Partnership Tax Calculation and Deductions

This solved assignment focuses on the calculation of income for a partnership firm in Australia. It outlines various expenses and incomes, applies relevant sections of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997), and determines allowable deductions for tax purposes. The assignment delves into specific scenarios like salary paid to staff, trading stock purchases, bad debts, and business lunches, explaining their deductibility based on Australian tax law.

PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION LAW
STUDENT ID:
[Pick the date]

PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION LAW
Question 1
Issue
The key concern is to determine if the expenses or loss incurred in the various situations
presented would be tax deductible or not in accordance with section 8-1 ITAA 1997.
Relevant Law
Section 8(1) ITAA 1997 deals with the general deductions related to the business. This
allows deduction of any loss or expenses that are incurred in the production of assessable
income. These outflows are typically incurred in order to carry on the business so as to ensure
that there is generation of assessable income (Barkoczy, 2015). However, it is noteworthy
that loss or outgoings of capital nature are not deductible. Also, any loss or expenses incurred
in generation of exempt income would also be non-deductible for tax purposes (Gilders et.
al., 2016). Besides, the expenses or loss which are private or of domestic nature are non-
deductible (Sadiq et. al., 2016).
Application
Even though s. 8(1) allows deduction of expenses related to minor alternations made in the
site, but the cost of moving the machine to the new site would not be deductible under s 8(1)
due to the capital nature of the outgoings. This is because this site involves movement of
asset and does not cater to changes in the site. Thus, the cost would be reflected in the value
of asset (i.e. machine) and would lead to higher depreciation expense subsequently.
The cost of revaluation tends to pertain to the fixed assets. However, for determining whether
the expenses incurred therein would be deductible or not, it needs to be determined if the
incurred expense would lead to higher income generation capacity or is aimed at preserving
or protecting the asset (CCH, 2013). The asset revaluation for insurance cover clearly seems
to deal with the latter and also the expense would not be carried out on a frequent basis which
implies that the expense would not be termed as deductible under s. 8(1).
With regards to the legal expenses incurred, the critical question deals with the nature of the
case. It needs to be ascertained whether the case in question would impact the operations of
the company or the income generation capacity as has been highlighted in the Snowden &
Wilson Pty Ltd (1958) 7 AITR 308 case (Woellner, 2014). In the given case, it is apparent
that the issue is regards to income generation capacity as the case relates with winding up of
the company and hence the expense incurred would be considered capital in nature. Thus, no
deduction can be claimed as per s 8(1) for the legal expenses of such a case.
In the given case, it is apparent that the legal expenses which are incurred tend to deal with
general legal advice in relation to the business operations besides conveyancing and
mortgage. Since the solicitor does not distinguish these expenses, hence it would be
appropriate to consider the legal expense as revenue expenses as these relate to enhancement
of the overall earning capacity of the business. Hence, deduction of the legal expense is
allowed under s. 8(1).

PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION LAW
Conclusion
Based on the discussion above, it is apparent that the cost of moving machinery to the new
site is capital in nature and hence non-deductible. Further, the revaluation of asset cost is
related to insurance and hence aimed at asset protection rather than income generation and
hence would be non-deductible under s.8(1). Further, the legal expense related to winding up
proceedings would be non-deductible while that relating to general business operations
advice would be deductible.
Question 2
Issue
The central issue is to determine if Big Bank can claim the input tax credits on account of
GST paid on the advertising expenditure.
Relevant Law
With regards to making financial supplies, the ability to claim the input tax credits in based
on whether the FAT or Financial Acquisition Threshold is exceeded by the firm or not. In
accordance with s. 189(5) and s. 189(10), GST Act, the FAT is exceeded by the given entity
when financial acquisitions are made by the concerned entity and the input credit tax related
to these would tend to be greater than the lower of the following two values (Nethercott,
Richardson and Devos, 2016).
 $ 150,000 which is the specified value for first limb test
 10% of the cumulative input tax credits that the given entity was entitled to
If an entity manages to satisfy the FAT test by not crossing the threshold limit, then claim on
full GST credits is possible. However, if the entity fails to pass this test, then full credit claim
cannot be entertained (Barkoczy, 2015).
Application
It is noteworthy that acquisition involving input taxed supplies related to deposit facilities
along with loans will not be treated as creditable acquisition. Also, acquisitions in relation to
taxable supplies making (for instance contents insurance along with home) are considered as
creditable acquisitions. As a result, the advertising spending in relation to the home and
contents insurance is creditable which implies the availability of input tax credits to the extent
of $ 50,000. Also, it is apparent that the entity i.e. Big Bank would most certainly fail to
satisfy the FAT limitation. With regards to general advertisement, a fair method of
apportionment is required. For instance, a 2% expenditure could be classified as taxable
supplies while the left over 98% can be classified as input tax credit in line with the given
expectations. Thus, the input tax credit of $ 2,000 would be available.
Conclusion

PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION LAW
Based on the above discussion, it is apparent that the Big Bank would be entitled to input tax
credit of $ 2,000 with regards to general advertising.
Question 3
Issue
The key issue is to determine the foreign tax offset of Angelo considering the information
that has been presented.
Relevant Law
In case an individual taxpayer has foreign income on which tax is paid to foreign tax
authorities, then the ATO allows the taxpayer to claim foreign tax offset on account of
avoidance of double taxation. This implies that the income generated must be taxed only once
and hence the same income shall not be taxed abroad as well as in Australia (Gilders et. al.,
2016). In order to claim the foreign tax offset, the following two conditions need to be
fulfilled (Deutsch et. al., 2016).
 At the time of claim, the income tax on foreign income should already have been paid
abroad.
 The income on which the tax has been paid to the foreign authorities should be
included in the assessable income in Australia as per the applicable tax laws.
If the above conditions are satisfied, the taxpayer can claim foreign tax offset in order to
claim the extent to which the tax liability in Australia would be reduced on account of the tax
paid to foreign authorities (Sadiq et. al., 2016).
Application
With regards to Angelo and given information, it is apparent that foreign tax offset would
arise for him as he has foreign income on which tax has been paid to the foreign income tax
authorities. Taking into consideration the given information, the foreign tax offset can be
computed in the manner indicated below.
Step 1: Compute the tax payable in Australia taking into consideration the total taxable
income based on the information provided.
Considering that the medical expenses are not deductible, the taxable income = $ 62,000
Tax to be paid = 3572 + 0.325*(62000-37000) = $ 11,697
Medicare levy = 2% of 62000 = $ 1,240
Hence, total tax payable= 11697 + 1240 = $ 12,937

PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION LAW
Step 2: In this case, the tax payable needs to be computed assuming that foreign income on
which income tax has been paid abroad or income derived from outside Australia is deducted.
Hence, the amounts to be deducted are highlighted below.
Hence, taxable income after deducting the above = $ 68,000 - $ 24,000 = $ 44,000
Further, allowable deductions for deriving the foreign income also need to be corresponding
deducted so as to arrive at the tax liability on the Australian income. Only the following
expenses would be deductible for foreign income.
It is noteworthy that $ 200 worth of debt deduction in the UK is not considered as Angelo did
not have permanent establishment abroad. Also, the gift of $ 400 has not been considered as a
deduction as it cannot be sufficiently linked to assessable income.
Hence, assessable income (Excluding foreign income) = $ 44,000
Less: Deductions allowed (after adjusting for the foreign income deductions) = (6000-1400)
= $ 4,600
Therefore, taxable income (considering only Australian income and deductions) = 44000 –
4600 = $ 39,400
Tax to be paid = 3572 + 0.325*(39400-37000) = $ 4,352
Medicare levy = 2% of 39400 = $788
Hence, total tax payable= 4352+788 = $ 5,140
Step 3: Foreign tax offset limit = 12937-5140 = $7,797

PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION LAW
Clearly, in the given case, the foreign income tax paid is $ 4,400 which is lesser than the
offset limit determined above. Hence, the foreign tax offset for Angelo would be $ 4,400.
Conclusion
The foreign tax offset for Angelo would be equal to amount of foreign tax paid i.e. $4,400
since this amount is lower than the foreign tax offset limit.
Question 4
Issue
The core objective is to determine the net income for the partnership firm.
Relevant Rule and Application
In order to compute the net income for the partnership firm, the various assessable income
needs to be identified coupled with the various deductible expenses for tax purposes taking
into consideration the information provided.
The assessable income for the firm along with the relevant rule is as highlighted below
(Barkozcy, 2015).
Sales (Applicable Section: s.6(5), ITAA 1997) = $ 400,000
Interest from bank (Applicable Section: s.6(5), ITAA 1997) = $ 10,000
Dividends received (Applicable Section: s.44, ITAA 1936) = $ 21,000
Imputation credits on account of dividends (Applicable Section: s. 207-20 ITAA 1997)=
21000*(30/70)*60% = $ 5,400
Recovery of bad loans (Applicable Section: s. 20(30) ITAA 1997) = 10,000
Hence, total income for the partnership firm = $446,400
It is noteworthy that the exempt income would not be considered and the capital gains would
be shared by the partners on an individual basis.
The tax deductions for the firm along with the relevant rule is as highlighted below (CCH,
2013).
Sale proceeds that employee has stolen (Applicable Section: s. 25(45) ITAA 1997) = $ 3,000
Fringe benefits tax (Applicable Section: s. 8(1) ITAA 1997) = $ 16,000

PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION LAW
Partner’s loan interest (Applicable Section: s. 8(1) ITAA 1997) = $ 4,000
Office lease renewal legal fees (Applicable Section: s. 8(1) ITAA 1997) = $ 2,000
New office lease legal fees (Applicable Section: s. 8(1) ITAA 1997) = $ 700
Expenses in debt collection (Applicable Section: s. 8(1) ITAA 1997) = $ 500
Council rates (Applicable Section: s. 8(1) ITAA 1997) = $ 500
Salary given to staff (Applicable Section: s. 8(1) ITAA 1997) = 25000 -5000 = $ 20,000
Trading stock purchase (Applicable Section: s. 8(1) ITAA 1997) = $ 30,000
Shop rent (Applicable Section: s. 8(1) ITAA 1997) = $ 20,000
Excess of opening stock in comparison to the closing stock (Applicable Section: s. 70(35)
ITAA 1997) 20000 – 15000 = $ 5,000
Thus, total deductions for tax that the firm can claim = $ 100,700
The following points are noticeable with regards to deductions (Gilders et. al., 2017).
 The loss for the partnership last year gets settled in the respective individual partners
account last year, hence no deduction in the current year.
 The bad debt provision is not deductible till the time write off is done (s. 25(35),
ITAA 1997)
 If the business lunches expense does not attract FBT, then these are not deductible (s.
32(20), ITAA 1997)
 As per s.8(1), the legal expense incurred in the formation of the partnership agreement
are capital in nature and hence non-deductible.
 The interest on the capital of partner along with salary paid to the partner is not
deductible.
Based on the above, income of the partnership firm = 446,400 – 100,700 = $ 345,700
Conclusion
Based on the above discussion, it is apparent that the income of the partnership firm for the
given year would be $ 345, 700 based on the provided information.

PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION LAW
References
Barkoczy, S. (2015), Foundation of Taxation Law 2015, 7thed., North Ryde: CCH
Publications
CCH (2013), Australian Master Tax Guide 2013, 51st ed., Sydney: Wolters Kluwer
Deutsch, R., Freizer, M., Fullerton, I., Hanley, P., and Snape, T. (2016), Australian tax
handbook 8th ed., Pymont: Thomson Reuters,
Gilders, F., Taylor, J., Walpole, M., Burton, M. and Ciro, T. (2016), Understanding taxation
law 2016, 9th ed., Sydney: LexisNexis/Butterworths.
Nethercott, L., Richardson, G. and Devos, K. (2016), Australian Taxation Study Manual
2016, 4th ed., 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 ed., Pymont:Thomson Reuters
Woellner, R (2014), Australian taxation law 2014, 7th ed., North Ryde: CCH Australia