HI6028 Taxation Theory Practice and Law Management

al is qualified for the tax assessment law of the nation. The reason for the assessment office giving such a great amount of significance to anindividual private status is on account of the duty office treats the residents and the non-occupants in a various way. The resident of Australia is charged for all the distinctive salaries(Chow, 2015). It doesn't make a difference if the individual is earning from abroad or the individual is earning in domestic country. If the individual is viewed as a resident of Australia, then the individual will be charged by the distinctive Australian Law.

Be that as it may, in the event of non-resident, the tax assessment office does not charge the individual of duties in each kind of wage. With the assistance of the diverse laws, the income tax office can charge an individual who is liable for the capital gain taxes. The expense might be clarified as the mandatory association in the full support of the administration which is collected on individuals, wage, property, and exchanges rates(Cortese, 2006). Tax assessment primarily takes after three guidelines like the state, government and the neighbourhood rules. Duties are partitioned into two sorts, for example, backhanded duty and direct expense. Charges comprise of some exceptional characters. These elements are obligatory instalments, and these instalments for the most part rose for government issues as it were. These instalments require not be considered as a cost of the administrations. In spite of the fact that instalments require not be viewed as like punishments. It tries to clarify as drive financial oblige which comprise of the use of the assessment, motivations to decide some monetary part, and achievement of the goals and support from where the market require no exist and the free market adjustments are blemishes. If there should be an occurrence of non-resident, the individual does not need to pay the Medicare amount (Danon, 2010).

Being a resident of Australia, Kit needs to pay the variable expenses that are relevant. The expense rates for the inhabitants are superior to the non-resident. The assessment that is charged relies on upon the worldwide wage. The bank loan cost relevant is ordinary. They are at risk for the capital additions impose. The kit may be considered as an employee as per the American company, yet Kit can be considered as the Australian citizen for tax consideration (Donald and Nicholls, 2014).  There are a couple of tests that should be directed for confirming the citizenship or private confirmation of the individual. The fundamental idea of the residency of a man relies on upon the accompanying components

1. a) If the recurrence of the individual coming back to the nation is variable, then the individual won't be considered as a non-inhabitant.
2. b) The degree of the family in the Australia and continuing the business which the individual has in Australia then the individual is called on the subject of Australia(Engdahl, 2011).
3. c) Whether the individual is joined by relatives to Australia on various types of trips or not.
4. d) If the individual is utilized in Australia all the time
5. e) If the individual assets are kept forever in the nation
6. f) The degree to which the bank or resources are kept in the nation
7. g) Whether the establishment of business in the Australia.

The domicile comprises of the diverse components that ensure the reality if the individual is a home of the nation. Another paradigm that a man needs to satisfy is the way that the individual has been living in the nation for over 183 days that is over six months(Freebairn, 2016).

In the event of Kit, the individual is dwelling in the nation for a long while. Since Kit's family has been dwelling in the nation for over three years, like this he is a resident. His home and family are in the nation. So it is apparent that in spite of being a Chilean native, Kit is likewise in charge of paying the assessments in Australia as an Australian national. The unit is qualified to pay the duties for his pay in Australia since he is the inhabitant of the nation. In spite of the fact that he has properties in Chile, yet his significant other and youngsters are occupants of Australia. So Kit is a resident of Australia. Different expenses if payable with respect to the properties of Chile are to be paid by the Chilean tenets.

Case study 2: Ordinary Income

i) Californian Copper Syndicate Ltd v Harris (Surveyor of Taxes) (1904) 5 TC 159

In the give case, the organization’s main purpose is to acquire a land. The land consists of copper and the company purchased. The copper was not extracted by the organization even after acquiring it. The company sold the land to another organization and asked for issues shares on behalf the sale(Warren, 2010). The court analyzed the case and stated that the land was sold by the company would be considered as assessable income. The company has generated income from the sale of the land. The company has earned profit from the transaction. Thus, the company has to pay tax on the generated profit amount.

ii) Scottish Australian Mining Co Ltd v FC of T (1950) 81 CLR 188

In this case, an organization started a mining coal business on a property that was purchased by the company. After a certain period, the company extracted coal from the land. The organization decided to sale the property (Heng, Niblock and Harrison, 2015). The organization subdivided the land for generating more profit. The company constructed buildings and roads on the property land. The profit generated from the sale of land should be considered as an income, and the company has to pay tax on the sale of the land.

