Australian Taxation Law Assignment

This assignment delves into the complexities of Australian taxation law. It requires students to analyze various aspects, including economic efficiency, incidence of taxes, business taxation, international taxation, and legal precedents. Students must demonstrate their understanding of these concepts by applying them to real-world scenarios and citing relevant case studies and publications.

Running head: TAXATION LAW
Taxation Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Authors Note
Course ID

1TAXATION LAW
Table of Contents
Answer to question 1:.................................................................................................................2
Issue:..........................................................................................................................................2
Rule............................................................................................................................................2
Application:................................................................................................................................2
Conclusion:................................................................................................................................6
Answer to question 2:.................................................................................................................7
Issue:..........................................................................................................................................7
Laws:..........................................................................................................................................7
Applications:..............................................................................................................................7
Conclusion:..............................................................................................................................11
Reference List:.........................................................................................................................12

2TAXATION LAW
Answer to question 1:
Issue:
Are the legal expenses on advertisement and the redundancy expense incurred by the
taxpayer for challenging the government statement will be an allowable deduction under
section 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997).
Laws
a. “8-1 of the ITAA 1997”
b. “subsection 51 (1) of the ITAA 1936”
c. “Income tax ruling of ID 2001/83”
d. “FC of T v Snowden and Wilson Pty Ltd (1958)”
e. “Magna Alloys and Research Pty Ltd v. FC of T (1980)”
f. “Herald and Weekly Times Ltd v. FC of T (1932)”
Application:
The problem statement that has been defined under this case is relating to the
advertisement expenses that has been occurred by the taxpayer relating to the expense of the
advertisement for launching an attack against the government in media. The following case
study of Aussie Ltd provides information that the company functions as the subsidiary to the
Meranti Ltd that produces high quality furniture at a very low cost. The furniture produced by
Meranti Ltd is exported to the Aussie Ltd that enjoys high success from economies of scale.
However, the decision of the federal government to impose high amount of duty on annual
sales of importing furniture that is imported by Aussie Ltd. consequently, the decision of the

3TAXATION LAW
government created an adverse impact on the Aussie Ltd and this ultimately hampered the
revenue of the company. Later, Aussie Ltd undertook the decision of launching the attack for
repealing the decision of the government against the imposition of the heavy duty. The led
the company to incur a spending of $2 million for revoking the decision of the government.
According to section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997, an individual can deduct from your
assessable income any loss or outgoing to the extent that, it is incurred in gaining or
producing your assessable income (Anderson et al., 2016). On other hand the expense is
necessarily incurred in carrying on a *business for the purpose of gaining or producing your
assessable income. However, there is an exception to this rule where an individual cannot
deduct a loss or outgoing under this section to the extent that it is a loss or outgoing of
capital, or of a capital nature; or it is incurred in relation to gaining or producing
your *exempt income or your *non-assessable non-exempt income. The provision of this Act
prevents an individual taxpayer from deducting it.
As held in Hallstroms Pty Ltd v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1946) Also, in
determining whether a deduction for legal expenses is allowable under section 8-1 of the
ITAA 1997, the nature of the expenditure must be considered (Barkoczy 2016). The nature or
character of the legal expenses follows the advantage that is sought to be gained by incurring
the expenses. On the other hand, it has been decided in the case of Herald and Weekly Times
Ltd v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1932) that Legal expenses are generally deductible
if they arise out of the day to day activities of the taxpayer's business (Cao et al.,
2015). Additionally, in the case of Magna Alloys and Research Pty Ltd v. FC of T (1980) the
legal action has more than a peripheral connection to the taxpayer's income producing
activities.

4TAXATION LAW
As evident in the present case study of Aussie Ltd the sum of advertisement expenses
that has been occurred by the Aussie Ltd it can be considered as the as deductions. The
primary reason is that Section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997 allows a deduction for all losses and
outgoings to the extent that they are incurred in gaining or producing assessable income
except where the outgoings of a capital, private or domestic nature, or relate to the earning of
exempt income (Coleman & Sadiq, 2013). As held in the case of Ronpibon Tin NL & Tong
Kah Compound NL v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1949) For legal expenses to
constitute an allowable deduction, it must be shown that they were incidental or relevant to
the production of the taxpayer's assessable income.
The legal expense that has been incurred here by the Aussie Ltd in the current
scenario is allowable as deductions because they constitute a deductible expenditure since
they were relevant to the production of the assessable income of Aussie Ltd. he legal
expenses are not incurred by the taxpayer for any purpose other than defending its business
method. The decision to challenge the government decision of imposing higher duty
represents that Aussie Ltd had incurred the expenditure related to an integral part of the
taxpayer's business.
The expenditure is necessarily incurred by Aussie ltd in carrying on the business for
the purpose of gaining assessable income. Furthermore, the negative limbs of subsection
51(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 have no application: the legal expenses are not
capital in nature (Kenny, 2013). The expenditure incurred by the taxpayer produces no
benefit of an enduring nature nor does it relate to the preservation of a capital asset
As held in the case of FC of T v Snowden and Wilson Pty Ltd (1958) the fact that the
expenses are unusual and the taxpayer has not on previous occasion needed to take such legal
action does not prevent the advertisement expenses being deductible (James, 2016). In the

