Trusted by 2+ million users, 1000+ happy students everyday
Showing pages 1 to 3 of 10 pages
Principles of Income Tax STUDENT ID: [Pick the date]
PRINCIPLES OF INCOME TAX PART A Question 1A Compensation of $ 50,000 It is apparent that Melissa has an employment contract which entitles her to a performance based bonus whose higher limit is $ 15,000. As a result, this contractual right that Melissa has can be equated to the presence of the right to compensation. As per the relevant details, it is apparent that the employer is willing to pay a sum of $ 50,000 for the right to give up the bonus which would be enacted by suitably modifying the existing contract to delete bonus provision. It is apparent that giving up this right can be equated to giving up of an asset for a total of $ 50,000. This is in accordance with the tax ruling TR 95/351. Withregardstoascertainingwhetherthe concernedreceiptisincomeor capital,the underlying circumstances and the cause for which the receipt has been extended needs to be taken into consideration as highlighted in theFC of T v. Slaven84 ATC 4077; (1984) 15 ATR 242. It is apparent that in the given case as the compensation has been extending for giving up a right which essentially constitutes an asset, hence the payment derived therein would be considered as capital. Thus $ 50,000 compensation received by Melissa would not be termed as either ordinary or statutory income. Compensation of $ 4,000 In accordance with s. 6(5) ITAA 1997, ordinary income may be defined as income which tends to arise on account of ordinary concepts2. One of the key categories of ordinary income is employment income and related allowances. Typically these allowances are of regular nature and received by the taxpayer irrespective of any expenses or cost being incurred. In the given case, payment is being extended for ensuring that all professional employees at head office including Melissa do not utter any negative comment to the media3. Hence, this compensation is not being derived on the basis of her services offered to the organisation. Instead, these are being extended so as to limit the freedom and right to opinion about the employer to the media. Thus, keeping in mind the purpose, the circumstance and nature of ayment, in accordance with theFC of T v. Slaven4case, it is fair to conclude that the payment of $ 4,000 would not be treated as ordinary income under s.6(5) for Melissa. Question 1B 1ATO,‘TaxationRulingTR95/35’, ATO(online),29November2006 http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?locid=txr/tr9535/nat/ato 2Barkoczy,Stephen, Foundation of Taxation Law 2015, (North Ryde, CCH, 2015) 3Gilders, Frank, et. al., Understanding taxation law 2015.(LexisNexis, Butterworths 2015) 4FC of T v. Slaven84 ATC 4077; (1984) 15 ATR 242 case
PRINCIPLES OF INCOME TAX For the given question, there are two aspects namely to determine the amount of capital gains based on the given information and also to determine if it is possible for Julie to take advantage of the CGT concessions that the government offers for small businesses. Qualification as a small business In order to qualify for CGT concessions available to a small business, one of the following three conditions must be satisfied (section 152-10, ITAA 1997)5. The annual turnover of the small business must be less than $ 2 million The concerned asset is not actively used but is passively associated for carrying on business by a small business which happens to be an affiliate or a related entity The cumulative value of the net CGT assets that the given individual holds along with the related entities must not exceed $ 6 million at the time of the capital event actually taking place. The CGT assets for the net asset test would not include the assets that are used by the taxpayer and the related entities for their personal enjoyment or use. Further, the house to the extent not used for production of income would be excluded from this test. Besides, the superannuation funds would also be excluded. The eligibility criteria has been highlighted and now based on the information provided in the case, it needs to be ascertained if any of the three conditions highlighted above are satisfied or not. It is known that the annual turnover of the factory owned by Julie is $ 3 million and hence it fails to satisfy the turnover condition. Also, it is apparent that the active asset which is the machine is not used by anyone else but by Julie herself and thus the passive asset usage test is also not satisfied in the given case. The net CGT asset held by Julie at the time of disposal of the factory are highlighted below. Factory along with the business goodwill = $ 1.5 million + $0.5 million = $ 2 million Main residence in Altona (Not Included) = $ 0 Investment property (Not for personal enjoyment or use, hence included) = 700000- 600000 = $100,000 or $ 0.1 million Superannuation amount (Not included) = $ 0 Holiday house in Ballart (For personal use only, hence not included) = $ 0 Holiday unit on Gold Coast (Majorly for personal use only but three weeks during Christmas used to derive income) = (3/53)*250000 = $ 14,151 or $ 0.014 million Holding interest in SHR Pty Ltd = 42% of 1 million = $ 0.42 million Therefore net assets for Julie as on May 15, 2017 = 2+ 0.1+0.014 +0.42 = $ 2.534 million 5ICAI,‘SmallbusinessCGTconcessions–currentissues’, CPDLive(online),28August2012 https://www.cpdlive.com/charteredaccountants/seminarNotes/LiveOne- SmallBusinessCGTConcessionsTechPaper.pdf, p.6
Found this document preview useful?
You are reading a preview Upload your documents to download or Become a Desklib member to get accesss