De nouveaux droits du contribuable au Québec: Dans quelle mesure un contrat peit-il être corrigé rétroactivement à des fins fiscales?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
EnglishTax consequences apply to bonafide legal relationships the existence of which is regulated by the private law systems (civil law of Quebec or common law). In civil law, the writing does not in and of itself generate the legal relationships. In order fa determine the genuine legal nature of a transaction, the parties' common intention must be identified.lf the writing constitutes an erroneous expression of the common intention of the parties, it can be corrected on a retroactive basis, and the tax consequences will apply to the legal relationships as they are reflected in the corrected writing, consistent with the parties' intention. francaisLes consequences fiscales se greffent aux rapports juridiques veritables dont l'existence est regie par le regime de droit prive sous-jacent (droit civil du Quebec ou common law). En droit civil, l'ecrit n'est pas generateur de rapports juridiques. Pour determiner la veritable nature juridique d'une operation, il faut determiner quelle etait la commune intention des parties. Si l'ecrit constitue une expression erronee de la commune intention des parties, il peut etre corrige retroactivement et les consequences fiscales se greffent aux rapports juridiques refletes dans l'ecrit corrige, conforme a l'intention des parties
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.001 |
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".