Taxation Law & Counterbalancing in Australia
VerifiedAdded on 2020/03/23
|10
|1977
|361
AI Summary
This assignment delves into Australian taxation law, focusing on the process of counterbalancing foreign tax payments. It presents a theoretical framework for understanding how foreign taxes impact taxable income in Australia. The text utilizes tables to illustrate different scenarios and provides step-by-step calculations to demonstrate the counterbalancing mechanism. Additionally, it references relevant legal texts and scholarly works to support its explanations.
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
Running head: TAXATION
Taxation
University Name
Student Name
Authors’ Note
Taxation
University Name
Student Name
Authors’ Note
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
2TAXATION
Task 1:
As rightly put forward by Barkoczy (2016), taxation ruling asserted under the rule segment 4-
15 of specifically Income Tax Assessment Act pronounced during 1997 cites that computable
income is estimated by fitting subtraction of acceptable spending from the chargeable
income. Basically, people disbursing specific amount of tax might claim for deductions from
the assessable income. In line with the regulation pronounced in 8-1 (1) issued by ITAA in
1997 spells out that a particular person can seek subtraction for the below mentioned reasons:
- For the purpose of creation of quantifiable income
- For carrying out important business actions that can one after another generate
measurable income (Chaudhry et al. 2015)
The particular ruling segment that talks about the subtractions stated under segment 8.1 of
particularly the act (Income Tax Assessment Act) pronounced in 1997. This necessarily also
asserts that it is not feasible to undertake subtractions of different losses suffered by the
business provided the given conditions mentioned below:
- Firm’s losses otherwise retiring of capital are capital in nature
- Losses otherwise retiring are of private or else regional in features
- Firm’s losses are carried out to acquire or else to produce the amount of earnings that
is let off
- Particular provisions of the income tax regulation limits the process of subtraction of
the same (Coleman 2016)
Evaluation of the regulation of taxation assists in attainment of all-inclusive conception with
regards to different aspects mentioned herein below:
Task 1:
As rightly put forward by Barkoczy (2016), taxation ruling asserted under the rule segment 4-
15 of specifically Income Tax Assessment Act pronounced during 1997 cites that computable
income is estimated by fitting subtraction of acceptable spending from the chargeable
income. Basically, people disbursing specific amount of tax might claim for deductions from
the assessable income. In line with the regulation pronounced in 8-1 (1) issued by ITAA in
1997 spells out that a particular person can seek subtraction for the below mentioned reasons:
- For the purpose of creation of quantifiable income
- For carrying out important business actions that can one after another generate
measurable income (Chaudhry et al. 2015)
The particular ruling segment that talks about the subtractions stated under segment 8.1 of
particularly the act (Income Tax Assessment Act) pronounced in 1997. This necessarily also
asserts that it is not feasible to undertake subtractions of different losses suffered by the
business provided the given conditions mentioned below:
- Firm’s losses otherwise retiring of capital are capital in nature
- Losses otherwise retiring are of private or else regional in features
- Firm’s losses are carried out to acquire or else to produce the amount of earnings that
is let off
- Particular provisions of the income tax regulation limits the process of subtraction of
the same (Coleman 2016)
Evaluation of the regulation of taxation assists in attainment of all-inclusive conception with
regards to different aspects mentioned herein below:
3TAXATION
- Corporations spending money for transference of plants as well as machineries can be
enumerated for subtraction only at the time when plants and machineries are used up
for generation of quantifiable as well as assessable income as cited under the dictate
8-1 issued by ITAA. Lawful confirmation in this case on “Granite Supply
Association Ltd vKitton of 190” supports in the process of validating certain facts.
