Evaluation of the Effects of Tax for the Wages-Free-Samples

Questions: 1.Can Robyn be taxed on any part of her salary, from Victoria University, in Australia for the 2016/17 tax year and any other years she acts as coordinator in Calcutta. Fully explain your answer. Ignorer the operation of double tax agreements. 2.Determine what amounts will form part of Pauls assessable income for the 2016/17 taxation year. Fully explain your answer. Answers: 1.Issues: The issue which is discussed below depends on the evaluation of the effects of tax for the wages or the salary which were derived by a resident of Australia who is working overseas and for taxation purposes, has to leave the country. Legislation: C. of T. v. Jenkins 82 ATC 4098 C. of T. v. Applegate(1979) 9 ATR 899 Henderson v. Henderson [1965] 1 All E.R.179 Subsection 6 (1) of income tax assessment act 1936 Taxation rulings of IT 2650 Application: This particular study considers the tax treatment of the salary which have been ascertained by Can Robyn from the Indian Subcontinent in the form of an employment overseas in order to work as an arranger for the University of Calcutta. The requirements for working as a co-ordinator were lengthy, because Can Robyn desired to work for so long as there would be the existence of the course in the University of Calcutta. According to the taxation rulings of IT 2650 the guidelines aim to be laid for ascertaining whether a particular person who leaves the country Australia, to reside overseas temporarily due to work assignments ceases to remain an Australian resident due to the reason of income tax during their stay outside the Country of Australia. [1] In accordance with the subsection 6 (1) of income tax assessment act 1936 individuals having domicile in Australia as given by the commissioner remains satisfied by their abode being outside of the country Australia[2]. According to the statement under subsection 6 (1) an individual residing in Australia, for more than half of the entire year of income will be considered as a resident of Australia unless there is contentment within the commissioner that the individual does not intend to stay in Australia for a permanent period of time. Regarding the subsection 6 (1) of the ITAA 1936 it can be stated that Can Robyn would be considered as a resident of Australia as she has stayed in Australia for not less than half of the entire year of income before leaving the country[3]. Evidently, a flat was under the ownership of Can Robyn, and it was not abandoned by her. There is a possibility that the flat owned by Can Robyn was on mortgage and the amount of mortgage was paid from the income of employment which was received in the bank account in Australia. According to the statement in Henderson v. Henderson [1965] 1 All E.R.179 the own origin of a persons domicile is maintained unless the particular individual acquires their own choice of domicile in a different state by the law operations[4]. From the current study it can be stated that Can Robyn has kept her Melbourne flat retained, and it is her intention to return to Australia clearly which foreseen as well as expected, as also the contingency after the end of her employment in Calcutta University. Based on the liability of Tax, on the segment of income which is assessable in the bank account in Australia, the tax liability originates in the connected to the taxation ruling of IT 2650 the residence of the taxpayers must be considered after putting the rulings discussed above[5]. In case the references F.C. of T. v. Applegate(1979) 9 ATR 899 the question of the utmost importance is the residential status of an individual organisation leaving the Australian country for the tax purpose. In general the particular individual leaving Australia permanently would be regarded as upholding the Australian Domicile omitting the individual gets a different place to stay based on the law operations[6]. According to the present situation, Can Robyn will be considered to have kept her Australian Citizenship due to the maintenance of her bank account in Australia such that it becomes possible for her to pay for her mortgage flat from the remuneration amount provided to her in her bank account in Australia. Thus, a Visa in working condition for a significant period of time would not be thought of as sufficient evidence of attaining a new domicile for Can Robyn. Determining the consequences of tax, the salary received by Can in her bank account would be considered as foreign employment of income. The foreign employment and its income, can be defined