Dataset Viewer
answer
stringclasses 3
values | index
stringclasses 6
values | text
stringclasses 6
values | input
stringclasses 6
values |
|---|---|---|---|
allowed | 0 | The appeal from the reassessment dated October 29, 2018 made under the Income Tax Act for the 2017 taxation year is allowed, without costs, and the reassessment is vacated in accordance with the attached reasons for judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 14th day of July 2020.
David E. Spiro
Spiro J.
| INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other.
Options: allowed, dismissed, other
JUDGMENT EXCERPT: The appeal from the reassessment dated October 29, 2018 made under the Income Tax Act for the 2017 taxation year is allowed, without costs, and the reassessment is vacated in accordance with the attached reasons for judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 14th day of July 2020.
David E. Spiro
Spiro J.
OUTCOME: |
allowed | 1 | This appeal is allowed and the matter is referred back to the Minister for reconsideration and further redeterminations on the bases that the Appellant is entitled to the denied CCTB benefit payments for the beginning of each month within the period July 2013 through to and including March 2015, and also that the Appellant is entitled to the denied GSTC benefit payments for the beginning of each July, October, January and April within the said period July 2013 through to and including March 2015.
Signed at Halifax, Nova Scotia, this 30th day of July 2020.
B.Russell
Russell J.
| INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other.
Options: allowed, dismissed, other
JUDGMENT EXCERPT: This appeal is allowed and the matter is referred back to the Minister for reconsideration and further redeterminations on the bases that the Appellant is entitled to the denied CCTB benefit payments for the beginning of each month within the period July 2013 through to and including March 2015, and also that the Appellant is entitled to the denied GSTC benefit payments for the beginning of each July, October, January and April within the said period July 2013 through to and including March 2015.
Signed at Halifax, Nova Scotia, this 30th day of July 2020.
B.Russell
Russell J.
OUTCOME: |
dismissed | 2 | The appeal from the reassessments made under the Income Tax Act with respect to the Appellants 2008 and 2009 taxation years is dismissed, without costs, in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Montral, Qubec this 23rd day of April 2014.
Patrick Boyle
Boyle J.
| INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other.
Options: allowed, dismissed, other
JUDGMENT EXCERPT: The appeal from the reassessments made under the Income Tax Act with respect to the Appellants 2008 and 2009 taxation years is dismissed, without costs, in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Montral, Qubec this 23rd day of April 2014.
Patrick Boyle
Boyle J.
OUTCOME: |
dismissed | 3 | The appeal filed by the Appellant against the Respondents decision regarding the calculation of the guaranteed income supplement that she was entitled to under the Old Age Security Act for the months of February to June 2014 (included within the payment period of July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014) is dismissed in accordance with the attached reasons for judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 12th day of December 2018.
Ral Favreau
Favreau J.
| INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other.
Options: allowed, dismissed, other
JUDGMENT EXCERPT: The appeal filed by the Appellant against the Respondents decision regarding the calculation of the guaranteed income supplement that she was entitled to under the Old Age Security Act for the months of February to June 2014 (included within the payment period of July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014) is dismissed in accordance with the attached reasons for judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 12th day of December 2018.
Ral Favreau
Favreau J.
OUTCOME: |
other | 4 | Pursuant to Rule 172 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), these amended reasons for judgment are issued in substitution to the reasons for judgment issued on May 26, 2015.
Upon paragraphs [9] and [10] having been inadvertently inverted;
The reasons for judgment issued on May 26, 2015 are therefore amended so that former paragraph [10] now reads as paragraph [9], and former paragraph [9] now reads as paragraph [10], as per the attached amended reasons for judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 10th day of June 2015.
"Gerald J. Rip"
Rip J.
| INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other.
Options: allowed, dismissed, other
JUDGMENT EXCERPT: Pursuant to Rule 172 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), these amended reasons for judgment are issued in substitution to the reasons for judgment issued on May 26, 2015.