This is regarding outlays of firms on altering the site of plants as well as machineries
of corporations. However, this amount can be considered for deduction since these
expenses are capital in features/characteristics. Furthermore, the results of the lawful
case Smith v Westinghouse Brake Company of 1888 also aids in confirmation of
deductions asserted in the authorized case dictate of Granite Supply Association Ltd
vKitton of 190. (Fraser et al. 2015)
The legal case ““British Insulated & Helsby Cables” can be referred to in this
case. In this case the firm bears costs of transportation and delivers substantiation
regarding the fact that there subsists a constant benefit for the business by transferring
specific depreciable resources. Essentially the taxation directive mentioned under
TD92/126 refers to the fact that there is installation of different machines and
initiating business operations in which costs is considered as a fraction of revenue. In
addition to this, this can be hereby mentioned that the costs borne for relocation of
machines from one site to another can be treated as the capital cost and cannot be
endorsed for claiming subtractions (Jordan 2016)
- Taxation pronouncement pronounced under 8-1 of the ruling issued by ITAA in 1997
cite that costs borne by corporations for re-estimation of firm’s assets/reserves cannot
be considered as expense that can be subtracted
- Taxation dictate specified under decree 8-1 issued by ITAA states that business
spending by different legal officials for generation of earnings can be acknowledged
- Corporations spending money for transference of plants as well as machineries can be
enumerated for subtraction only at the time when plants and machineries are used up
for generation of quantifiable as well as assessable income as cited under the dictate
8-1 issued by ITAA. Lawful confirmation in this case on “Granite Supply
Association Ltd vKitton of 190” supports in the process of validating certain facts.
This is regarding outlays of firms on altering the site of plants as well as machineries
of corporations. However, this amount can be considered for deduction since these
expenses are capital in features/characteristics. Furthermore, the results of the lawful
case Smith v Westinghouse Brake Company of 1888 also aids in confirmation of
deductions asserted in the authorized case dictate of Granite Supply Association Ltd
vKitton of 190. (Fraser et al. 2015)
The legal case ““British Insulated & Helsby Cables” can be referred to in this
case. In this case the firm bears costs of transportation and delivers substantiation
regarding the fact that there subsists a constant benefit for the business by transferring
specific depreciable resources. Essentially the taxation directive mentioned under
TD92/126 refers to the fact that there is installation of different machines and
initiating business operations in which costs is considered as a fraction of revenue. In
addition to this, this can be hereby mentioned that the costs borne for relocation of
machines from one site to another can be treated as the capital cost and cannot be
endorsed for claiming subtractions (Jordan 2016)
- Taxation pronouncement pronounced under 8-1 of the ruling issued by ITAA in 1997
cite that costs borne by corporations for re-estimation of firm’s assets/reserves cannot
be considered as expense that can be subtracted
- Taxation dictate specified under decree 8-1 issued by ITAA states that business
spending by different legal officials for generation of earnings can be acknowledged
4TAXATION
as a specific amount that can be considered for subtraction in the process of
assessment of payable tax. Furthermore, the taxation ruling sited under the ID 2004-
367 refers to the fact that the cost that is lawfully incurred during releasing business
operations is normally considered as the permitted subtractions. However, the causes
behind taking into consideration these kinds of deductible spending is that the
individual payers of tax acquires the expend so that revenue can be produced. In this
connection, the case on “FC of T v Snowden and Wilson Pty Ltd (1958)” explicates
that in cases where spending are not normal and no prior situations the payers of tax
needed to incur spending, then in that circumstances it averts the expenditure from
being considered as the permissible subtraction (Miller and Oats 2016). In addition to
this, the officially permitted cost that payers of tax bears essentially to oppose the
winding of certain petition cannot be properly treated as the permissible deduction.
The main cause behind not taking into account these kinds of costs for deductions
from the assessable income is mainly due to the fact that they are proportion of
business expenditure. Essentially, the overall happening of legal expenditure for
terminating the petition cannot be treated as the acceptable subtractions as they
possess the capital feature.
