[SOLVED] Taxation of Part-Time Employment

The assignment discusses the taxation implications of employing a 17-year-old child in a part-time administrative job. It explains that the child is considered taxable income and can claim deductions for home office expenses. The assignment provides a thorough analysis of the topic, including references to relevant laws and regulations.

Running head: PROFESSIONAL TAXATION PRACTICE
Professional Taxation Practice
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Authors Note
Course ID

1PROFESSIONAL TAXATION PRACTICE
Table of Contents
Part 1..........................................................................................................................................2
Answer to A:..............................................................................................................................2
Case Introduction:......................................................................................................................2
Laws and regulations:................................................................................................................2
Analysis of the taxable income:.................................................................................................2
Answer to B:..............................................................................................................................7
Answer to Part 2:........................................................................................................................8
Answer to A:..............................................................................................................................8
Answer to B:..............................................................................................................................9
Reference List:.........................................................................................................................10

2PROFESSIONAL TAXATION PRACTICE
Part 1
Answer to A:
Case Introduction:
The current study is based on the understanding of tax liabilities for Mark and Millie.
The case study provides that Mark is working as the marketing and product development
director for Millmark Pty Ltd. Miller on the other hand is working as the CEO of family
company Millmark Pty Ltd. The case study provides that both Mark and Millie has two
children with one being financially independent and the other being financial dependent on
the parents. The primary objective of the discussion is to determine the tax liability for the
couple and additionally providing them with the necessary explanation regarding the
inclusion and exclusion of relevant items.
Laws and regulations:
The below stated legislations and laws governing the income tax liability for an
individual taxpayer is applicable in the current study;
● ITAA 1936;
● ITAA 1997;
● Taxation rulings;
● Case laws;
Analysis of the taxable income:
As per “section 4-1 of the Income tax assessment act 1997” each individual and
company are under obligation of paying tax on his or her assessable income. The assessable
income is computed by deducting the deductions that are allowable from the taxable income
“section 8-5 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997” (Woellner et al. 2016). A persom’s

3PROFESSIONAL TAXATION PRACTICE
chargeable income is categorised under the ordinary income under “section 6-5” and the
statutory income under “section 6-10 of the ITAA 1997”. Section 6-5 defines that any
income that is derived from the ordinary income is classified as the ordinary income.
Statutory income represents those incomes that does not form the part of the ordinary income
under “section 6-10” (Anderson, Dickfos and Brown 2016). In the current case study, both
the ordinary income and statutory income are considered in determining the assessable
income of Mark and Millie.
The income derived by mark and Millie stands 150,000 and130,000 respectively. The
amount derived by Mark and Millie must be included in the assessable income in terms of
“section 6-5” since this income form the part of the employment income.
As stated under the “taxation ruling of TR 95/9” it discusses whether an individual
taxpayer are allowed to claim or specifically exclude items under “subsection 51 (1)”
(Barkoczy 2016). According to this ruling an individual taxpayer is not allowed to claim
deductions on the cost of travelling between home and place of work as these expenses are
classified as private expenditure. As noticed from the current situation both Mark and Millie
incurred travelling expenditure from home and place of work. Therefore, the expenditure
would not be considered allowable for deductions since it is a private expenditure.
As stated under “section 6-5” an individual generating rental income would be
included in the taxable income of the person (Tan, Braithwaite and Reinhart 2016). Similarly,
in the case of John and Millie the rental income generated by the investment property,
holiday house with factory showroom and building will be held assessable under “section 6-
5”.
As stated under “section 15-2 (1) of the ITAA 1997” the taxable income of the
individual taxpayer also includes the value of benefits derived or the allowances that are
received is either directly or indirectly associated to the employment. As stated under section