iii) FC of T v Whit fords Beach Pty Ltd (1982) 150 CLR

For this situation, the citizen was an association or an organization which was incorporated for the reason of acquiring a territory of undeveloped land at the Whit fords beach. The land was shoreline facade which has ideal to utilize, and a gathering of people made or delivered the organization keeping in mind the end goal to buy the land and have ideal to utilize the shoreline for angling reason. After a few years, subsequently of request too great to reject, the greater part of the risky share capital of the citizen of the organization was sold(Ingles and Stewart, 2013). The new shareholders purchased the shares just to have control on the land and with the target or point that the citizen would expand, subdivide and offer lodging locales at a benefit. At the point when the subdivided property or land was last sold, the citizen differs that the benefits were not a normal wage but rather. In any case, the High Court confined that the citizen was set up a business of land improvement and benefits acquired by offering the land were quantifiable as normal salary. The court kept that when the new shareholders got the control on the organization, the target changed and that it now had a motivation behind creating, subdividing and offering the land, instead of a reason for the non-business venture. Consequently, for that business action, the offer of the land was a typical occurrence and in this way quantifiable salary too(Taylor, 2011).

iv) Statham & Anor v FC of T 89 ATC 4070

This case is related to the income tax. The tax that was assessed was adjusted in a wrong way. Later it was decided that the commissioner had adjusted the income of the estate[1].

v) Casimaty v FC of T 97 ATC 5135

This case was related to the demonstration of the circumstances where there is a lack of profit making intention in the case of profit-making intentions. It was related to the fact that the person was going to draw profit by selling a certain piece of land. The conflict rose due to the fact if the profit that is drawn is liable for taxes (Rodger, 2008).

vi) Moana Sand Pty Ltd v FC of T 88 ATC 4897

For this situation, the organization was holding the land after the sand was extracted. The organization was holding the land and was not willing to sell it to another citizen until the costs increases. This was an endeavor to build the arrival. In doing as such the organization was holding the land for a more drawn out term of time and was not making utilization of it. At the point when the land was sold, later on, the contention rose with respect to the expense that should have been paid. The court achieved the choice of the way that the land was to be sold or utilized just for business purposes. It can't be utilized for some other reason(Lakshmanan, 2015). It was likewise said that the land must be sold to somebody who wishes to utilize it for a business reason or somebody who is a relative of the proprietor of the organization.

vii) Crow v FC of T 88 ATC 4620

The given case study is primarily concerned with the former which is being undertaken as a primary of taxpayer(Palat, 2003). It is primarily found that the key farmer was extend the land. However, it is found later that the land is disputed which eventually ended in the hand of the farmer.

viii) McCurry & Anor v FC of T 98 ATC 4487

The given case primarily related to the fact which was considerable owned by the two brothers. However, it is evident from the case study that it is owned by two key brothers. Houses are few, in order to reinvent the land and the houses has been eradicated but the problem arises due to the tax payment done from the brother end regarding the land which lead to the final verdict which give a decision that the brother need not to pay the tax(Prince, 2012).

References

Chomik, R. and Piggott, J. (2016). Australian Superannuation: The Current State of Play. Australian Economic Review, 49(4), pp.483-493.

Chow, M. (2015). Australian master tax guide 2015. CCH Australia.

Cortese, C. (2006). Taxation and the Australian Superannuation System: An International Comparison. Australian Accounting Review, 16(39), pp.77-85.

Danon, R. (2010). Double taxation conventions. Zu?rich: Schulthess.

Donald, M. and Nicholls, R. (2014). Bank Custodians and Systemic Risk in the Australian Superannuation System. SSRN Electronic Journal.

Engdahl, S. (2011). Taxation. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.

Freebairn, J. (2008). Comment:on ‘The Economics of Superannuation’. Australian Economic Review, 19(3), pp.87-88.

Freebairn, J. (2016). Taxation of Housing. Australian Economic Review, 49(3), pp.307-316.

Heng, P., Niblock, S. and Harrison, J. (2015). Retirement policy: a review of the role, characteristics, and contribution of the Australian superannuation system. Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, 29(2), pp.1-17.

Ingles, D. and Stewart, M. (2013). Superannuation Tax Concessions and the Age Pension: A Principled Approach to Savings Taxation. SSRN Electronic Journal.

Lakshmanan, J. (2015). Taxation laws. [Place of publication not identified]: Universal Law Publishing.

Palat, R. (2003). Tax planning for salaried employees. Mumbai: Jaico Pub. House.

Parker, J. (2007). Tax power for the self-employed. Naperville, Ill.: Sphinx Pub.

Prince, J. (n.d.). Tax for Australians for dummies.

Rodger, A. (2008). The Economics of Superannuation. Australian Economic Review, 19(3), pp.75-86.

Taylor, S. (2011). Captured Legislators and Their Twenty Billion Dollar Annual Superannuation Cost Legacy. Australian Accounting Review, 21(3), pp.266-281.

Warren, G. (2010). Equity home bias in Australian superannuation funds. Australian Journal of Management, 35(1), pp.69-93.

[1]Tiley, J., Harris, P. and De Cogan, D. (2004). Studies in the history of tax law. Oxford: Hart.