The Perils of Federalizing the Common Law: A Case Study of the Income Tax Act Gift Concept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Civilian jurists have long been concerned to defend the integrity of the Quebec civil law tradition against the colonizing tendencies of federal legislation and its associated case law. In this piece, I argue that common law jurists should share these concerns. To illustrate this point, I focus on the federal courts’ misuse of the term “common law” to describe the meaning they have attached to the statutory term “gift/don” under sections 110.1 and 118.1 of the federal Income Tax Act. In fact, I argue, the meaning that the Federal Courts have attached to the term gift/don is an “ordinary non-technical” meaning, which is distinct from both the civil law concept of gift set out in the Civil Code of Quebec and the common law concept of gift that forms part of the law of property in Canada’s common law provinces. I describe how the ordinary and common law concepts have elided under Canadian tax law, and describe the doctrinal confusion that has resulted from this elision. Finally, I consider the mischaracterization of the common law of gift from the perspective of tax law’s relationship with the larger legal system. Building on a theme recently taken up by J Scott Wilkie and Peter Hogg, I argue that the mischaracterization of the ITA gift concept matters, both because it creates the impression of a state of affairs that is inconsistent with our constitutional framework, and because it harms the integrity of the private law. I conclude that the federal courts should clarify that the ITA gift concept is an ordinary non-technical concept, even if it forces them to confront difficult questions about its relationship with provincial private law.
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 | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".