Taxation Law: Analyzing Capital Gains Tax and Income Assessment

This assignment provides a detailed analysis of taxation law, focusing on the calculation of taxable income and tax payable. It examines capital gains tax (CGT) events, including the sale of an investment property, stamp collection, and shares, while also considering carry-forward losses and the quarantining rule for collectables. The assignment further explores the characterization of receipts as ordinary income from business activities, including professional fees, dividends, and rental income, and discusses allowable deductions such as office rent and employee salaries. It references relevant sections of the ITAA 1997 and ITAA 1936, as well as case law, to support its analysis of various income and deduction items, providing a comprehensive overview of the taxation principles involved. This document is available on Desklib, a platform offering a range of study tools and solved assignments for students.

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
Answer to question 2:.................................................................................................................6
Answer to question 3:...............................................................................................................11
References:...............................................................................................................................18

2TAXATION LAW
Answer to question 1:
According to the Australian taxation office an individual tax payer may make a
capital gains or capital loss when they sell the rental property that is acquired on or after 19th
September 1985. In the circumstances of the sale or disposal or the real estate the time of the
event is treated normally when a person enters into the contract usually when the settlement
is reached (Sadiq et al. 2013). A person may make the capital gains from the sale of the rental
property up to the extent that the capital proceeds that is received by them is greater than the
cost base of the property. A taxpayer might make the capital loss up to the extent that the
property reduce cost base is greater than the capital proceeds.
A gain is treated as the capital gains which is not subjected to income tax under the
ordinary concepts. The income tax liability of the taxpayer includes the net capital gains. In
other words, the net capital gains is included into the assessable income of the taxpayers
(Woellner et al. 2016). The cost base and the reduced cost base of the property comprises of
the amount that is paid for along with the certain incidental costs that are related with
acquiring, holding and selling the property. This includes the legal fees, stamp duty and real
estate agent commission.
A CGT event A1 occurs under “section 104-10 (1) of the ITAA 1997” when the
taxpayer sells any CGT asset. In the current situation it is noticed that Kylie sold an
investment property for $580,000. The selling of investment apartment resulted in “CGT
event A1” under “section 104-10 (1) of the ITAA 1997” (Braithwaite 2017). The apartment
was however bought for $360,000. At the time of acquiring the holiday apartment Kylie
reported an expenses of $5000 and $4000 respectively for stamp duty and valuation costs.
According to the “section 110-25” the cost base of the asset includes the total amount of
money paid to acquire the property. With reference to “section 110-25” expenses on stamp

3TAXATION LAW
duty and valuation costs for acquiring the rental property are added to the cost base of the
apartment under the second element.
The third element of the cost base items includes the cost of ownership. The cost of
ownership comprises of the interest, cost of maintenance, repairs and renovation, insurance,
rates and land tax (Bankman et al. 2017). Kylie later reported on 1st July 2009 relating to
costs incurred on renovating the apartment. Kylie incurred renovation cost of $15,000. The
cost of renovating the apartment falls under the third element of cost base under “section
110-25 of the ITAA 1997”. Therefore, the same is added into the cost base of the apartment.
The fourth element of cost base comprises of the capital enhancement and
preservation costs. This includes any form of capital expenditure such as improvement to the
asset that is incurred by the taxpayer in increasing the value of the asset that forms the part of
the fourth element of the cost base under “section 110-25 (5) of the ITAA 1997” (Schenk
2017). The fourth element of cost base includes the capital expenditure that is related to the
installation or moving the asset. Kylie later reports on 1st February 2009 an expenditure of
$40,000 related to addition of second bathroom in the apartment. The cost can be
characterised as improvement to the asset in the form of capital enhancement and falls under
the part of fourth element of cost base.
While arriving at the final settlement of the investment apartment Kylie reported legal
expenses and real estate commission. The expenses are considered as cost of selling and the
same is subtracted to ascertain the net selling price (Murphy and Higgins 2016). The selling
of investment apartment resulted in capital gains under “CGT event A1” and the net amount
of capital gains is included into the assessable income of Kylie.
Later Kylie granted a three month option of purchasing the rental property to local
property developer which eventually lapsed and resulted in receipt of $10,500. She incurred

