests within their territory can theoretically be anchored in one of two sources: section 91(3) of the Constitution Act, 1867 or section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. The author of this article argues that the scope of the power may vary depending on the constitutional source. In the first part of the article, he demonstrates this by analyzing the various arguments that may be made with respect to the taxation of property interests of the Crown within the territory of a First Nation. In Westbank First Nation v. BC Hydro and Power Authority, the court held that taxation bylaws passed pursuant to the Indian Act (and thus grounded in section 91(3) of the constitution) do not attach to Crown corporations because these entities, as agents of the Crown, are exempt from taxation pursuant to section 125 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Some statements made by the Supreme Court of Canada in that case could be interpreted to imply that if the taxation laws were grounded in section 35(1) of the constitution, arguably they could attach to the real property interests of Crown corporations within the First Nation's territory. However, the author concludes that it is unlikely that those statements would be interpreted strictly. Thus, taxation laws grounded in section 35(1) also should not attach to Crown interests. In the second part of the article, the author focuses on the impact of the constitutional source in addressing Charter challenges, specifically in respect of a taxation law that gives preferential treatment to members of a First Nation. It appears that if the taxation law is grounded in section 35(1), it should be exempt from Charter intrusion, on the basis that the Charter cannot render unconstitutional distinctions that are expressly permitted under the constitution. If, on the other hand, the same taxation law were grounded in section 91(3), presumably it would not be exempt on this basis. However, such a taxation law may still be immune from Charter intrusion on the basis of section 25 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The overall conclusion is that the constitutional source of a taxation power could affect the scope of the right itself. Although on the surface two laws may look identical, if they are grounded in different constitutional sources, the powers they bestow may vary significantly.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.017
Scholarly communication0.0160.010
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0050.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicTaxation and Legal IssuesFrench-language works237,207