The Taxation of Retroactive Lump-Sum Payments: The Practice and the Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses the taxation of retroactive lump-sum payments, which are essentially payments received in one taxation year that relate to one or more previous taxation years. Provisions of the Income Tax Act that deal specifically with retroactive lump-sum payments are intended to tax the payments as if they had been received in the previous year(s) to which they relate, rather than in the year of receipt. Accordingly, one would expect the provisions to result in an after-tax income position for the recipient in the year of receipt equivalent to that which would have resulted had the payment actually been subject to tax in the previous year. Furthermore, since the provisions effectively tax the payment at the previous year’s rate of tax, one would expect that they would always be relieving in nature to the extent that the recipient’s rate of tax in the previous year was less than his rate of tax in the year of receipt. Through a series of propositions illustrating the appropriate taxation of retroactive lump-sum payments, this article shows that the statutory provisions do not fulfill these expectations or the appropriate tax policy objectives. In particular, the analysis leads to the conclusion that the effective result of the provisions is to subject the interest element of retroactive lump-sum payments to double taxation.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".