Dissonance between Fact and Law: The Example of Visual Artistic Practice and Income Tax Concessions for Peak Copyright
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The principal income tax statutes of both New Zealand and Australia provide special concessions for taxpayers who earn exceptional copyright income in a year of assessment. As authors (creators) of copyright-protected artistic works, visual artists are potential beneficiaries of these preferences but, because they typically produce singular artworks that are not licensed for reproduction, they cannot directly benefit from copyright or, as a consequence, tax concessions granted to copyright assignors or licensors. In New Zealand, a taxpayer who receives peak copyright payments can opt to average those receipts over more than one assessment year. An Australian taxpayer can spread their more broadly defined assessable professional income and, if they operate a professional arts business, may enjoy an exception to the non-commercial loss rules, and so may claim net losses in the year they are incurred. The substantive provisions of neither the Income Tax Act 2007 nor the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) expressly incorporates provisions of copyright legislation but both taxing statutes explicitly import copyright terminology and, implicitly, concepts and doctrine. Examination of differences between fact and law is a significant field of legal research. In taxation studies, John Prebble's identification of "ectopia" presents the best-known analysis. Prebble characterises income tax law as "ectopic" (out of place), inasmuch as it is dislocated from the facts to which it relates. Copyright law is likewise dislocated from typical artistic practice. When copyright principles are incorporated into income tax legislation, the relevant provisions may be doubly estranged from the facts to which they relate. This article, which has an Australasian jurisdictional focus but also draws on Quebecois tax legislation, investigates that possibility and considers, in particular, the consequences for equity in income taxation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".