Upon paragraphs [9] and [10] having been inadvertently inverted;
The reasons for judgment issued on May 26, 2015 are therefore amended so that former paragraph [10] now reads as paragraph [9], and former paragraph [9] now reads as paragraph [10], as per the attached amended reasons for judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 10th day of June 2015.
"Gerald J. Rip"
Rip J.
OUTCOME: |
other | 5 | (Delivered orally at the hearing of May 2, 2006, at Montral, Quebec.)
Lamarre Proulx J.
[1] These appeals pertain to the 2002 and 2003 taxation years.
[2] The facts are set out as follows in paragraph 18 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal ("the Reply"):
[TRANSLATION]
(a) The Appellant worked as an investment advisor for Laurentian Bank Securities Inc. (hereinafter "LBS") from January 2000 to October 2002.
(b) On June 13, 2000, the Appellant signed an employment agreement with LBS.
...
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 15th day of May 2006.
"Louise Lamarre Proulx"
Lamarre Proulx J.
Translation certified true
on this 31st day of October 2006
Monica F. Chamberlain, Reviser
| INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other.
Options: allowed, dismissed, other
JUDGMENT EXCERPT: (Delivered orally at the hearing of May 2, 2006, at Montral, Quebec.)
Lamarre Proulx J.
[1] These appeals pertain to the 2002 and 2003 taxation years.
[2] The facts are set out as follows in paragraph 18 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal ("the Reply"):
[TRANSLATION]
(a) The Appellant worked as an investment advisor for Laurentian Bank Securities Inc. (hereinafter "LBS") from January 2000 to October 2002.
(b) On June 13, 2000, the Appellant signed an employment agreement with LBS.
...
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 15th day of May 2006.
"Louise Lamarre Proulx"
Lamarre Proulx J.
Translation certified true
on this 31st day of October 2006
Monica F. Chamberlain, Reviser
OUTCOME: |
DatologyAI/legalbench
Overview
This dataset contains 26 legal reasoning tasks from LegalBench, processed for easy use in language model evaluation. Each task preserves its original data and includes an additional input column with a formatted prompt, generated using the LegalBench registry, ready to be fed directly into language models.
Task Categories
- Basic Legal:
canada_tax_court_outcomes,jcrew_blocker,learned_hands_benefits,telemarketing_sales_rule - Citation:
citation_prediction_classification - Diversity Analysis:
diversity_3,diversity_5,diversity_6 - Jurisdiction:
personal_jurisdiction - SARA Analysis:
sara_entailment,sara_numeric - Supply Chain Disclosure:
supply_chain_disclosure_best_practice_accountability,supply_chain_disclosure_best_practice_certification,supply_chain_disclosure_best_practice_training - MAUD Contract Analysis:
maud_ability_to_consummate_concept_is_subject_to_mae_carveouts,maud_additional_matching_rights_period_for_modifications_cor,maud_change_in_law_subject_to_disproportionate_impact_modifier,maud_changes_in_gaap_or_other_accounting_principles_subject_to_disproportionate_impact_modifier,maud_cor_permitted_in_response_to_intervening_event,maud_fls_mae_standard,maud_includes_consistent_with_past_practice,maud_initial_matching_rights_period_cor,maud_ordinary_course_efforts_standard,maud_pandemic_or_other_public_health_event_subject_to_disproportionate_impact_modifier,maud_pandemic_or_other_public_health_event_specific_reference_to_pandemic_related_governmental_responses_or_measures,maud_type_of_consideration
Task Details
| Task Name | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| canada\_tax\_court\_outcomes | multiple_choice | INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dismissed, other |
| citation\_prediction\_classification | multiple_choice | Can the case can be used as a citation for the provided text? |
| diversity\_3 | multiple_choice | Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is (1) complete diversity between plaintiffs and defendants, and (2) the amount-in-controversy (AiC) is greater than $75k. |
| diversity\_5 | multiple_choice | Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is (1) complete diversity between plaintiffs and defendants, and (2) the amount-in-controversy (AiC) is greater than $75k. |
| diversity\_6 | multiple_choice | Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is (1) complete diversity between plaintiffs and defendants, and (2) the amount-in-controversy (AiC) is greater than $75k. |