5TAXATION LAW
present context of Aussie Ltd it does not have to incur such kind of advertisement expense
and as a result of this such expenses is considered for deductions under section 8-1 of the
ITAA 1997.
As held in “Magna Alloys and Research Pty Ltd v. FC of T (1980)” it was
observed that the legal outlay that was experienced by the taxpayer with the objective of
preventing the statements of libel that was being made by the co-worker was observed as the
permissible deductions under “section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997” (Miller, & Oats, 2016). The
motive for such conclusion as accessible in “section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997” where a
deductions are acceptable if the spending is ascending out the fixed income generating
activities or having more than an outlying association to the business of the taxpayers
(Pyrmont, 2014).
Debatably, it can be bought forward that when the main reason of experiencing
advertisement expenditure is for the determination of defending the activities of the taxpayers
in performing the service duties with the help of which they gain or produce taxable income
such outlay is characterised in the method of income in nature and are observed as
permissible deductions.
As it has been defined that under Section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997 allows a deduction for
all losses and outgoings to the extent to which they are incurred in gaining or producing
assessable income except where the outgoings are of a capital, private or domestic nature
(Grange et al., 2014). Legal expenses are deductible provided the legal action taken by
Aussie Ltd is arose out of, or concerns the day to day income producing activities of the
taxpayer and have more than a peripheral connection to the taxpayer's business. According to
the Section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997 allows a deduction for all losses and outgoings to the extent
that they are incurred by Aussie Ltd in gaining or producing assessable income except where

6TAXATION LAW
the outgoings of a capital, private or domestic nature, or relate to the earning of exempt
income (James, 2015).
For Aussie ltd, the legal expenses that has been occurred constitute an allowable
deduction and it must be shown that they were incidental or relevant to the production of the
taxpayer's assessable income (Jover, 2014). The legal action has more than a peripheral
connection to the taxpayer's income producing activities. The expense has arisen out of, or
concerns the day to day income producing activities of the taxpayer. Aussie Ltd does not
occur the legal expenditure in the contemporary background for any another purpose other
than protecting its process of trade and commerce of distributing high quality furniture in
Australia (Krever, 2013). Therefore, it can be proclaimed that choice to challenge the verdict
of government against the obligation of higher duty is hereafter associated to the essential
part of the taxpayer’s trade.
From the following case study, it can be determined that advertisement cost that has
arisen in the case of Aussie Ltd will be considered as the allowable deductions. The reason
for considering the cost the allowable deductions is because the expense incurred by the
Aussie Ltd is not capital in nature. Therefore, the expense is incurred for the purpose of
producing income that possess the character of income producing capacity and they does not
account as in the nature of private or domestic. Hence, in compliance with FC of T v
Snowden and Wilson Pty Ltd (1958) it can be defined that the advertisement expenses that
has occurred by the Aussie Ltd is for challenging the decision of the government with the
objective of defending the business method. Furthermore, the decision to undertaken by
Aussie Ltd to challenge the decision of the government through the imposition of duties is
associated with the essential business part of the taxpayer.

7TAXATION LAW
Conclusion:
The case study of Aussie Ltd can be concluded by defining that the legal expense that
has taken place in Aussie Ltd is related to the production and generation of income that are
assessable. As a result of this Aussie Ltd will be able to claim permissible deductions under
the section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997 since the amount is eight timers higher and will ultimately
effect the deductibility. The primary reason for undertaking the decision of spending on
launching the attack on media is generally for protecting the revenue making structure of the
business and therefore would not be considered for taxation. On the other hand, the
redundancy payment that was made by Aussie Ltd can be claimed as the deductible amount.
Answer to question 2:
Issue:
The following issue provides that the taxpayer has incurred an expenditure that is
related to the purchase of rental property and incurring expenditure that is occurred by the
taxpayer before the purchase of the rental premises. The amount of $20,000 would not be
considered as expense and they are capital which is not deductible expense.
Laws:
As defined under the Taxation Ruling of 97/23 this Ruling explains the circumstances
in which expenditure incurred by a taxpayer for repairs is an allowable deduction under
section 25-10 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Barkoczy et al., 2016). Section 8-1 of
the ITAA 1997 there is a provision relating to the permission for considering the deductions
as the allowable deductions (Woellner, 2013). Under section 8-1(2) of the ITAA 1997 an
individual cannot deduct a loss or outgoing under this section to the extent that loss or
outgoing of capital, or of a capital nature.

