Analysis of the positive tax law affecting First Nations in the context of Canadian tax policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Section 87 of the 'Indian Act'1 contains a tax exemption for 'Indians' and 'bands' insofar as their property is located on a reserve. This thesis explores the historical origins, justification, and the scope of the 'Indian Act' tax exemption, and considers its effect on Canadian tax policy. For any tax system to operate fairly and efficiently, all citizens within the subject jurisdiction must be chargeable to tax at a 'pro rata' rate. This idea is borne out within the Canadian tax system itself, which uses domicile to determine whether an individual should be required to bear a horizontally and vertically equitable tax burden. Having said that, there is an historical and legal rationale for exempting reserve-based Indians from the tax structure, whereby reserved lands are treated as extra-territorial entities, separate from Canada for tax purposes. At present, band councils are not legally entitled to levy a tax on their reserve residents, and until such time as First Nations are in a position to 'self-govern', without relying solely upon federal transfer payments, Canada's tax system can never be truly equitable or efficient. 1The 'Indian Act', RSC 1985, c. I-5.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".