4TAXATION LAW
the expense of $500 as the fees paid to solicitor for repairing the contract. Fees paid to the
solicitor for preparing the option contract can be treated as eligible deduction under the
“section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997” because it was incurred in the gaining the assessable income.
According to the “section 108-10 (2) of the ITAA 1997” collectables refers to the
artwork, an antique coin or medallion or a postage stamp that is mainly kept by the taxpayer
for their private usage and enjoyment purpose (Schmalbeck, Zelenak and Lawsky, 2015).
There are certain special rules that are applicable on collectables. The capital gains and
capital losses should be disregarded under “section 118-10 (1) of the ITAA 1997” when the
cost base of the collectable is less than $500. The quarantining rule under “section 108-10
(1)” states that capital loss from the collectables can be only used to offset the capital gains
from the collectables (Seto 2015). Kylie later reports capital gains from the sale of stamp
collection however she has the carry-forward loss of $5000 from the sale of coin. As a result
of this, Kylie under the quarantining rule of “section 108-10 (1)” can only offset the capital
loss that is made from the sale of antique coin.
Shares in company or units in the trust are considered in the similar manner as the
other assets for the purpose of capital gains tax. For an individual investors capital gains tax
is applied on the shares and units when they sell them originating from the CGT event
(Finkelstein 2014). In the current situation it is noticed that Kylie made a capital gains from
the shares of BHP however she had the carry forward loss of $20,000 from the shares during
the income year of 2008-. The gains made from the shares of BHP are offset against the carry
forward loss.
Kylie carried on the business of gymnasium that only made profit once in every ten
year however the gymnasium did not reported profit during the year 2017-18. The loss made

5TAXATION LAW
from the gymnasium should be carry forward to the later years and the same can be offset by
Kylie when the business makes profits from such operations carried on by her.
Computation of Kylie’s Taxable Income and Tax Payable
Calculation of Taxable Income
In the Books of Kylie
For the year ended June 30, 2018
Particulars Amount ($) Amount ($)
Assessable Income
Gross Salary 20000
Receipts from grant option 10500
Capital Gains
Net capital gain on disposal of property:
Proceeds 570000
Cost base 424000
Gross capital gain (proceeds less cost base) 146000
50% CGT discount 73000 73000
Net capital gain on disposal of Shares:
Proceeds 65000
Cost base 45000
Gross capital gain (proceeds less cost base) 20000
Less: Carry forward capital loss from shares 20000 Nil
Total assessable income 103500
Allowable deductions
Legal Fees to paid to Solicitor 500
Total Allowable Deductions 500
Total taxable income 103000
Tax on taxable income 25742
Medicare Levy 2060
Total tax payable 27802
Notes:
Note 1 Computation of Capital gains

6TAXATION LAW
For the year ended June 30, 2018
Particulars
Amount
($)
Amount
($)
CGT Event A1: Considerations - (Section 104-
10(1))
Capital Proceeds: Sales Proceeds of Apartment 5,80,000
Less: Cost of Selling
Legal Expenses 2000
Agent Commission 8000 10000
Total Selling Price 5,70,000
Cost Base (section 110-25)
Element 1: Purchase 3,60,000
Element 2: Stamp Duty 5000
Valuation Cost 4000
Element 3: Renovation Cost 15000
Element 4: Capital Addition (1-2-09) 40000 64000
Cost Base 4,24,000
Capital Gains 1,46,000
Note 2 Computation of Capital gains from Collectables
Particulars
Amount
($)
Amount
($)
Proceeds 25000
Cost base 22000
Gross capital gain (proceeds less cost base) 3000
Less: Carry Forward Capital Loss from Coins 5000
Gross Capital Loss -2000
Note 3 Computation of Capital gains from shares
Particulars
Amount
($)
Amount
($)
Net capital gain on disposal of Shares:
Proceeds 65000
Cost base 45000
Gross capital gain (proceeds less cost base) 20000
Less: Carry forward capital loss from shares 20000
Capital Gains/Loss 0
Answer to question 2:
Characterising the receipts in the form of ordinary income from the business activity
comprises of two steps namely, ascertaining whether the taxpayer is performing the business