8TAXATION LAW
I. “Subsection 25-10 (1)”
II. “Taxation ruling of TR 97/25”
III. “Taxation ruling of 97/23”
IV. Fct v western subarbs cinemas ltd
V. “Sun Newspapers Ltd v. F C of T (1961)”
VI. Law shipping co ltd v inland revenue commissioners
VII. W Thomas & co pty ltd v fc of T
Applications:
The present case study of James puts forward an evidence that James in this context
has purchase the property of five blocks of flats. He purchased the property so that he can
rent out the property to the tenants. As it has been found from the current case study that
James prior to making any kind of decision of purchasing the property, he was further
advised by the inspector that he would have to should some pre-purchase cost that is related
to plumbing, roofing and painting. Sooner the work of the plumbing, roofing and painting
was finished, James decided to let out the property to the tenants. As defined under the
Australian taxation office any form of capital works that is incurred by the individual on the
structural improvement of the rental property are normally write off over the period of long
term. This kind of expenses are usually considered as the deductible expenditure.
The capital work is generally considered as the expenditure that has the nature of the
capital and they can be generally put for depreciation over the period of time and may be
regarded as the cost base of the property for the purpose of the capital gains tax purpose
(Morgan et al., 2013). As defined in the case of Fct v western subarbs cinemas ltd it is
worth mentioning that the repairs and maintenance expense are treated as the most highly
sought after question. Expenses that a person makes on repairs and preservation of the

9TAXATION LAW
property may be treated as the allowable expense. But there is an exception to the rule which
states that the repairs must be related directly to the wear and tear of the property and the
damage that has arisen from the property was to preserve the property (Lang, 2014).
Arguably it can be bought forward that the initial repairs that is executed to the new purchase
property are not regarded as the expense and they are regarded as the capital work
expenditure.
As it has been evidently put forward under the Law shipping co ltd v inland revenue
commissioners there is a provision relating to the permission for considering the deductions
as the allowable deductions (Woellner, 2013). The section provides that deductions of all the
losses and outgoings to the certain degree to which such expenditure are incurred in gaining
or deriving the assessable income of the taxpayers. Under section 8-1(2) of the ITAA 1997 an
individual cannot deduct a loss or outgoing under this section to the extent that loss or
outgoing of capital, or of a capital nature (Robin, 2017). The costs associated with the
purchase of a rental property are generally not deductible as they form part of establishing the
profit making asset. On the other hand, costs incurred in deriving rental income (ie agent
commissions to collect rents) are deductible revenue outgoings because they are incurred in
deriving income from that asset.
As it has been found in the present scenario that cost that has been incurred for
roofing, plumbing and painting cannot be viewed as an expense since they are treated as the
capital works expenditure (Woellner, 2013). As it has been found in the present context of
James he incurred the expense to make the property suitable for rental purpose and these
expense did not arise from the James use of the property to generate rental income.
Conversely, in terms of the “Section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997” under the case of W Thomas &
co pty ltd v fc of T it can be stated that the expenses having the nature of the capita would not

10TAXATION LAW
be considered as the allowable deductions (Russell, 2016). James in the present situation
would not be allowed of claiming allowable deductions of the work related cost.
Additionally, it has also been found that James also occurred an expense of $50,000
and the expense was related to the collapse of a segment of upstairs floor because of the
infestations of termites. Furthermore, James has additionally incurred a spending of $2,000
towards the pest control company in order to assure that the remaining portions of the
buildings are not infected by the infestation of termites.
The appearance of the term maintenances is defined under “Subsection 25-10 (1)”
describes repairs where the repairs are in the nature of capital or spending that is happened to
remedy defects, harm or worsening in presence at the date of purchase of the property.
Capital works used to produce income, including buildings and structural improvements, are
written off over a longer period than other depreciating assets (Harris et al., 2015). Capital
works deductions are income tax deductions that can be claimed for the expenses such as
building construction costs the cost of altering a building and the cost of capital
improvements to the surrounding property (Snape & De Souza, 2016). The spending that is
experienced by James on substituting the ceiling from the infiltration of termites can be
observed as the capital works deductions.
As it has been noted in the case of James that he purchased the property after the time
period of 17 July 1985, as a result of this James will be able to claim allowable deductions
that is related to the replacing of roof of the property that he has purchased. As it has been
defined under the “Para 15 of the Taxation ruling of TR 97/23” repairs for large part is
considered as the occasional and partial cost (Krever, 2013). Such kind of cost are generally
regarded as the cost of restoration of the property without changing the character of the
property and may comprise of the restoration of the former appearance, state or conditions.