Task 2:
The given case evidently talks about the banking business Big Bank that carries out
operations in excess of 50 diverse branches and runs numerous call centres. The headquarter
of the banking firm Big Bank is situated in a 10 storied office block. Comprehensive analysis
of taxation regulation aids in acquiring knowledge concerning input credit of particularly
GST (goods as well as service tax). Guidelines asserts that the input credit in particularly
GST is inevitably permitted only when the process of acquirement is taken on by the
as a specific amount that can be considered for subtraction in the process of
assessment of payable tax. Furthermore, the taxation ruling sited under the ID 2004-
367 refers to the fact that the cost that is lawfully incurred during releasing business
operations is normally considered as the permitted subtractions. However, the causes
behind taking into consideration these kinds of deductible spending is that the
individual payers of tax acquires the expend so that revenue can be produced. In this
connection, the case on “FC of T v Snowden and Wilson Pty Ltd (1958)” explicates
that in cases where spending are not normal and no prior situations the payers of tax
needed to incur spending, then in that circumstances it averts the expenditure from
being considered as the permissible subtraction (Miller and Oats 2016). In addition to
this, the officially permitted cost that payers of tax bears essentially to oppose the
winding of certain petition cannot be properly treated as the permissible deduction.
The main cause behind not taking into account these kinds of costs for deductions
from the assessable income is mainly due to the fact that they are proportion of
business expenditure. Essentially, the overall happening of legal expenditure for
terminating the petition cannot be treated as the acceptable subtractions as they
possess the capital feature.
Task 2:
The given case evidently talks about the banking business Big Bank that carries out
operations in excess of 50 diverse branches and runs numerous call centres. The headquarter
of the banking firm Big Bank is situated in a 10 storied office block. Comprehensive analysis
of taxation regulation aids in acquiring knowledge concerning input credit of particularly
GST (goods as well as service tax). Guidelines asserts that the input credit in particularly
GST is inevitably permitted only when the process of acquirement is taken on by the
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
5TAXATION
corporation and the apposite article linked to this specific kind of business are fittingly
maintained. GST –pronouncements of 1999 stresses on the fact that banking firm that
operates for generating higher income have the faculty to get hold of input credit (Parker
2013). As such, this aids the bank Big bank to lay out the required amount for goods as well
as service tax (GST). In essence, this refers to purchasing of assets/reserves of the
corporation.
Issue deciphered from the current case
Investigation of the case on the bank Big Bank assists in disclosing that the firm is indexed
for purpose of functioning of GST. In essence, the current report on the Big Bank mentions
that the bank spends around $1650000 and this specific amount necessarily is inclusive of the
goods and service tax applied on the amount expended on advertisement functions.
Additionally, Big Bank also intends to deliver assurance as regards whether disbursement
amount can be authoritatively identified as input credit. This is because the expenditure
amount is encompassing Goods and services (Tax Peetz 2014).
Tax Guideline that can be referred to in this present case
Illustrative analysis of the taxation regulation appropriately asserted in the 2nd section of the
GST pronounced in 1999 helps in acquiring conception regarding utilities that are officially
recognized to acquire input tax credit. In essence, these are essentially burnt up by the bank
right the way through the usual course of operations of firm. Nevertheless, it can be hereby
mentioned that expenses in real effect encompasses GST (Sawyer 2013).
Specific application of dictates of taxation
The provided case speaks about keen financial services offered by the bank Big Bank. As
such, the presented case also explicates about the backdrop of functionalities of the business
corporation and the apposite article linked to this specific kind of business are fittingly
maintained. GST –pronouncements of 1999 stresses on the fact that banking firm that
operates for generating higher income have the faculty to get hold of input credit (Parker
2013). As such, this aids the bank Big bank to lay out the required amount for goods as well
as service tax (GST). In essence, this refers to purchasing of assets/reserves of the
corporation.
Issue deciphered from the current case
Investigation of the case on the bank Big Bank assists in disclosing that the firm is indexed
for purpose of functioning of GST. In essence, the current report on the Big Bank mentions
that the bank spends around $1650000 and this specific amount necessarily is inclusive of the
goods and service tax applied on the amount expended on advertisement functions.
Additionally, Big Bank also intends to deliver assurance as regards whether disbursement
amount can be authoritatively identified as input credit. This is because the expenditure
amount is encompassing Goods and services (Tax Peetz 2014).