as that income of a particular individual who is an Australian resident working as an employee overseas. Any resident of Australia, is usually taxed on the basis of income which is obtained in every quarter of the world. In connection to the present scenario, Can Robyns income amount obtained from the Australian bank account belonging to her would be treated as assessable income. It is to be understood that the a payment given in Australia can still qualify for foreign income even if the amount is not derived by a person working outside the country anywhere overseas. With regard to F.C. of T. v. Jenkins 82 ATC 4098 the foreign employment obtained from the Indian subcontinent, would attract the liability of tax and is likely to comprise a segment of the assessable income in the form of overseas em ployment income[7]. 2.Issues: The present issue depends on the determination of taxable income of the payer of tax which has the personal business of the Teacher of Golf. Legislation: Barratt v. FC of T92 ATC Henderson v. FC of T(1970) Taxation Rulings TR 93/11 Subsection 6-5 (2) and (3) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Subsection 25 (1) Application: In compliance with subsection 6-5 (2) and (3) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 it is compulsory for each of the taxpayers to take account of the income which is taxable in the gross or total income which they generate[8]. As mentioned in subsections 6-5 (2) and (3) an income ascertained at the time of the income year but obtained from another income year was thought of as a topic of speculation by the taxpayers. It is crucial for the taxpayers to apply the suitable method of ascertaining the earnings applied in a particular year of income[9]. As defined in taxation rulings of TR 93/11 it is important for each individual to apply one of the two processes namely the earning process or receipt process of the accounting tax in order to determine the assessable income. Based on the TR 93/11 the fee income receipt, under the subsection 25 (1) will be regarded as connected to the ordinary conceptions of ITAA 1936 for experts or professionals whose income is to be assessed under the accrual basis[10]. As is clear from the scenario discussed, which was received by Paul, he received a free earning from the golfs private lessons from his clients. This gave the introduction to the concepts discussed under subsection 25 (1) of the ITAA[11]. This needs to be ascertained from the current study on Paul with regard to the contract that Paul entered. It has also been determined that the Paul was given a fee by Doreen, after imparting five years of golf lessons. This resulted in the recoverable debt establishment in case the professional person is not required to perform any actions before the debt is entitled to be paid. There is the possibility of recovering the fees if the time for reimbursement has been sanctioned. In the case of Henderson v. FC of T(1970) assessable income in terms of accrual basis is ascertained under the subsection 25 (1) of the ITAA where a recoverable debt is formed. Along with this particular development, an individual who is extremely professional receives the fee income beforehand and an arrangement has been created between the client and the professionals fee income, which is generated becomes connected either entirely or partially for which the person completes the work[12]. From the current scenario it is evident that the derivable fee income by Paul, is thought of as a part of his assessable income will be considered at the time of considering the determination of tax liability. From the current study of Paul, the fee income receipt by Doreen would be considered as a segment of assessable income. The amount of fees that Paul received would be regarded as the assessable income. This is because, the fee receipt would be considered as assessable income for the lesson he provided to his client[13]. During the time of ascertaining the assessable income belonging to Paul, receipt of sum $6,000 and $28,000 from the lessons on Golf, would be considered as taxable income. As in the case of Barratt v. FC of T92 ATC the court of Australia has also taken the statutory impediment under consideration at the beginning of the proceedings of bad but recoverable debt[14]. Particular Amount Receipt 6000 Lessons from Golf 28000 Taxable income 34000 However, this does not put of the time of derived fee income under the subsection 25 (1) by the professional person, the income of whom would be treated for tax purpose under the accrual basis[15]. Conclusion: In terms of the conclusion of the stated case study, the situation of Paul, is thought of as the considered as the aftermath of income tax at the time of business. With regard to the sub-section 25 (1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 the amount which Paul received as his earnings, from the golf lessons imparted, are to be treated as assessable income and will be taken into consideration in the calculation of the assessable income. Reference List: Anderson, Colin, Jennifer Dickfos, and Catherine Brown. "The Australian Taxation Office-what role does it play in anti-phoenix activity?."INSOLVENCY LAW JOURNAL24.2 (2016): 127-140. Barkoczy, Stephen. "Foundations of Taxation Law 2016."OUP Catalogue(2016). Blakelock, Sarah, and Peter King. "Taxation law: The advance of ATO data matching."Proctor, The37.6 (2017): 18. Braithwaite, Valerie. "Responsive regulation and taxation: Introduction."Law Policy29.1 (2013): 3-10. Cao, Liangyue, et al. "Understanding the economy-wide efficiency and incidence of major Australian taxes."Treasury WP1 (2015). Davis, Angela K., et al. "Do socially responsible firms pay more taxes?."The Accounting Review91.1 (2015): 47-68. Fry, Martin. "Australian taxation of offshore hubs: an examination of the law on the ability of Australia to tax economic activity in offshore hubs and the position of the Australian Taxation Office."The APPEA Journal57.1 (2017): 49-63. Pinto, Dale. "State taxes."Australian Taxation Law. CCH Australia Limited, 2011. 1763-1762. ROBIN, H.AUSTRALIAN TAXATION LAW 2017. OXFORD University Press, 2017. Ross, Monique, Jarrod Walker, and John Walker. "Multinationals targeted down under."Taxation in Australia52.1 (2017): 22. Smith, Fiona, et al. "Reforms required to the Australian tax system to improve biodiversity conservation on private land."Environmental and planning law journal33.5 (2016): 443-450. Snape, John, and Jeremy De Souza.Environmental taxation law: policy, contexts and practice. Routledge, 2016. Tan, Lin Mei, Valerie Braithwaite, and Monika Reinhart. "Why do small business taxpayers stay with their practitioners? Trust, competence and aggressive advice."International Small Business Journal34.3 (2016): 329-344. Taylor, Grantley, and Grant Richardson. "The determinants of thinly capitalized tax avoidance structures: Evidence from Australian firms."Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation22.1 (2013): 12-25. Vann, Richard J. "Hybrid Entities in Australia: Resource Capital Fund III LP Case." (2016). Woellner, R. H., et al.Australian Taxation Law Select: Legislation and Commentary 2016. Oxford University Press, 2016. Pinto, Dale. "State taxes."Australian Taxation Law. CCH Australia Limited, 2011. 1763-1762. Woellner, R. H., et al.Australian Taxation Law Select: Legislation and Commentary 2016. Oxford University Press, 2016. ROBIN, H.AUSTRALIAN TAXATION LAW 2017. OXFORD University Press, 2017. Blakelock, Sarah, and Peter King. "Taxation law: The advance of ATO data matching."Proctor, The37.6 (2017): 18. Braithwaite, Valerie. "Responsive regulation and taxation: Introduction."Law Policy29.1 (2013): 3-10. Vann, Richard J. "Hybrid Entities in Australia: Resource Capital Fund III LP Case." (2016). Barkoczy, Stephen. "Foundations of Taxation Law 2016."OUP Catalogue(2016). Snape, John, and Jeremy De Souza.Environmental taxation law: policy, contexts and practice. Routledge, 2016. Cao, Liangyue, et al. "Understanding the economy-wide efficiency and incidence of major Australian taxes."Treasury WP1 (2015). Taylor, Grantley, and Grant Richardson. "The determinants of thinly capitalized tax avoidance structures: Evidence from Australian firms."Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation22.1 (2013): 12-25. Fry, Martin. "Australian taxation of offshore hubs: an examination of the law on the ability of Australia to tax economic activity in offshore hubs and the position of the Australian Taxation Office."The APPEA Journal57.1 (2017): 49-63. Ross, Monique, Jarrod Walker, and John Walker. "Multinationals targeted down under."Taxation in Australia52.1 (2017): 22. Anderson, Colin, Jennifer Dickfos, and Catherine Brown. "The Australian Taxation Office-what role does it play in anti-phoenix activity?."INSOLVENCY LAW JOURNAL24.2 (2016): 127-140. Davis, Angela K., et al. "Do socially responsible firms pay more taxes?."The Accounting Review91.1 (2015): 47-68. Smith, Fiona, et al. "Reforms required to the Australian tax system to improve biodiversity conservation on private land."Environmental and planning law journal33.5 (2016): 443-450.