Short Answer Questions

The assignment content discusses the concept of co-ownership of a rental property between Jack and Jill. It highlights that the co-owners are not considered partners under general law, but rather as joint renters. The taxation ruling TR 92/32 also supports this view, stating that co-owners of a rental property are usually not considered partners. The case study of F.C. of T. v McDonald (1979) also reinforces this notion. Furthermore, the assignment content explores the concept of forest operations and how income derived from cutting timber can be considered as assessable earnings under subsection 6(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. In contrast, if the receipt is in the form of royalties, it would fall under section 26(f). Overall, the assignment content provides insights into the taxation laws governing co-ownership and forest operations in Australia.

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

1TAXATION LAW
Table of Contents
Answer to question 1:.................................................................................................................3
Issue:..........................................................................................................................................3
Laws:..........................................................................................................................................3
Applications:..............................................................................................................................3
Conclusion:................................................................................................................................4
Answer to question 2:.................................................................................................................4
Issue:..........................................................................................................................................4
Laws:..........................................................................................................................................4
Application.................................................................................................................................4
Application:................................................................................................................................5
Conclusion:................................................................................................................................5
Answer to question 3..................................................................................................................6
Issue:..........................................................................................................................................6
Laws:..........................................................................................................................................6
Application:................................................................................................................................6
Conclusion:................................................................................................................................7
Answer to question 4:.................................................................................................................7
Answer to question 5:.................................................................................................................8
Issue:..........................................................................................................................................8
Laws:..........................................................................................................................................8

2TAXATION LAW
Application:................................................................................................................................8
Conclusion:..............................................................................................................................10
Reference List:.........................................................................................................................11

3TAXATION LAW
Answer to question 1:
Issue:
This issue deals with the determination of capital gains or losses derived from the sale
of assets defined under section 108-20 of the ITAA 1997.
Laws:
i. “Section 108-20 of the ITAA 1997”
ii. “Section 108-10 of ITAA 1997”
Applications:
Under “section 108-20 of the ITAA 1997”, loss of $1,000 incurred for the sale of
home sound system cannot be permitted for the considered set off, as no losses can be

4TAXATION LAW
considered based on the disposal of personal use assets. In accordance with the section 108-
10 of the ITAA 1997, the collectable losses cannot be set off against the common gains in the
form of sales of shares (Kenny 2013). Additionally, the offset can also be considered
according to Section 108-10 of ITAA 1997. As Eric has gained profit on the disposal of
ordinary assets and there are no current year ordinary capital or other kind of applicable
reductions. Additionally, the capital gain for Eric has current stands as $15,000.
Conclusion:
It can be concluded that Eric cannot offset the loss from collectibles since he has only
gained profit from the disposal of ordinary assets.
Answer to question 2:
Issue:
The below stated issue is concerned with the ascertainment of FBT in accordance
with the “Taxation Ruling of TR 93/6”.
Laws:
i. Taxation rulings of TR 93/6
Application
Computation of Fringe Benefit Tax

5TAXATION LAW
Application:
The taxation rulings of TR 93/6 states that financial organizations often makes plans
for offsetting the loan account that is referred as interest offset agreement. These products are
structured for offsetting the interest which is incurred by clients (Krever 2013). Therefore, the
clients are not liable for paying any amount for the income tax with respect to profits gained
from the account. According to the Taxation Rulings of TR 93/6, if the bank discharges the
Brian from refunding interest on loan then no amount of income tax Brian will be liable for
paying.
Conclusion:
It can be concluded that will not be required to pay any sum of income tax liability if
he is released from paying interest by the bank.

6TAXATION LAW
Answer to question 3
Issue:
This question brings forward the issue that is connected with the allocation of loss
derived from the rental property as the joint ownership by Jack and Jill.
Laws:
i. Section 51 of the ITAA 1997
ii. Taxation rulings of TR 93/32
iii. F.C. of T. v McDonald (1987)
Application:
According to the taxation rulings of TR 93/32, it is consists of the explanation of the
divisionary net proceeds or generated loss from the property that is rented among the co-
owners of the considered property (Barton 2013). Additionally, the ruling is mainly
considered with the evaluation of taxable position of Co-owners those are not responsible for
carrying their values within actions. The current scenario in Jack and Jill considers the
evaluation of taxable position of the rental property. Jack is entitled for 10% of the property
and Jill is entitled for 90% from the property.
In accordance with the Taxation rulings, TR 92/32 Co-ownership of the property that
is rented which is known as one partnership relating to the income tax purpose but this is not
considered as one partnership at the general law except the co-ownership accounts for
carrying value for any business practice, where the Co-ownership is considered as the
partnership for satisfying the purpose of income tax only. The loss of income gained from the
rental property is managed through the Co-ownership of the property that is rented out as