Tax Guideline that can be referred to in this present case
Illustrative analysis of the taxation regulation appropriately asserted in the 2nd section of the
GST pronounced in 1999 helps in acquiring conception regarding utilities that are officially
recognized to acquire input tax credit. In essence, these are essentially burnt up by the bank
right the way through the usual course of operations of firm. Nevertheless, it can be hereby
mentioned that expenses in real effect encompasses GST (Sawyer 2013).
Specific application of dictates of taxation
The provided case speaks about keen financial services offered by the bank Big Bank. As
such, the presented case also explicates about the backdrop of functionalities of the business
6TAXATION
entity. Explanations of case on Big Bank concentrate on the functions of the business
companies. This tells about the initiation of deliverance of insurance arrangements, home
substance in the open market along with bank’s provision of loan as well as deposit facility to
their clients. Administration of the bank Big Bank also allotted a specific amount for carrying
out advertisement intended towards promotion of financial services for particularly home.
Even so, out of the available amount, the particular amount that remains leftover is
necessarily up to $1100000. Inevitably, this particular amount assigned for undertaking
projects on undertaking advertisements of specialised financial products as well as facilities is
counts GST within it (Woellner et al. 2016).
Accordingly, it can be hereby deciphered that the bank Big Bank has spent approximately
$1100000 for raising overall awareness concerning different offerings of Big Bank among the
targeted customers/patrons for gaining of tax credit of input. This is owing to the fact that
roughly 2% of the overall expenses of Big Bank do not augment generation of the
corporation’s proceeds.
Table 1: Presenting Input Tax Credit
(Source: As is calculated by the author)
entity. Explanations of case on Big Bank concentrate on the functions of the business
companies. This tells about the initiation of deliverance of insurance arrangements, home
substance in the open market along with bank’s provision of loan as well as deposit facility to
their clients. Administration of the bank Big Bank also allotted a specific amount for carrying
out advertisement intended towards promotion of financial services for particularly home.
Even so, out of the available amount, the particular amount that remains leftover is
necessarily up to $1100000. Inevitably, this particular amount assigned for undertaking
projects on undertaking advertisements of specialised financial products as well as facilities is
counts GST within it (Woellner et al. 2016).
Accordingly, it can be hereby deciphered that the bank Big Bank has spent approximately
$1100000 for raising overall awareness concerning different offerings of Big Bank among the
targeted customers/patrons for gaining of tax credit of input. This is owing to the fact that
roughly 2% of the overall expenses of Big Bank do not augment generation of the
corporation’s proceeds.
Table 1: Presenting Input Tax Credit
(Source: As is calculated by the author)
7TAXATION
Task 3:
Taxation bylaws or else the assertions mentioned under 717 A aids in gaining full
comprehension of guidelines associated to procedure of counterbalancing the overall tax on
quantifiable income (Woellner et al. 2016). Specifically, procedures of enumerating move by
move are herein mentioned in the table below:
Table 2: Presenting the Income Tax that is paid
(Source: As is calculated by the author)
Table 3: Presenting Income Tax that is paid
Task 3:
Taxation bylaws or else the assertions mentioned under 717 A aids in gaining full
comprehension of guidelines associated to procedure of counterbalancing the overall tax on
quantifiable income (Woellner et al. 2016). Specifically, procedures of enumerating move by
move are herein mentioned in the table below:
Table 2: Presenting the Income Tax that is paid
(Source: As is calculated by the author)
Table 3: Presenting Income Tax that is paid
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
8TAXATION
(Source: As is calculated by the author)
Table 4: Presenting Income Tax that is paid
(Source: As is calculated by the author)
Fundamentally, the technique of counterbalancing if not adding up to foreign taxation can be
appropriately specified by proper removal/subtraction of imbursements of tax by payers on
specific income under primary alternative from tax outstanding from the second choice
(Woellner et al. 2016). Accordingly, the entire outline can be hereby deciphered to be $
(11794.1 – 6821.6) = $ 4971.5. Be that as it may, the procedure of counterbalancing foreign
tax can be taken into account for assessment of taxable quantity. So, the specific limit for
neutralizing the foreign tax stands at $4400.