7TAXATION LAW
or whether the receipts are treated as the normal proceeds of the business (Hoffman et al.
2014). Gains obtained by the taxpayer from carrying on of the business is treated as the
ordinary income under “section 6-5 of the ITAA 1997”. As understood in the current
situation, Salvador Ryan was the accountant and Director of accounting practice firm.
Salvador reported the receipt of $600,000 from the professional fees and $25,000 from the
sales of superannuation guide.
As per “section 6-5” most of the income that comes into the taxpayer must be treated
as ordinary income. The court in “Scott v CT (1935)” held that appropriate principles must be
applied in determining the receipts within the ordinary concepts (Burns and Ziliak 2017).
Therefore, the receipts from professional fees and sales of superannuation guide should be
held assessable under the ordinary concept of “section 6-5”.
As per “section 44 (1) of the ITAA 1936” dividends and gains obtained from shares
are held as statutory income (Buenker 2018). A resident company may pay franking
dividends to a person. The dividends may be entirely franked or may be partially franked
which means that the dividend has franked and unfranked amount. As understood Salvador
reported a receipt of partially franked $17,000 dividend. The dividend is included for
assessment under “section 44 (1) of the ITAA 1936” as the statutory income.
The interest from bank deposits are treated as the ordinary income under “section 6-5
of the ITAA 1997”. Therefore, the interest received from the bank deposits are ordinary
income and it is included for assessment. The court in “Adelaide Fruit and Produce
Exchange Co Ltd v FC of T (1932)” stated that the rent refers to the price paid as the right of
using another person’s property (Robin 2017). The receipt of rental income from the
investment property is held as assessable income as the income from ordinary concepts.

8TAXATION LAW
Salvador reported profits from the sale of the office equipment. The profit has been
included for assessment as the receipts under the ordinary concepts. As per the Australian
taxation office, the assessable income from the overseas nation should be declared by the
taxpayer in their Australian income tax return. An individual that has paid foreign tax in other
nation, may be entitled to the Australian foreign income tax offset that provides the taxpayer
from the double taxation relief (Blakelock and King 2017). The gross dividend of $850 from
the shares of IBM (USA) has been included for assessment as receipts under ordinary concept
however the withholding tax of $150 is claimed as foreign income tax offset.
The general deduction rule states that the taxpayer can obtain from their taxable
income a loss or the outgoings till the extent that are assessable under “section 8-1 (1) of the
ITAA 1997” (Martin and Connor 2017). The expenses should be incurred in gaining or
generating the assessable income. The expenses must be necessarily incurred for the business
purpose of generating assessable income.
Salvador reported expenses towards office rent, superannuation guides and salary paid
to employee secretary. The court in “Amalgamated Zinc Ltd v FC of T (1935)” explained
that to claim a deduction for loss or outgoing the expenditure must hold the sufficient nexus
or connection in deriving the assessable income (Burton 2017). With reference to the
“section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997” the expenses were incurred in gaining the assessable income
and the business course of the taxpayer. The expenses are eligible for deduction because it
was incurred in course of generating assessable income.
The court in “Lunney v FC of T (1958)” held that the travel between home and a
taxpayer usual work place is usually not allowed as deductions (Maley 2018). Salvador
reported an expense related to train fare for travel between home and workplace. As held in
“Payne v FC of T 2001” the court denied deduction for the cost of travelling between the

9TAXATION LAW
taxpayer’s home and the airport where he worked. The court held that the travel between the
two unrelated place of work is not allowed for deductions. Therefore, the travel expense for
traveling to and from home to the place of work is non-deductible expenses.
Legal expenditure is allowed for deductions if the legal expenditure have originated as
the outcome of taxpayer’s income generating activities given that the legal cost are not capital
in nature or private in nature. The court in “Hallstorms Pty Ltd v FC of T (1946)” held that
the legal expenditure can be characterised as the outgoing based on the revenue account or
expenses under the capital nature based on the cause or purpose for which the legal expenses
are incurred (Bently and Sherman 2014). The legal fees incurred by Salvador will be allowed
as deduction under “section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997”.
As per “section 8-1” an individual taxpayer can claim deduction for the certain forms
of expenses that a taxpayer incurs while the property is rented out or available for rent. Rates
paid on the rental property will be allowed as deduction under “section 8-1” since the
property was used for generating assessable income.
Accordingly, an individual taxpayer is allowed to claim immediate deduction for the
expenses related to the rental property. The taxpayer here incurred expenses on interest on
loan, the interest here is treated as deductible expenses.
As per the “taxation ruling of TR 97/23” initial repairs expenses that are associated
to the profit making structure are treated as capital expenditure and hence not allowed as
deduction (Davison, Monotti and Wiseman 2015). In other words, expenses incurred on the
property for initial repairs following the acquisition of property, given the expenses are
incurred in remedying the defects or damage existent during the date of acquisition are
treated as capital expenses and non-deductible under “section 25-10”. The court in “Law
Shipping Co Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners (1923)” held that the cost of repairing