7TAXATION LAW
well as from the allocation of joint venture proceeds and losses (Morgan, Mortimer and Pinto
2013). The current condition of Jack and Jill shows the co-ownership for the rental property
between them which is based on the income tax purpose and cannot be regarded as the
partnership in consideration with the general law.
The taxation rulings of TR 92/32 states that co-owners of the property that is rented
out are usually not considered partners in association with the “General Law” (Milton 2013).
In this case the partnership agreement is either in the form of writing or oral that doesn’t have
consequence on the shared value of proceeds or loss from the considered rented property.
Therefore, Co-owners of the rental property Jack and Jill will hold the property as the joint
renters as one common factor.
As held in the case of “F.C. of T. v McDonald (1987)”, the taxpayer’s wife and he
legally owned two strata title units as the joint renters (Woellner 2013). The agreement
confirmed between them states that the net earnings gained from the property that is rented
out will be distributed as 25% to McDonald and 75% to Mrs McDonald. Now the total loss
amount will be borne by Mr McDonald.
Conclusion:
It can be concluded from the above discussion that both Jack and Jill are required to
distribute the loss equally and joint ownership does not accounts as partnership business.
Answer to question 4:
IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1 was regularly quoted as the occurrence of
tax avoidance. This case established one principle that states each man is allowed to order his
affairs for allowing the taxation assigning which is made in fitting Act. This taxation
assigning is less than it (Barkoczy 2016). Though it cannot be considered that this ruling was

8TAXATION LAW
very attractive for others for seeking the avoidance of tax with respect to law’s complex
structures and these are weakened by the subsequent cases where the courts have looked on
the overall impact. Citing an example of the court in the upcoming stages are more restrictive
and were adopted under the WT Ramsay v. IRC principle. In this case the transaction has pre-
arranged artificially and this is served not in the form of commercial purpose (Braithwaite
2017). The perfect rule was to impose tax for extending the transaction as a total fact.
In the contemporary situation, this principle within Australia depicts that if an
individual achieves success for making this result secured, then the Inland Revenue might be
of their initiative and they cannot be forced to pay any increased amount of tax (Saad 2014).
Additionally, it is understood that this aspect allows individuals and corporations for
structuring the financial agreements with respect to their fixed objectives of decreasing the
tax liabilities based on their structures within the structure of laws.
Answer to question 5:
Issue:
In the contemporary scenario assessment of income from the sale of felled timber is
analysed under “subsection 6 (1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936”.
Laws:
i. “Subsection 6 (1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936”
ii. “McCauley v. The Federal Commissioner of Taxation”
Application:
In the contemporary scenario, this is found that Bill owns a large piece of land on
which there are several pine trees. Bill primarily aimed to use the land for grazing sheep and

9TAXATION LAW
wanted to have it cleared. Bill discovers a logging company that prepared to pay him $1000
for every 100 meters of timber. The logging companies can grab from his piece of land. The
taxation ruling related to 95/6, set down the income tax consequences generating from the
activities of primary production and forestry (Woellner et al. 2016). The ruling offers the
limit to which the receipts that is derived from the sale of timber. This aspect constitutes
assessable income whether the tax payers are indulged into the activities of forestry industry.
According to subsection 6 (1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 the tax payer is
indulged into the activities of forest operations is known as the primary creator.
In accordance with the “subsection 6 (1), the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936”,
primary production is commonly defined as the planting of trees within plantation which is
required for felling forest (Robin 2017). As an evidence from the case study, the Bill is
regarded as the basic producer since he has indulged into the processes of primary production
“subsection 6 (1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936”. The forest operations include
felling of trees in a forest or plantation though the tax payers are not concerned about the
planted trees.
Being the possessor of large piece of land, bill did not planted the trees but the whole
amount of receipts that was derived by Bill from the sale of felled timber constitutes
assessable earning of the considered tax payers disposes about the trees that have not
necessarily planted by the tax payer and rendered for the goal of sale forms the part of
assessable income. In spite of these facts, the considered sales combines either completely or
partial assets of a business, the considered trees are taken as assessable income of the tax
payers under “subsection 6 (1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936”.
Conversely, if the tax payer was simply paid a lump sum of $50,000 by surrendering
the right to the logging organization for removing the necessary amount of timber, then that

10TAXATION LAW
receipt of sum will be considered as “Royalties”. In agreement with the section 26 (f) receipt
of “royalties” from the tax payer on granting the right to fell the timber on land obtained by
the tax payer (Barkoczy et al. 2016). Under this kind of situations, Bill will not be considered
as carrying on the trade of forest operations. Here it is considered that the tax payers did not
planted the trees for sake of gaining profit from that. As held in McCauley v. The Federal
Commissioner of Taxation payments obtained by the grantor is under the right of doing so.
The amounts those are receipted by Bill as royalty combines assessable income under section
26 (f).
Conclusion:
It can be concluded that receiving income from cutting the timber will be considered
as taxable proceeds under subsection 6 (1) of the ITAA 1997.

11TAXATION LAW
Reference List:
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. Oxford University Press Australia & New Zealand.
Barton, 2013. Management of the Australian Taxation Office's property portfolio. ACT:
Australian National Audit Office.
Braithwaite, V. ed., 2017. Taxing democracy: Understanding tax avoidance and evasion.
Routledge.
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.
Milton, 2013. The taxpayers' guide 2013 & 2014. Qld.: Wrightbooks.
Morgan, A., Mortimer, C. and Pinto, D. 2013. A practical introduction to Australian taxation
law. North Ryde [N.S.W.]: CCH Australia.
ROBIN, H., 2017. AUSTRALIAN TAXATION LAW 2017. OXFORD University Press.
Saad, N., 2014. Tax knowledge, tax complexity and tax compliance: Taxpayers’
view. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, pp.1069-1075.
Woellner, R. 2013. Australian taxation law select 2013. North Ryde, N.S.W.: CCH Australia.
Woellner, R., Barkoczy, S., Murphy, S., Evans, C. and Pinto, D., 2016. Australian Taxation
Law 2016. OUP Catalogue.