Taxation Study Manual and Analysis †Free Samples to Students

Question: Discuss about the Taxation Study Manual and Analysis. Answer: Introduction: The major issue is to find whether the Chilean Citizen who is also designated permanent resident of Australia and residing in foreign country (Indonesia) due to employment contract would be considered Australian resident for tax purpose or not. Further, the second objective is to determine the various tax provisions that would be used for the taxation of the income received by Kit during the income tax year. The two main subsections of section 6-(5) of Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, which describe the tax liabilities on the amount of income received by individual taxpayer,are highlighted based on the tax residency status of taxpayer. According to Section 6-5(2), ITAA 1997, the income that is received from foreign land and from Australia could contribute to the taxable income if the individual taxpayer is classified as a Australian tax resident. Further, only the income that is received by taxpayer from Australian sources could contribute to the taxable income when the taxpayer is a foreign resident as per the provisions of section 6-5(3), ITAA 1997. In case of foreign resident, the income which the taxpayerhas received for deriving from investment or employment in other countries rather than Australia would not be liable for taxation (Barkoczy, 2017). It is apparent from the above that taxation treatment for the income received by taxpayer is mainly a function of tax residency position of taxpayer. Hence, Tax Ruling TR 98/17 along with section 6 (1) of ITAA, 1936 are taken into account to determine the various aspects related to tax residency of taxpayer. In TR 98/17 there are four major tests along with the pre-requisite conditions that must satiate by taxpayer to classify as resident of Australia for tax purposes. It is noteworthy, that the taxpayer who passes at least one test would pass the criteria of residency tests and thus, designated as Australia tax resident (Woellner, 2015). This test can not apply for a taxpayer who is not working for Australian government. It means the applicability of this test is valid for the taxpayer who is working for Australian Government and designated as officer or executive and staying in foreign county because of the instruction extended by the government authorities. Moreover, the second imperative condition is the contribution of taxpayer in certain specific superannuation fund schemes (Barkoczy, 2017). This test cannot be applied for the taxpayer who is permanent resident of Australia. It means the applicability of 183 day test is for foreign resident only. The two pre-requisite conditions of this residency test are intent of foreign resident to make permanent place of abode in Australia (in future) and also should have spent at least 183 days in Australia during the income tax year (Sadiq. et. al, 2016). Resides test is also applicable only for foreign resident and cannot be used for the taxpayer who is designated as permanent resident of Australia. The major aspects related to the foreign resident are citizenship of taxpayer, country of origin, the purpose (professional, educational, private and so on) of the visits to Australia, magnitude of stay, presence of any relationship with Australia and with the overseas country, and social arrangement with Australia on behalf of the taxpayer (Nethercott, Richardson and Devos, 2016). The only residency test applicable for the permanent resident (PR) of Australia is domicile test. The test is used to check the tax residency of taxpayer who is PR of Australia and is bounded to reside in overseas country due to any personal commitment or work. The two main pre-requisite conditions of domicile test are having domicile of Australia (under the provisions of Australian Domicile Act 1982) and the location of permanent place of abode in Australia only. The taxpayer would be recognised as tax resident of Australia, even though the taxpayer has spent significant time in overseas land only if the above two pre-requisite conditions are satisfied by taxpayer. Moreover, IT 2650 comprises of the ket elements related to the decision that during the stay in overseas land the permanent place of abode has shifted or located in Australia only or not. These are variation in the expected stay and actual stay in overseas land, taxpayer liquidate the house located in Australia, taxpayer acquired home in overseas land, having intention to abode further in overseas land, ties with the Australia and so forth(Barkoczy, 2017). Kit is the concerned taxpayer who holds Chilean citizenship and is recognized as permanent resident of Australia and has stayed in overseas land in order to complete the contractual duties which he signed with a United States based company. It is apparent that superannuation test cannot be used because Kit is not working for an Australian