MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2786687066

Life Is Change: Using Powers of Amendment in a Non-Charitable Trust--Rules and Tax Implications

2017· preprint· en· W2786687066 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joel Nitikman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Tax Journal/Revue fiscale canadienne · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTaxation and Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSettlorBeneficiaryTrust lawInterpretation (philosophy)Context (archaeology)Property (philosophy)Scope (computer science)Blind trustObligationExpress trustPower (physics)Law and economicsPolitical scienceLawTestamentary trustBusinessEconomicsComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A trust is an equitable obligation, owed by the trustee to the beneficiary in respect of property given by either the trustee in her personal capacity or a third-party settlor to the trustee, to be held on specified terms. Generally speaking, the trust's terms may not be amended. There are exceptions: a trust may be amended under the rule in Saunders v. Vautier, a court's salvage, or emergency powers. In the case of a trust that contains an amending power, the conditions under which the power may be exercised and the rules governing its interpretation are subject to some debate. This article explores the law relating to the interpretation and application of amending powers and the potential income tax consequences of amending a trust. In general, no rules limit the scope of an amending power: its scope and the manner in which it is exercised are based purely on its terms, interpreted in the light of their text, their context, and the factual matrix. Moreover, the use of an amending power should not result in the trust or a beneficiary being viewed as having disposed of any property for tax purposes.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.051
Scholarly communication0.0240.019
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0100.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.200 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Tax Journal/Revue fiscale canadienneSame topicTaxation and Legal IssuesFrench-language works237,207