| jcrew\_blocker | multiple_choice | The JCrew Blocker is a provision that typically includes (1) a prohibition on the borrower from transferring IP to an unrestricted subsidiary, and (2) a requirement that the borrower obtains the consent of its agent/lenders before transferring IP to any subsidiary. Do the following provisions contain JCrew Blockers? |
| learned\_hands\_benefits | multiple_choice | Does the post discuss public benefits and social services that people can get from the government, like for food, disability, old age, housing, medical help, unemployment, child care, or other social needs? |
| maud\_ability\_to\_consummate\_concept\_is\_subject\_to\_mae\_carveouts | multiple_choice | Instruction: Read the segment of a merger agreement and answer the multiple-choice question by choosing the option that best characterizes the agreement. Question: Is the 'ability to consummate' concept subject to Material Adverse Effect (MAE) carveouts? Option A: No Option B: Yes |
| maud\_additional\_matching\_rights\_period\_for\_modifications\_cor | multiple_choice | Instruction: Read the segment of a merger agreement and answer the multiple-choice question by choosing the option that best characterizes the agreement. Question: How long is the additional matching rights period for modifications in case the board changes its recommendation? Option A: 2 business days or less Option B: 3 business days Option C: 3 days Option D: 4 business days Option E: 5 business days Option F: > 5 business days Option G: None |
| maud\_change\_in\_law\_subject\_to\_disproportionate\_impact\_modifier | multiple_choice | Instruction: Read the segment of a merger agreement and answer the multiple-choice question by choosing the option that best characterizes the agreement. Question: Do changes in law that have disproportionate impact qualify for Material Adverse Effect (MAE)? Option A: No Option B: Yes |
| maud\_changes\_in\_gaap\_or\_other\_accounting\_principles\_subject\_to\_disproportionate\_impact\_modifier | multiple_choice | Instruction: Read the segment of a merger agreement and answer the multiple-choice question by choosing the option that best characterizes the agreement. Question: Do changes in GAAP or other accounting principles that have disproportionate impact qualify for Material Adverse Effect (MAE)? Option A: No Option B: Yes |
| maud\_cor\_permitted\_in\_response\_to\_intervening\_event | multiple_choice | Instruction: Read the segment of a merger agreement and answer the multiple-choice question by choosing the option that best characterizes the agreement. Question: Is Change of Recommendation permitted in response to an intervening event? Option A: No Option B: Yes |
| maud\_fls\_mae\_standard | multiple_choice | Instruction: Read the segment of a merger agreement and answer the multiple-choice question by choosing the option that best characterizes the agreement. Question: What is the Forward Looking Standard (FLS) with respect to Material Adverse Effect (MAE)? Option A: "Could" (reasonably) be expected to Option B: "Would" Option C: "Would" (reasonably) be expected to Option D: No Option E: Other forward-looking standard |
| maud\_includes\_consistent\_with\_past\_practice | multiple_choice | Instruction: Read the segment of a merger agreement and answer the multiple-choice question by choosing the option that best characterizes the agreement. Question: Does the wording of the Efforts Covenant clause include 'consistent with past practice'? Option A: No Option B: Yes |
| maud\_initial\_matching\_rights\_period\_cor | multiple_choice | Instruction: Read the segment of a merger agreement and answer the multiple-choice question by choosing the option that best characterizes the agreement. Question: How long is the initial matching rights period in case the board changes its recommendation? Option A: 2 business days or less Option B: 3 business days Option C: 3 calendar days Option D: 4 business days Option E: 4 calendar days Option F: 5 business days Option G: Greater than 5 business days |
| maud\_ordinary\_course\_efforts\_standard | multiple_choice | Instruction: Read the segment of a merger agreement and answer the multiple-choice question by choosing the option that best characterizes the agreement. Question: What is the efforts standard? Option A: Commercially reasonable efforts Option B: Flat covenant (no efforts standard) Option C: Reasonable best efforts |