10TAXATION LAW
the roof, guttering, painting, wall and wooden floor during the year of income when it was
acquired was expenses of capital in nature and non-deductible under “section 25-10”. The
cost of $5,000 for painting the rental property immediately following the purchase will be
treated as capital expenditure and non-deductible under “section 25-10 of the ITAA 1997”.
The court in “W Thomas & Co Pty Ltd v FC of T (1965)” explained that repairs and
improvements relating to restoration of thing to a certain condition without changing the
character (Miller and Oats 2016). Repairs done on the premises to remedy the defects caused
by wear and tear or damage by storm are allowed as deduction under “section 25-10 of the
ITAA 1997”. Similarly, the cost of replacing the roof tiles on the investment property will be
treated as deductible under “section 25-10” since it involves restoration of the condition on
the premises that is damaged by storm.
As per the “taxation ruling of TR 97/23” repairs done on the investment property
does not changes necessarily since it was executed at the same time as the improvement
(James and Nobes 2016). If the work accounts to substantial improvement, addition or
alteration is not treated as repair and it is not deductible under “section 25-10 of the ITAA
1997”. The cost of extending the bathroom in rental property is treated as capital expenses
and non-deductible under “section 25-10”.
As per the ATO assets purchase entirely for the business use are treated as allowable
deductions. The purchase of BMW for 100% business use is included for deduction since the
asset is used entirely for the business purpose.
According to the ATO if the business makes any losses in the earlier year they can
carry forward these losses and claim the same as the deduction for those losses in the later
year. The carry forward of $42,000 as the loss from the previous year will be allowed as tax
offset.

11TAXATION LAW
Calculation of Tax Payable
In the Books of Darwin Taxation Services Pty Ltd
For the year ended 30 June 2018
Particulars
Amount
($)
Amount
($)
Receipts Eligible for Assessment
Professional Accounting Fees 600000
Sales of Superannuation guides 25000
Australian sourced dividend income:
Fully franked (net) 8500
Gross up for franking credits (17000 x 50/50) 8500 17000
Australian sourced interest income 5000
Australian sourced rental income 10000
Foreign sourced dividend income (gross of WHT of AUD
150) 1000
Profit on Sale of Office Equipment 2000
Total Assessable Income 660000
Expenses Eligible as Deductions
Office Rent 14000
Cost of Sales (Superannuation Guide) 10000
Salary Paid to Employee 38000
Legal Fees 1000
Rates on Rental Property 2000
Interest on Loan 15000
Cost of replacing the roof tiles 1000
Cost of new BMW 136000
PAYG Instalments 150000
Total Allowable Deductions 367000
Total taxable Income 293000
Tax on Taxable Income @27.5% 80575
Less: Foreign Income tax offset 150
Less: Franking Credit 8500
Less: Carry-forward of Previous year loss 42000
Total tax payable 29925
Answer to question 3:
Partnership cannot be referred as separate legal entity under the general law and does
not pay tax rather it is the partners that pay tax on the profits distributed to them from
partnerships (Zeff 2016). Partnerships should lodge the income tax return to reflect how the
profits that are distributed to the partners are taxed. As per the “section 92 of the ITAA

12TAXATION LAW
1997” the net income or loss is distributed to the partners that pay tax on the distributions.
According to the “section 995-1 (1) of the ITAA 1997” partnership refers to the carrying on
the business as the partners or in recipient of the ordinary or statutory income together.
In order to characterised the receipts under the ordinary income the business activities
comprise of two steps namely to ascertain whether the taxpayer is performing the business,
secondly whether the receipts that is received is from the normal proceeds of that business
(Oats, Miller and Mulligan 2017). The gross receipts obtained from the trading is treated as
the ordinary income in accordance with the ordinary concept of “section 6-5 of the ITAA
1997”. The dividends are taxed differently on the basis of whether the dividends are franked
dividends or unfranked dividends.
A resident company of Australia that has decided to join the Australian imputation
system might pay the shareholders or credit them with the franked dividend. Dividends can
be fully franked which implies that the entire amount of the dividend carries the franking
credit (Fleurbaey and Maniquet 2015). While the dividends can be partly franked which
implies that the dividend has the franking amount and unfranked amount. The dividend of
$12,520 is included for assessment within the statutory concept of “section 44 (1) of the
ITAA 1936”.
According to the Australian taxation office the purchase of trading stock is allowed as
deduction. The purchases of trading stock amounting to $305,000 is considered as
deductions.
Active partners of usually paid salary because of the extra work they do. However, the
same is not treated a salary. It is rather treated as before claim on profits prior to the balance
is shared among the partners. According to the “section 90” salaries paid to the partners are
not regarded as deductible while computing the net income (Sikka 2017). The salaries of