government. Further, he is designated as permanent resident and hence 183 day test and resides test are also not valid. Hence, domicile test which is valid when the taxpayer is PR would be taken into account. Applicable Residency Test - Domicile Test It is apparent that Kit is having Australian domicile because he is a PR of Australia. Moreover, under IT 2650, there are sufficient evidences present that indicate that even during the stay in overseas land, his permanent place of abode does not shift from Australia. These evidences include the fact that Kit has a house in Australia where his family lives, his salary account is credited into an Australian bank account only (Westpac bank), Kit neither has any intent to extend the stay in overseas land nor to visit any other foreign country and when he gets one month off from service, he mainly makes a visit to Australia to meet his wife and children or goes on holidays with them in South America. It can be said from the facts that permanent place of abode is in Australia only and hence, both the conditions of domicile test are satiated by taxpayer. In the accordance of domicile test, Kit would be designated as tax resident of Australia and therefore, the income received from overseas sources and Australian sources would bring into consideration for taxation according to the ordinary income tax treatment of section 6-5(2), ITAA 1997. Company with the objective of making high revenue purchased a copper mine. The investors were short in the capital and hence, borrowed money from bank and purchased the mine. The also issued the respective licenced from legal authorities regarding the mining but never started mining on the land because of no working capital. The investors subsequently sold the ownership of mine to another competitor copper mining company with the return of shares(Barkoczy, 2017). The saleable value of shares was significant and hence, handsome revenues were received by investors. Honourable court extended the verdict that the mine was purchased to make revenues not to conduct the mining of copper. The investors took loan from bank for the purchase because they all believed that the ownership of mine would be sold to other company. Therefore, the revenue received from isolated transaction would result in assessable income (Woellner, 2015). Company with the intention of conducting coal mining purchased a large sized mine and respective licenced from government. The coal mining was performed till six decades and it was found that the coal reserves were finished in the mine and hence, further mining would not be efficient then only, the investors stopped the mining on the mine and decided to use the mine for residential and domestic uses. The condition of mine was not suitable for direct use and hence, a significant amount was spent on land for making necessary developments and division. Later on, the plots were sold and attractive revenues were received by investors. The court after taking the subsequent actions of the investors decided that development and division was made on the land so that the mine land could be used because the purpose for which the mine was owned had been efficiently accomplished by the investors (Jade, 2017). Therefore, the revenues received from sale would realisation of capital asset and would not result in assessable income. A beach side land was used by a company for aeration of fishing equipments. Later on, the company was acquired by estate land development companies whose major business was to acquire the land, develop the same and sell it to prospective buyers. After taking the ownership of the company, the new owners decided to use the beach side land for their business process and hence, made subsequent divisions, development and finally sold at prospective buyers at premium prices. The court had rejected the argument of taxpayers that beach side land was a capital asset and hence, would not result the assessable income(CCH, 2017a).Court stated that the capital asset was used to serve their estate development business and hence, would result assessable income only. Taxpayers were the two brothers who had a land which they utilized to start a new cattle business from their available fund. Both the taxpayers were new in the business and hence, were unable to accomplish success in the cattle business. As a result, the business failed in the starting days only(CCH, 2017b)..They had invested a major share of their money and hence, required money to meet their living expenses. The only option open was to earn income from the sale of land. However, they did not want to sell the whole land and thus, made subdivisions on land and sold a significant part to buyer without making any advertisement. The court took the various factors such as necessity of money for family and the intention of taxpayer into consideration and opined that the sale would be classified under realisation of available capital