Research programme

Three questions, one system

Tax fairness cannot be assessed one instrument at a time. FACT examines how revenue is raised, what public spending returns, and who is shut out by the way benefits are administered — as a single system.

Each theme has a lead, a method, and work already underway. Distributional analysis, welfare-economic evaluation, and administrative equity are usually pursued in separate literatures; FACT's contribution is to run them together, on the same data, across federal, provincial, and municipal levels.

An equity, diversity, inclusion, and accessibility lens runs across all three themes — not as a separate workstream, but as a question asked of every result: fair for whom, and measured how?

Theme 1

Tax Mix, Progressivity and Fairness

Canada's tax system has drifted away from capital and toward labour and consumption. Nobody has measured what that drift adds up to across all three orders of government at once.

Progressivity is usually assessed one tax at a time, at one level of government. That misses the thing people actually experience: a cumulative burden assembled from income tax, sales taxes, payroll deductions, and property tax, whose combined shape may look nothing like any of its parts. This theme builds the first integrated, multi-jurisdictional picture of that burden — and identifies where regressivity is embedded structurally rather than by design.

Methods

Microsimulation using Statistics Canada's Social Policy Simulation Database and Model (SPSD/M); Suits indices to measure specific and overall progressivity; effective and marginal tax rate analysis for representative taxpayers; reform simulation to test what would actually change incidence.

Projects

Underway
Property tax equity assessment

Whether residential property assessment — the base for municipal property tax — is systematically regressive, using linked assessment and household data. Alberta and Ontario analyses are complete; British Columbia is in progress.

In development
Whole-system progressivity

Extending the analysis from a single instrument to the full federal–provincial–municipal tax mix, with attention to how cumulative incidence differs across intersectional groups.

Theme 2

Redistribution and Public Value

Public spending is usually judged by what it costs. The harder and more useful question is what it returns.

Progressive taxation is necessary but not sufficient: what matters is the combined effect of taxes, transfers, and services. The Marginal Value of Public Funds framework measures the social value generated per dollar of government spending, integrating efficiency and equity in a single number rather than treating distribution as an afterthought. It has reshaped welfare economics in the United States and has not yet been applied systematically in Canada. This theme does that, and extends the framework to territory it has not previously covered — including the administration of tax itself.

Methods

MVPF estimation applied to Canadian transfers, credits, and programs; distributional analysis of administrative tax data; comparison against the conventional marginal cost of public funds approach, which captures efficiency loss but not distributive outcome.

Projects

Underway
MVPF for Canadian programs

Building the first Canadian MVPF estimates across a set of federal and provincial programs, supported by a two-year doctoral research placement.

Underway
MVPF-TAdmin

An extension of the framework to tax administration reform, evaluating administrative change through fiscal efficiency, distributional equity, and public value rather than cost and yield alone. Forthcoming in the Canadian Tax Journal.

In development
Lightly taxed capital

Distributional analysis of deemed disposition at death and the principal residence exemption — two large tax expenditures for which distributional analysis is not routinely published — with later extension to corporate tax integration and income sheltering.

Theme 3

Administrative Equity and Access

A benefit you cannot reach is not a benefit. Canada delivers much of its social policy through the tax return, which quietly makes filing a condition of citizenship's material entitlements.

Even a well-designed, progressive system fails the people it is meant to help if they cannot get through the door. Complexity and administrative burden drive non-take-up among eligible Canadians; compliance and audit burdens fall unevenly, with scrutiny often concentrated on low-income benefit recipients rather than high-income avoidance. This theme treats tax administration as public infrastructure and asks who it serves, who it excludes, and what would change that.

Methods

Analysis of non-filing and benefit take-up; institutional and governance analysis of benefit delivery; survey research on tax literacy, compliance behaviour, and access barriers; comparative work on return simplicity and automatic filing in other jurisdictions.

Projects

Underway
Tax filing as state infrastructure

Governance gaps in Canada's tax-based benefit system: what happens when benefit delivery depends on an administrative process never designed to carry it. Forthcoming in the Canadian Tax Journal.

Underway
Automatic filing

How far automatic and pre-filled returns could extend in Canada, who would gain from them, and what design choices determine whether the gain reaches non-filers at all.

In development
Access to disability-related income supports

Survey-based research on the administrative barriers facing applicants to provincial disability income programs, and what they reveal about accreditation and eligibility gatekeeping more broadly.

In development
Tax literacy and compliance

Extending Canadian survey evidence on what taxpayers understand about the system and how that shapes compliance — including bringing existing French-language findings to an English-language audience.


Open by default, bilingual by design

FACT is a mixed-methods programme: administrative tax data accessed through Statistics Canada's Research Data Centres, microsimulation modelling, survey research, and institutional analysis. Research data is managed according to Tri-Council principles, and publicly shareable datasets are hosted with attribution to the researchers who built them.

Research design is academic-led and independent. Mobilization is co-developed with Social Capital Partners and the Canadian Tax Observatory, so that findings are tested in real policy environments and reach policymakers, journalists, and the public in both official languages. Publications are open access wherever possible.

The partnership also trains people. Graduate students and postdoctoral researchers work across all three themes, co-authoring outputs and gaining experience translating academic analysis for organizations that have to act on it.

See what this research has produced

Peer-reviewed articles, briefs, and plain-language pieces — published open access and mobilized in both official languages.

View all outputs →

The Fair and Accountable Canadian Taxation (FACT) Partnership: The Fair Tax Initiative is supported in part by funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Partnership Development Grant 890-2025-0173, 2026–2029). Additional cash and in-kind support is provided by Social Capital Partners, the Canadian Tax Observatory, and Carleton University.

Le partenariat Fair and Accountable Canadian Taxation (FACT) : The Fair Tax Initiative est en partie financé par le Conseil de recherches en sciences humaines du Canada (subvention de développement de partenariat 890-2025-0173, 2026-2029). Un appui financier et en nature additionnel est fourni par Social Capital Partners, l'Observatoire canadien de la fiscalité et l'Université Carleton.

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada / Conseil de recherches en sciences humaines du Canada

Research published by FACT is supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and is not a product of SSHRC. Views expressed are those of the researchers.
Les recherches publiées par FACT sont financées par le Conseil de recherches en sciences humaines du Canada et ne constituent pas un produit du CRSH. Les opinions exprimées sont celles des chercheuses et chercheurs.