| maud\_pandemic\_or\_other\_public\_health\_event\_subject\_to\_disproportionate\_impact\_modifier | multiple_choice | Instruction: Read the segment of a merger agreement and answer the multiple-choice question by choosing the option that best characterizes the agreement. Question: Do pandemics or other public health events have to have disproportionate impact to qualify for Material Adverse Effect (MAE)? Option A: No Option B: Yes |
| maud\_pandemic\_or\_other\_public\_health\_event\_specific\_reference\_to\_pandemic\_related\_governmental\_responses\_or\_measures | multiple_choice | Instruction: Read the segment of a merger agreement and answer the multiple-choice question by choosing the option that best characterizes the agreement. Question: Is there specific reference to pandemic-related governmental responses or measures in the clause that qualifies pandemics or other public health events for Material Adverse Effect (MAE)? Option A: No Option B: Yes |
| maud\_type\_of\_consideration | multiple_choice | Instruction: Read the segment of a merger agreement and answer the multiple-choice question by choosing the option that best characterizes the agreement. Question: What type of consideration is specified in this agreement? Option A: All Cash Option B: All Stock Option C: Mixed Cash/Stock Option D: Mixed Cash/Stock: Election |
| personal\_jurisdiction | multiple_choice | There is personal jurisdiction over a defendant in the state where the defendant is domiciled, or when (1) the defendant has sufficient contacts with the state, such that they have availed itself of the privileges of the state and (2) the claim arises out of the nexus of the defendant's contacts with the state. |
| sara\_entailment | multiple_choice | Determine whether the following statements are entailed under the statute. |
| sara\_numeric | regression | Answer the following questions. |
| supply\_chain\_disclosure\_best\_practice\_accountability | multiple_choice | Evaluates supply chain disclosure practices |
| supply\_chain\_disclosure\_best\_practice\_certification | multiple_choice | Evaluates supply chain disclosure practices |
| supply\_chain\_disclosure\_best\_practice\_training | multiple_choice | Evaluates supply chain disclosure practices |
| telemarketing\_sales\_rule | multiple_choice | The Telemarketing Sales Rule is provided by 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(1) and 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(2). |
Data Format
Each dataset retains its original columns from LegalBench and adds an input column containing a pre-formatted prompt based on the task's instructions and template from the LegalBench registry. This input column is designed for direct use with language models. The column structure varies by task; common examples include:
- Basic Legal:
answer,index,text,input - Citation:
answer,citation,index,text,input - Diversity Analysis:
aic_is_met,answer,index,parties_are_diverse,text,input - Jurisdiction:
answer,index,slice,text,input - SARA Analysis:
answer,case id,description,index,question,statute,text,input - Supply Chain Disclosure:
answer,index,text,input - MAUD Contract Analysis:
answer,index,text,input
Usage
Load and use a task dataset as follows:
from datasets import load_dataset
# Load a specific task
dataset = load_dataset("DatologyAI/legalbench", "canada_tax_court_outcomes")
# Access the formatted input and answer
example = dataset["test"][0]
print("Input:", example["input"])
print("Answer:", example["answer"])
Model Evaluation Example
Evaluate a language model on a task:
from datasets import load_dataset
from transformers import AutoTokenizer, AutoModelForCausalLM
# Load model and tokenizer
model_name = "meta-llama/Llama-2-7b-chat-hf"
tokenizer = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained(model_name)
model = AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained(model_name)
# Load a task
dataset = load_dataset("DatologyAI/legalbench", "personal_jurisdiction")
example = dataset["test"][0]
# Generate response
inputs = tokenizer(example["input"], return_tensors="pt")
outputs = model.generate(inputs["input_ids"], max_new_tokens=10, temperature=0.0)
response = tokenizer.decode(outputs[0][inputs["input_ids"].shape[1]:], skip_special_tokens=True)
print(f"Gold answer: {example['answer']}")
print(f"Model response: {response}")
- Downloads last month
- 32