MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2529841624

Has the Dust Finally Settled? Restricted Farm Losses Post Moldowan

2011· article· en· W2529841624 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tamara Larre

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTaxation and Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaxpayerSection (typography)Supreme courtVaguenessIncome taxLawConsistency (knowledge bases)Political scienceEconomicsLaw and economicsBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Section 31 of the Income Tax Act, which limits the ability of taxpayers to use farm losses to offset income from other sources, imposes a special restriction on farmers. The restriction is imposed where farming, itself or in combination with another source, is not the taxpayer’s chief source of income. This frequently-litigated section has a long history of unpredictability and inconsistency. This is partially due to the vagueness of the text of the provision, and so when the Supreme Court of Canada provided guidance on the section in Moldowan v. The Queen, one might have expected this to have resulted in more consistency in the case law. Unfortunately, courts have continued to struggle with section 31, with some cases interpreting it expansively and others very restrictively. The most recent cases indicate that there is the potential for arriving at a middle ground between the two extremes, although there are still many unsettled issues. Specific suggestions for ways the courts could clarify the law are provided. However, significant problems with section 31 are still likely to persist, and therefore policy makers are encouraged to consider amending or repealing section 31.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score0.831

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.191 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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