13TAXATION LAW
$30,000 paid to each of the partners is not deductible under “section 90” while computing the
net income of partnership.
Partners may be owed to the money from the partnerships. This can be in the form of
distribution of the profits that has not been paid or partners has lent some partnership money.
According to the general law the interest that is paid on the partner’s loan is not treated as the
deductible expenditure for a partnership. However, the court has relaxed the rules in
“Leonard v FCT (1919)” and held that interest on the external borrowings by the partnership
to the partner’s contributions employed in the business are allowed as tax deductions
(Barkoczy 2018). Similarly, the interest on the cash advance that was made to partnership by
Elizabeth is treated as allowable deduction under “section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997”.
The partnerships reported expenditure relating to the payment of salaries and holiday
leave to employees. The partnership also made payment of fringe benefit tax to the
employees with other general and specific deductions. The taxpayers under the general
deduction rule of positive limbs stated the expenses incurred in obtaining or generating the
taxable income (Douglas et al. 2014). The expenses should be necessarily incurred in
carrying on the business with the objective gaining or generating assessable income.
Therefore, the salary paid to employee, fringe benefit tax and other general expenses will be
allowed as deductions under the “section 8-1” since it is incurred in the course of derivation
of assessable income.
According to the Australian taxation office a business can claim deduction under the
simplified rules of depreciation. If a taxpayer decides to use the simplified rules for
depreciation, then the taxpayer should implement the entire set of rules and not simply
individual elements (Grange, Jover-Ledesma and Maydew 2015). The taxpayers are allowed

14TAXATION LAW
to claim deductions only for the portion of the assets that is used for the business or other
taxable purpose.
The simplified depreciation rule has been considered in determining the depreciation
expenses (James 2016). The partnership is allowed to claim deductions only for the portion of
the assets that is used for the business or other taxable purpose.
In the later instances it is noticed that Elizabeth worked as the part time instructor and
made $15,000. According to the “section 6-1 of the ITAA 1997” income from the personal
exertion or income obtained from the personal exertion represents the earnings, wages,
salaries, commissions, pension, fees, superannuation contributions or gratuities that is
received in advance in respect of the services rendered (Jover-Ledesma 2014). The judicial
concept of “section 6-5 of the ITAA 1997” defines ordinary income in accordance with the
ordinary concepts and use of mankind (Kenny 2014). As per the “section 6-1” the receipt of
salary from the part-time income will be treated as the income obtained by Elizabeth from the
personal exertion. The gross salary would be treated as assessable income under the ordinary
concept of “section 6-5 of the ITAA 1997”.
Gambling winnings are not treated as income unless the taxpayer is carrying on the
business of gambling. A mere windfall gain usually does not possess the character of income.
The court in “Moore v Griffiths (1972)” held that mere winnings from the prize is not treated
as the income (Kenny, Blissenden and Villios 2018). Similarly, Elizabeth reported a
gambling winnings of $2,400. The amount will not be included into the taxpayer’s assessable
income for assessment purpose.
As per the Australian taxation office the Australian resident company or the New
Zealand franking company that has undertaken the decision of joining the Australian
imputation system might pay or credit the shareholders with the franked dividend. Dividends

15TAXATION LAW
can be entirely franked or may be partially franked (McCouat 2018). The franking credits are
claimed as the tax offset by the taxpayer. The taxpayer Elizabeth reported the receipt of
$7,000 as the fully franked dividend. The amount of the franking credits that is attached to
the dividend is entitled to claim a franking tax offset for the tax the company has paid on its
income.
According to the Australian taxation office the simplified depreciation rules is applied
for the assets that costs less than the instant asset write-off threshold during the year they are
purchased, used or installed for ready use (Morgan, Mortimer and Pinto 2017). Elizabeth
reported the purchase of calculator for a sum of $250 for the classes that she conducted as the
instructor. The amount of $250 will be claimed as immediate deductions since the asset is
bought entirely for generating the assessable income.
According to the Australian taxation office an individual taxpayer is allowed to claim
deduction for the union fees, subscription to trade, business or professional associations
(Sadiq et al. 2018). Elizabeth reported an expenditure towards the payment of annual
membership for professional association. The amount of $500 has been included for
deductions.
If an individual or their family does not have the appropriate level of the private
hospital insurance cover and the income of the taxpayer is greater than Medicare Levy
Surcharge threshold limit (Taylor et al. 2018). As Elizabeth is single and the income
threshold limit is below basic tier of $90,000. Therefore, she will be exempted from the
Medicare Levy Surcharge.
As per the Australian taxation office, the assessable income from the overseas nation
should be declared by the taxpayer in their income tax return. An individual that has paid
foreign tax in other nation, may be entitled to the Australian foreign income tax offset that