11TAXATION LAW
An important considerations laid down under Lindsay v. FC of T(1960) relating to the
property is that work done to prevent or anticipate defects, damage or deterioration (in a
mechanical or physical sense) in property is not in itself a 'repair' unless it is done in
conjunction with remedying or making good defects in, damage to, or deterioration of, the
property (Morgan et al., 2013). Repair for the most part is occasional and partial. It involves
restoration of the efficiency of function of the property being repaired without changing its
character and may include restoration to its former appearance, form, state or condition.
Furthermore, the replacement of infested roof by termites contemplates that James wanted to
prevent the property from further deterioration with the objective of contemplating the
continued existence of the property.
Considering the ruling of “Taxation Ruling of TR 97/25” a deduction for capital
works under Division 43 is based on the amount of construction expenditure, that is, capital
expenditure where taxpayers incurred in respect of the construction of those capital works
(Nethercott et al., 2016). A deduction for capital works under Division 43 can be claimed for
buildings or extensions, alterations or improvements to buildings or structural improvements
or extensions, alterations or improvements to structural improvements. From the earlier
explanations it has been found that James occurred an expense that formed the part of the
initial repairs carried out to the new property could not be regarded as the allowable expense
and as a result of this it will be considered as the capital works (Sadiq, 2016). Nevertheless,
in the later parts the expenses that has occurred were meeting the criteria of being considered
as the eligible deductions because they consist in the nature of extension or improvement to
the rental property. According to the Australian taxation office, an individual can claim
expenses relating to your rental property but only for the period your property was rented or
available for rent. Additionally the pest control expense of $2,000 incurred by James can be

12TAXATION LAW
claimed as deductions since the expense incurred at the time when the property was available
for rent.
Conclusion:
On arriving at the assumption from the above stated study, it can be stated that the
spending that is acquired preceding the attainment of the property could not be observed as
the acceptable deductions. The expenditures were experienced by James to make the
premises appropriate for rental and it did not originate from the use of rental property to
producing assessable rental income. From the present study it has been defined that James
repairs done on roofing of the building represents structural improvement of the rental
property and would be regarded as capital works deductions.
Reference List:
Anderson, C., Dickfos, J. & 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.
Barkoczy, S., Nethercott, L., Devos, K. and Richardson, G. (2016). Foundations Student Tax
Pack 3 2016. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press Australia & New Zealand.

13TAXATION LAW
Cao, L., Hosking, A., Kouparitsas, M., Mullaly, D., Rimmer, X., Shi, Q., Stark, W. & Wende,
S., (2015). Understanding the economy-wide efficiency and incidence of major
Australian taxes. Treasury WP, 1.
Coleman, C. & Sadiq, K. (n.d.). 2013 Principles of taxation law.
Grange, J., Jover-Ledesma, G. & Maydew, G. (n.d.). 2014 principles of business taxation.
Harris, J., Graw, S., Gilders, F., Kenny, P. & Van der Waarden, N. (n.d.). 2015 Theory and
law in the regulation of business.
James, K., (2016). The Australian Taxation Office perspective on work-related travel expense
deductions for academics. International Journal of Critical Accounting, 8(5-6),
pp.345-362.
James, M. (n.d.). (2015) Taxation of small businesses.
Jover-Ledesma, G. (2014). Principles of business taxation 2015. [Place of publication not
identified]: Cch Incorporated.
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.
Lang, M. (2014). Introduction to the law of double taxation conventions. Linde Verlag
GmbH.
Miller, A., & Oats, L. (2016). Principles of international taxation. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Morgan, A., Mortimer, C. & Pinto, D. (2013). A practical introduction to Australian taxation
law. North Ryde [N.S.W.]: CCH Australia.

14TAXATION LAW
Nethercott, L., Devos, K., Gonzaga, L. & Richardson, G. (2016). Australian taxation study
manual. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Pyrmont, (2014). Australian Taxation Law Cases 2014. NSW: Thomson Reuters.
ROBIN, H., 2017. AUSTRALIAN TAXATION LAW 2017. OXFORD University Press.
Russell, T., (2016). Trust beneficiaries and exemptions from CGT: Reflections on the Oswal
litigation. Taxation in Australia, 51(6), p.296.
Saad, N. (2014). Tax knowledge, tax complexity and tax compliance: Taxpayers’
view. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 1069-1075.
Sadiq, K. (2016). Principles of Taxation Law 2016. Pyrmont: Law Book Co of Australasia.
Snape, J., & De Souza, J. (2016). Environmental taxation law: policy, contexts and practice.
Routledge.
Woellner, R. (2013). Australian taxation law 2012. North Ryde [N.S.W.]: CCH Australia.
Woellner, R., Barkoczy, S., Murphy, S., Evans, C. & Pinto, D. (n.d.). 2014 Australian
taxation law.

15TAXATION LAW