Taxation Law - Study Material with Solved Assignments and Essays

This document provides an in-depth analysis of Taxation Law, covering topics such as ordinary income, non-deductible expenses, and taxable income. It also includes a case study on FC of T v Cook and Sherden, 80 ATC 4140, discussing the decision and main principle applied in the judgement. The document includes references and is suitable for students studying Taxation Law.

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

1TAXATION LAW
Table of Contents
Part 1:.........................................................................................................................................2
Part B:.........................................................................................................................................7
Case Facts:.............................................................................................................................7
Decision and main principle applied in the judgement:.........................................................7
Relevance of case and likely decision on similar facts:.........................................................8
References:.................................................................................................................................9

2TAXATION LAW
Part 1:
A receipts that a taxpayer receives from the employment and from giving any
personal services is subjected to taxation on income for the employee. As defined in “sec 6-
5, ITA Act 1997” ordinary income refers income on the bass of ordinary concepts. The
commissioner in “CT v Scoot (1935)” held that interpretation of income must be made on the
basis of the ordinary concepts (Barkoczy 2014). A nexus of connection with the receipts of
the taxpayers from the personal services is treated as ordinary income. Citing “CT v Scoot
(1935)” the gross cash salary received by Jane is a taxable income under “sec 6-5, ITA Act
1997” because the receipts has the nexus with the Jane’s employment.
Unanticipated or voluntary payments that is received by the taxpayer as the incidence
of employment is regarded as ordinary income. Similarly, in “Laidler v Perry (1965)”
Christmas bonus given to the employees was treated as income (Grange, Jover-Ledesma and
Maydew 2014). The performance bonus constitutes an income for Jane since it results from
the incidence of employment. As the bonus is declared and received after the end of income
year of 30th June 2018, it is not included for assessment purpose.
Conventional clothing is non-deductible under “sec 8-1, ITAA 1997”since the
outgoing are not incurred in gaining taxable income and it is held as private or domestic
expenses. In “Mansfield v FCT (1996)” outlays on ordinary clothing apparels was not
allowed for deduction irrespective whether it is necessary to maintain a property look at work
(Jover-Ledesma 2014). The expenses on jewellery and formal office dress by Jane is not
allowed for deduction under “sec 8-1, ITAA 1997”.
In “Moore v Griffiths (1972)” simple winnings from prize was not held as income.
However, the prize winnings may be an income given the receipts holds connection with the
income producing activities of the taxpayer. In “FCT v Kelly (1980)”prize for best football

3TAXATION LAW
was held as income for the reason that it was related to taxpayer’s skill and employment
(Krever 2013). The receipt of cash $5,000 for best financial controller in Australia is held as
income for Jane because it is related to her employment.
A non-cash benefits that is having nexus with the personal service given it is non-
convertible to cash then it is not an ordinary income. Similarly in “FC of T v Cook and
Sherden, 80 ATC 4140” prize winnings of free overseas trips was not held as income since it
cannot be converted to cash (Morgan, Mortimer and Pinto 2013). The HP computer received
by Jane is not an ordinary income since it is not convertible to cash.
Denoting the explanation in “section 23L ITAA 1936”, when the employer gives a
fringe benefit to employees then the benefit is not taxable as income for employees. The
membership fees of Jane was paid by Milton Hotels Ltd, therefore under “section 23L ITAA
1936”, it is not an income.
The description of ATO explains that a deduction is allowed to taxpayers up to the
business portion of expenses on attending business conferences, seminars and workshops
associated to work. Any private portion of such expenses is non-deductible. The registration
fees, accommodation and air tickets only for Jane’s part is tax deductible here. While the air
fares for husband and visiting places of historical importance is non-deductible for the reason
that it is private outgoings.
The statutory standing of “section 25-100” allows deduction for travelling directly
between two places of work where a person is involved in generating income. As held in
“FCT v Wiener (1978)” the commissioner allowed deduction for traveling between schools
because the employment was itinerant in nature (Sadiq et al. 2014). Jane can claim deduction
under “section 25-100” for travelling between Milton Hotels and her taxation practice
business since she carries income producing activities in both the places.

