MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2528866979

Pity the Taxpayer: The Tax Exemption for Personal Injury Damages as a Disability Policy

2007· article· en· W2528866979 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tamara Larre

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDamagesPlaintiffPersonal injuryTaxable incomeTax exemptionTortLaw and economicsPolitical scienceLawEconomicsLiability
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The tax treatment of personal injury damages has been largely ignored in Canada, despite questionable authority for the generally accepted position that they are not taxable. Courts have reasoned that personal injury damages are not subject to tax because these awards replace lost human capital. However, this explanation became open to question after the introduction of capital gains tax in Canada.The author looks beyond taxation to disability policy in order to validate the tax exemption for personal injury damages. Specifically, the author examines two possible explanations for this tax treatment. According to the humanitarian justification, personal injury damages are not subject to tax because of feelings of pity or sympathy for the injured plaintiff. Commentary to date on the humanitarian justification has not recognized the relevance of disability studies, so a principal focus of this paper is on the contribution of the disability literature to the debate. Considering the disability literature, the author rejects the humanitarian justification by demonstrating that these views reinforce stereotypes and social barriers that actually contribute to disability. The author also examines the tax exemption for personal injury damages as a tax expenditure intended to provide income support for persons with disabilities. Because this program does not account for financial need and is only available to successful tort plaintiffs, the author argues that the program can not achieve an intended goal of advancing full participation in society. In view of the disability literature and government policy statements, neither explanation for the exemption reflects the values of equality, participation and full citizenship that inform disability policy in Canada. Because the tax exemption is not supportable as disability policy, the author advocates for continued debate to identify the appropriate tax treatment of personal injury damages.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.029
Scholarly communication0.0140.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.315 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicCanadian Policy and Governance→French-language works237,207→