4PROFESSIONAL TAXATION PRACTICE
23L (1) the allowances are generally separately recognized while the fringe benefit reported
by the employee forms the part of fringe benefit and does not forms the part of assessable
income (Cao et al. 2015). In the present case study, it is noticed that both Mark and Millie are
provided with car for their private use. Additionally, Millie also receives from the company a
private medical insurance of benefit of $5,000 per annum. Hence, the benefit provided to
both Mark and Millie are within the concept of “Fringe benefit act 1986” and the same is
excluded from their respective assessable income.
“Section 6-5 of the Income tax assessment act 1997” defines that interest derived by
the taxpayer during the financial year must be declared and included in the taxable income
for determining the tax liability of the taxpayers (Braithwaite 2017). The bank interest
received by both Mark and Millie will be considered as the part of taxable income under
“section 6-5”.
According to the Australian taxation office, receipt from superannuation fund
comprises of both lump sum and income stream, which are considered tax-free on the
circumstances where the individual is receiving the benefit, is greater than 60 years. Income
generated from the superannuation fund are considered in the taxable income of the taxpayer
(Saad 2014). In the current case of Mark and Millie, the receipt of after tax return from their
superannuation will considered non-taxable and cannot be included in the taxable income of
the respective taxpayers.
Deductions:
The “division 8 of the ITAA 1997” lay down the necessary detail regarding the
allowable deduction (Miller and Oats 2016). As defined under “section 8-1 of the ITAA
1997” an individual taxpayer is permitted to claim deduction for expenditure that is occurred
in generating the taxable income or obligatory in carrying out the business activities.
Mark and Millie reported expenditure relating to work that amounted to $1,000 and

5PROFESSIONAL TAXATION PRACTICE
$2,200 correspondingly. As stated under “subsection 51 (1) of the Income tax Assessment
Act 1997” the losses and outgoings are regarded as the permissible deductions up to the
extent they are occurred in generating the revenue or producing an assessable income
(Coleman and Sadiq 2013). The court of law in the case of “Federal Commissioner of
Taxation v. Hayley (1958)” stated that expenses should have the necessary character of
outgoing when generating the taxable income. Hence, the work related expenditure reported
by Mark and Millie will be considered as allowable deductions since it holds the necessary
characteristics of outgoings in deriving the taxable income.
Self-education expenditure are usually considered as the deductible expenditure that
are generally incurred in maintaining or increasing the skills of taxpayer in an occupation in
which an individual is presently employed. The self-education expenditure are generally
incurred to improve the taxpayer’s prospects of gaining promotion or deriving greater pay
(Kenny 2013). As stated in “Studdert v Federal Commissioner of Taxation” where the court
of law allowed the flight engineer to claim an allowable deduction for the cost incurred in
undertaking flight lesson as this would improve the performance in his current job and uplift
the prospect for promotion.
Mark incurred a self-education expenditure of $6000. Referring to the case of
“Studdert v Federal Commissioner of Taxation”, it can be stated that mark will be allowed
to claim an allowable deductions on the self-education expenditure.
As held in the case of “Lunney v Federal commissioner of taxation” travel from
home and place of work is generally not considered as allowable deductions (Krever 2013).
In the current case both Millie and Mark will not be able to claim allowable deductions for
travelling expenses since they are regarded as private expenditure.
Millie and Mark reported a living expenditure of $18,000. The court of law in
“Fullerton v Federal Commissioner of Taxation” denied the taxpayer to claim domestic or

6PROFESSIONAL TAXATION PRACTICE
family arrangement expenditure. Similarly, the cost of living represents a family expenditure
and the same cannot be considered allowable.
As held in “Ronpibon Tin NL v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1949)” an
expenditure is considered allowable for deductions if the expenditure is occurred in
generating the taxable income (Morgan, Mortimer and Pinto 2013). According to Australian
taxation office, an individual incurring expenditure on donations will be considered as
allowable deduction. The donation of $500 by Millie will be considered as allowable
deduction under “section 8-1”. The case study evidently provides that both Mark and Millie
has incurred expenses in the form of interest on investment property, holiday home, bank
loan on share portfolio. Further evidence also suggest that an additional expenditure on rented
holiday home, investment property and tax agents.
Referring to the judgement passed in the event of “Ronpibon Tin NL v Federal
Commissioner of Taxation (1949)” the expenditure incurred by Mark and Millie will be
considered for deductions since they are occurred in gaining taxable income.
The Australian taxation office denies an individual to claim deduction on main
residence expenditure since they are not occurred in deriving the taxable income (Woellner
2013). The interest expenses on main residence, rates and taxes with electricity expenses
formed the part of main residence and Mark and Millie cannot claim the same in this
circumstances.
Instances from the case study suggest that Mark incurred a capital loss from the share
portfolio and according to the ATO, an individual is allowed to claim tax offset for capital
loss only in the event of capital gain. The capital loss of $7,000 bought forward by Mark
cannot be offset because he did not reported any capital gains from the share portfolio.
Furthermore, “section 8-1”prohibits an individual to claim permissible deduction on credit
card expenses. Therefore, the credit card expenses will not be allowed for deduction.