4TAXATION LAW
“Subsection 6-5(4), ITAA 1997” defines receipts basis as the method when the
income that is derived is received either actually or constructively. As held in “FCT v Dunn
(1989)” the receipts or cash basis is appropriate for business and investment income
(Woellner 2013). With reference to “subsection 6-5(4), ITAA 1997”receipts methods is
followed to provide the true reflex of Jane business and rental property income.
The dividends and franking credits related to dividends received by Jane constitutes
statutory income under “section 44 (1), ITAA 1936” and “section 207-20(1), ITAA 1997”.
However, the franking credits has been claimed as tax offset. Citing “FCT v McNeil” the
capital gains of $2,500 made from the sale of shares by Jane is ordinary income. The
donation that is made by Jane to Cancer Council Australia and Sydney University is an
allowable deduction under “section 30-15 (2), subdivision 30c, ITAA 1997”. The total
taxable income and tax payable by Jane is computed below.

5TAXATION LAW

6TAXATION LAW

7TAXATION LAW
Part B:
Case Facts:
The case facts obtained from “FC of T v Cook and Sherden, 80 ATC 4140” explains
that the taxpayers here were husband and wife under partnership of separately distributing the
soft drinks to each door of customers based on the contract of franchise that produces soft
drinks. The producer of soft drink also sponsored the scheme of incentives to provide their
distributors with the overseas holiday as prize winnings (Morgan, Mortimer and Pinto 2013).
The trips sponsored by the producers was completely non-transferable and cannot be
converted into cash. If the winners opt out to take trips then they were not given any other
trips. The taxpayer here won the free overseas trips. Value equivalent to the price of trips was
treated by the commissioner of taxation as the taxable income for the taxpayers. A unanimous
decision of the court it was held that no part of the value of trips was taxable.
Decision and main principle applied in the judgement:
As the support of assessment the argument was that the free overseas trip value was
taxable based on the “section 25 (1), ITA Act” in the form of income under the ordinary
meaning (Grange, Jover-Ledesma and Maydew 2014). But an alternative contention was that
the benefits as free holiday was provided and received just because taxpayer rendered service
to manufacturers and the “section 26 (2)” functioned to consider the value of overseas
holiday as the taxable income.
Referring to “section 25 (1)” the federal court of law held the gratuitous benefits of
kind which is not convertible in cash or any other type of property cannot be declared as
income according to the ordinary meaning. The opinion of court ruled that benefits of such
kind is only taxable if the same is received in the form of money or converted into the worth
of money. The federal court also held that it was irrelevant that the taxpayers were able to

8TAXATION LAW
save the outgoings which may have occurred given the taxpayers have themselves paid for
the holidays.
In response to above reasoning, the federal court through example of “Abbott v
Philbin (1961)” conversed the decisions of purchase of shares. Even though the options to
was not given, the right undertaken by taxpayer for calling of shares was regarded as having
money’s worth since it can be used as the means of security for borrowing money (Barkoczy
2014). Referring to “section 26 (e)”, the federal court decision included that no services were
rendered by the taxpayers to manufactures. Based on this facts the benefits received here by
taxpayers was not an income and hence cannot be converted into money.
Relevance of case and likely decision on similar facts:
The case of “FCT v Cooke and Sherden, (1980)” is considered to be relevant today
because it gave rise to “section 21A” where the business benefits of non-cash types which
cannot be turned into cash would be treated as if they can be converted to cash. A similar
decision was followed in the case of “Payne v FCT 96 ATC 4407” where the frequent flyer
points was not held as income since they were not the money and non-converted to cash
(Kenny 2013). The flyer points was the subject of cancellation if it was sold off.

9TAXATION LAW
References:
Barkoczy, S. 2014. Foundations of taxation law.
Grange, J., Jover-Ledesma, G. and Maydew, G. 2014. principles of business taxation.
Jover-Ledesma, G. 2014. Principles of business taxation: Cch Incorporated.
Kenny, P. 2013. Australian tax. Chatswood, N.S.W.: LexisNexis Butterworths.
Krever, R. 2013. Australian taxation law cases. Pyrmont, N.S.W.: Thomson Reuters.
Morgan, A., Mortimer, C. and Pinto, D. 2013. A practical introduction to Australian taxation
law. North Ryde [N.S.W.]: CCH Australia.
Sadiq, K., Coleman, C., Hanegbi, R., Jogarajan, S., Krever, R., Obst, W. and Ting, A.
2014. Principles of taxation law.
Woellner, R. 2013. Australian taxation law 2012. North Ryde [N.S.W.]: CCH Australia.