(Source: As is calculated by the author)
Table 4: Presenting Income Tax that is paid
(Source: As is calculated by the author)
Fundamentally, the technique of counterbalancing if not adding up to foreign taxation can be
appropriately specified by proper removal/subtraction of imbursements of tax by payers on
specific income under primary alternative from tax outstanding from the second choice
(Woellner et al. 2016). Accordingly, the entire outline can be hereby deciphered to be $
(11794.1 – 6821.6) = $ 4971.5. Be that as it may, the procedure of counterbalancing foreign
tax can be taken into account for assessment of taxable quantity. So, the specific limit for
neutralizing the foreign tax stands at $4400.
9TAXATION
Task 4:
Task 4:
10TAXATION
References
Barkoczy, S., 2016. Foundations of Taxation Law 2016. OUP Catalogue.
Chaudhry, S.M., Mullineux, A. and Agarwal, N., 2015. Balancing the regulation and taxation
of banking. International Review of Financial Analysis, 42, pp.38-52.
Coleman, W. ed., 2016. Only in Australia: The history, politics, and economics of Australian
exceptionalism. Oxford University Press.
Fraser, D., Weier, M., Keane, H. and Gartner, C., 2015. Vapers’ perspectives on electronic
cigarette regulation in Australia. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26(6), pp.589-594.
Jordan, C., 2016. Commissioner of Taxation, Chris Jordan AO on Corporate Tax
Transparency 2015–16. Press release, December 9. Australian Taxation Office (Canberra).
Miller, A. and Oats, L., 2016. Principles of international taxation. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Parker, C., 2013. Twenty years of responsive regulation: An appreciation and
appraisal. Regulation & Governance, 7(1), pp.2-13.
Peetz, D., 2014. Regulation distance, labour segmentation and gender gaps. Cambridge
Journal of Economics, 39(2), pp.345-362.
Sawyer, A., 2013. Rewriting Tax Legislation-Can Polishing Silver Really Turn It into
Gold. J. Austl. Tax'n, 15, p.1.
Woellner, R., Barkoczy, S., Murphy, S., Evans, C. and Pinto, D., 2016. Australian Taxation
Law 2016. OUP Catalogue.
References
Barkoczy, S., 2016. Foundations of Taxation Law 2016. OUP Catalogue.
Chaudhry, S.M., Mullineux, A. and Agarwal, N., 2015. Balancing the regulation and taxation
of banking. International Review of Financial Analysis, 42, pp.38-52.
Coleman, W. ed., 2016. Only in Australia: The history, politics, and economics of Australian
exceptionalism. Oxford University Press.
Fraser, D., Weier, M., Keane, H. and Gartner, C., 2015. Vapers’ perspectives on electronic
cigarette regulation in Australia. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26(6), pp.589-594.
Jordan, C., 2016. Commissioner of Taxation, Chris Jordan AO on Corporate Tax
Transparency 2015–16. Press release, December 9. Australian Taxation Office (Canberra).
Miller, A. and Oats, L., 2016. Principles of international taxation. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Parker, C., 2013. Twenty years of responsive regulation: An appreciation and
appraisal. Regulation & Governance, 7(1), pp.2-13.
Peetz, D., 2014. Regulation distance, labour segmentation and gender gaps. Cambridge
Journal of Economics, 39(2), pp.345-362.
Sawyer, A., 2013. Rewriting Tax Legislation-Can Polishing Silver Really Turn It into
Gold. J. Austl. Tax'n, 15, p.1.
Woellner, R., Barkoczy, S., Murphy, S., Evans, C. and Pinto, D., 2016. Australian Taxation
Law 2016. OUP Catalogue.
1 out of 10
Related Documents
Your All-in-One AI-Powered Toolkit for Academic Success.
+13062052269
info@desklib.com
Available 24*7 on WhatsApp / Email
Unlock your academic potential
© 2024 | Zucol Services PVT LTD | All rights reserved.