7PROFESSIONAL TAXATION PRACTICE
Answer to B:
On the other hand, to reduce the corporate tax rate for Millmark Pty Ltd both Millie
and Mark can undertake the method of progressively reducing the tax rate to 25% since their
aggregate turnover limit is below $25 million (Woellner et al. 2014). The method of
enterprise tax plan would help MillMark Pty Ltd to reduce the tax liability by enrolling under
the Small business entities. This method would help in reducing the tax liability and would
not create an impact on the total amount derived from the company.

8PROFESSIONAL TAXATION PRACTICE
Answer to Part 2:
Answer to A:
As stated under the taxation ruling of IT 2489 an individual that are below the age of
18 years and derives remuneration through full time work will be held liable for tax.
Similarly, as stated under “Division 6AA of the part III of the ITAA 1997” person below the
age of 18 engaged in a part time employment and deriving income would be considered as
taxable income (Woellner 2013). As evident, Martin is below 18 years and is employed in a

9PROFESSIONAL TAXATION PRACTICE
part time administrative work. Therefore, Martin would be held liable for taxation purpose.
Answer to B:
The taxation ruling of TR 93/30 is associated with claiming deductions under the
home office expenditure. The primary objective of the taxation ruling is to ascertain the
expenses, which are considered allowable as deductions (Morgan, Mortimer and Pinto 2013).
As evident in the current case study it is noticed that with the expansion of business both
Millie and Mark are wondering to employ their younger children in some administrative
work to work as personal assistant.
The amount that would be paid as remuneration stands $300 per hour or $600 per
week. Similarly, the income that would be derived by Martin would form the part of taxable
income. The amount that would be paid to Martin will be considered as allowable deductions
from the taxable income since it is occurred in generating the taxable income. Hence, based
on the above stated discussion Mark and Millie would be able to claim deduction for the
expenditure incurred for home office purpose.

10PROFESSIONAL TAXATION PRACTICE
Reference List:
Anderson, C., Dickfos, J. and Brown, C., 2016. The Australian Taxation Office-what role
does it play in anti-phoenix activity?. Insolvency Law Journal, 24(2), pp.127-140.
Barkoczy, S., 2016. Foundations of taxation law 2016. OUP Catalogue.
Braithwaite, V. ed., 2017. Taxing democracy: Understanding tax avoidance and evasion.
Routledge.
Cao, L., Hosking, A., Kouparitsas, M., Mullaly, D., Rimmer, X., Shi, Q., Stark, W. and
Wende, S., 2015. Understanding the economy-wide efficiency and incidence of major
Australian taxes. Canberra: Treasury working paper, 2001.
Coleman, C. and Sadiq, K. 2013. Principles of taxation law.
Kenny, P. (2013). Australian tax 2013. Chatswood, N.S.W.: LexisNexis Butterworths.
Krever, R. (2013). Australian taxation law cases 2013. Pyrmont, N.S.W.: Thomson Reuters.
Miller, A. and Oats, L., 2016. Principles of international taxation. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Morgan, A., Mortimer, C. and Pinto, D. 2013. A practical introduction to Australian taxation
law. North Ryde [N.S.W.]: CCH Australia.
Saad, N., 2014. Tax knowledge, tax complexity and tax compliance: Taxpayers’
view. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, pp.1069-1075.
Tan, L.M., Braithwaite, V. and Reinhart, M., 2016. Why do small business taxpayers stay
with their practitioners? Trust, competence and aggressive advice. International Small
Business Journal, 34(3), pp.329-344.
Woellner, R. (2013). Australian taxation law select 2013. North Ryde, N.S.W.: CCH
Australia.

11PROFESSIONAL TAXATION PRACTICE
Woellner, R., Barkoczy, S., Murphy, S., Evans, C. and Pinto, D. 2014. Australian taxation
law.
Woellner, R., Barkoczy, S., Murphy, S., Evans, C. and Pinto, D., 2016. Australian Taxation
Law 2016. OUP Catalogue.