REFERENTIAL TAX LEGISLATION: THE ROLE OF PROVINCIAL LAW IN THE MEDICAL EXPENSE TAX CREDIT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 2001 there has been an explosion of Tax Court of Canada decisions interpreting “medical practitioner” for purposes of determining a taxpayer’s eligibility for the medical expense tax credit. In each decision, the definition of medical practitioner was indirectly provided by provincial (or other non-federal) law. This article considers the role of non-federal law in the current interpretation of “medical practitioner” under subsection 118.4(2) of the Act. Based on the history of the provision and the policy implications of deferring to non-federal law in this context, it is argued that the role of non-federal law under the medical expense tax credit is atypical and its consequences are difficult to justify from a federal tax policy perspective. Further, it is argued that the current reliance on non-federal law represents an unexplained and dramatic policy shift following the 1988 amendments that converted the prior deduction for certain medical expenses into tax credits. This policy shift results from the definition of “medical practitioner” as “a person authorized to practice as such … pursuant to the laws of the jurisdiction in which the service is rendered” (the words “as such” were added making it a reflective definition). Case law following the 1988 amendments interpreted the definition of “medical practitioner” to require a substantive determination under provincial (or other nonfederal) law. Implications of, and alternatives to, defining this term under provincial law are explored. The constitutional basis for incorporating provincial law in this fashion is discussed, concluding that the decided constitutional authorities cast significant doubt on the federal government’s competence to adopt provincial law in this fashion on a division of powers basis. Although the scope of this paper is limited to the role of non-federal law in the context of the medical expense tax credit, the implications of the reliance of non-federal law pervade the interpretation of federal taxation law in Canada.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 teacher head, 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".