asset and would not result assessable income (Sadiq et. al, 2016). Taxpayer received a land for farming however, his financial condition was not good and hence, he borrowed money to start farming. Taxpayer believed that he would use the farming income to pay the borrowed money. However, in the same year, drought occurred and as a result there was very insignificant income received by taxpayer. The increase in the interest rate made bad impact on his health and he started facing various health related issues. Therefore, he used the income received from farming to divide the land and then liquidated a large portion of land. The remaining portion was kept for farming and the income was employed for health treatment and to pay the outstanding debts (CCH, 2017c). Court decided that the adverse conditions (health problems and increase debt) were the major factors behind the sale and there was no profit driven or business objective of taxpayer. Therefore, the income would not assessable as it was only realisation of capital asset (Woellner,2015) Company was involved in the extraction and marketing of sand from the sand mine. After sometime, when expected gains stopped being received by the company from mining, then they decided to sale mine land. To derive attractive profit, they installed various facilities on land and carried out development works to attract premium investors. The honourable court decided that the purpose of investors behind the sale was purely to enhance the revenues. The various installation and development were the evidences of the investors aim. Therefore, the income would assessable income received from profit in case of isolated transaction (Sadiq et. al, 2016). Taxpayer was having a land which he used for farming. Later on, when he found that the actual market worth of the land was high then he decided to liquidate the land. Using a five block land size, he subsequently made 51 divisions and sold at different time intervals to prospective customers only. He also stopped engaging in farming and instead only participated in the land trading business. In this regards, he also purchased several blocks (Barkoczy, 2017). Court decided that taxpayer was involved in a business activity with the use of the land asset in his business only and hence, the assessable income from ordinary income concept would be taxable (CCH, 2017d). Taxpayers with the aim of making significant revenues acquired a property. The property contained old houses which were reconstructed and thus, resulted in three new houses. Advertisements were made for the houses and finally after a year the houses were sold at their expected prices when they got premium offers. The court decided that as the property was purchased with the purpose of profit only and same had been highlighted in the actions of the taxpayers such as advertisement and searching for premium offers. Therefore, the nature of income would be assessable income from isolated transaction enacted with profit objective (CCH, 2017e). References Barkoczy,S. (2017).Foundation of Taxation Law 2017.8th edn.North Ryde: CCH Publications. CCH (2017a), FC of T v Whit fords Beach Pty Ltd (1982) 150 CLR, Available online from https://www.iknow.cch.com.au/document/atagUio549860sl16841994/federal-commissioner-of-taxation-v-whitfords-beach-pty-ltd-high-court-of-australia-17-march-1982 [Accessed May 7, 2017] CCH (2017b), Statham Anor v FC of T 89 ATC 4070, Available online from https://www.iknow.cch.com.au/document/atagUio544343sl16788832/statham-anor-v-federal-commissioner-of-taxation-federal-court-of-australia-full-court-23-december-1988 [Accessed May 7, 2017] CCH (2017c), Casimaty v FC of T 97 ATC 5135, Available online from https://www.iknow.cch.com.au/document/atagUio539843sl16716249/casimaty-v-fc-of-t-federal-court-of-australia-10-december-1997[Accessed May 7, 2017] CCH (2017d), Crow v FC of T 88 ATC 4620, Available online from https://www.iknow.cch.com.au/document/atagUio545564sl16800674/crow-v-federal-commissioner-of-taxation-federal-court-of-australia-17-august-1988 [Accessed May 7, 2017] CCH (2017e), McCurry Anor v FC of T 98 ATC 4487, Available online from https://www.iknow.cch.com.au/document/atagUio539084sl16707683/mccurry-anor-v-fc-of-t-federal-court-of-australia-15-may-1998 [Accessed May 7, 2017] Coleman, C. (2016). Australian Tax Analysis (4thed.). Sydney: Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia. Jade (2017), Scottish Australian Mining Co Ltd v FC of T (1950) 81 CLR 188, Available online from https://jade.io/j/?a=outlineid=64663 [Accessed May 7, 2017] Nethercott, L., Richardson, G., and Devos, K. (2016).Australian Taxation Study Manual 2016.9th edn. Sydney: Oxford University Press. Sadiq, K., Coleman, C., Hanegbi, R., Jogarajan, S., Krever, R., Obst, W., and Ting, A. (2016).Principles of Taxation Law 2016.8th edn. Pymont: Thomson Reuters. Woellner, R. (2015)Australian taxation law 2015, 9th eds., North Ryde: CCH Australia.