16TAXATION LAW
provides the taxpayer from the double taxation relief (Woellner et al. 2014). The gross
dividend of $9000 from the shares of US Company has been included for assessment as
receipts under ordinary concept however the withholding tax of $1000 is claimed as foreign
income tax offset.
Calculation of Net Partnership Income 2016-17
Computation of Net Partnership Income
In the books of Elizabeth and Fred
For the year ended 30 June 2018
Particulars
Amount
($)
Amount
($)
Receipts Eligible for Assessment
Gross receipts from Trading 860000
Australian Sourced Dividend Income
Fully Franked (Net) 8764
Franking Credits (12520*30/70) 3756 12520
Total Assessable Income 872520
Expenses Eligible as deduction
Purchase of Trading Stock 305000
Interest on cash Advance by Elizabeth 2000
Salaries and Holiday leave 60000
Fringe benefit tax paid 2300
Other general and specific deductions 1,23,400
Depreciation for the Current year 39,675
Cost of Goods Sold (Opening stock + Purchase -Closing
Stock) 295000
Total Allowable Deductions 827375
Net Income of the Partnership firm for the income year 45145
Share of Partnership Profits
Elizabeth Share (1/2) 22572.5
Fred Share (1/2) 22572.5
Notes:
Calculation of Small business pool balance
Calculation Item Pool Balance Depreciation Claim
Closing pool balance from previous year 120000
Add: New Asset Purchase 24500
Subtotal 144500

17TAXATION LAW
Less: Proceeds from sale of assets 5000
Subtotal 139500
Pool deduction claim (30% of 120000) 36000 36000
Subtotal 103500
New asset deduction claim (15% of 24500) 3675 3675
Total Depreciation for the current year 39675
Closing pool balance 99825
Computation of income tax liability for Elizabeth
Computation of Assessable Income
In the Books of Elizabeth
For the year ended 30 June 2017
Particulars Amount ($) Amount ($)
Assessable Income
Gross Salary 15000
Share of Partnership Income 22572.5
Australian sourced Dividend Income
Fully Franked (Net) 4900
Franking Credits 2100 7000
Foreign Sourced dividend income (gross of WHT of 1000) 10000
Total Assessable Income 54572.5
Allowable Deductions
Purchase of Calculator 250
Membership subscription 500
Total Allowable Deductions 750
Total Taxable Income 53822.5
Tax on Taxable Income 9039.48
Add: Medicare Levy 1076.45
Less: Foreign income tax offset 1000
Less: Franking Credits 2100
Less: PAYG 5000
Total tax payable 2015.93

18TAXATION LAW
References:
Bankman, J., Shaviro, D.N., Stark, K.J. and Kleinbard, E.D., 2017. Federal Income Taxation.
Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Barkoczy, S. 2018. Australian Tax Casebook 2018 14e ebook. Melbourne: OUPANZ.
Bently, L. and Sherman, B., 2014. Intellectual property law. Oxford University Press.
Blakelock, S. and King, P., 2017. Taxation law: The advance of ATO data
matching. Proctor, The, 37(6), p.18.
Braithwaite, V., 2017. Taxing democracy: Understanding tax avoidance and evasion.
Routledge.
Buenker, J.D., 2018. The Income Tax and the Progressive Era. Routledge.
Burns, S.K. and Ziliak, J.P., 2017. Identifying the elasticity of taxable income. The Economic
Journal, 127(600), pp.297-329.
Burton, M., 2017. A Review of Judicial References to the Dictum of Jordan CJ, Expressed in
Scott v. Commissioner of Taxation, in Elaborating the Meaning of Income for the Purposes
of the Australian Income Tax. J. Austl. Tax'n, 19, p.50.
Davison, M., Monotti, A. and Wiseman, L., 2015. Australian intellectual property law.
Cambridge University Press.
Douglas, H., Bartlett, F., Luker, T. and Hunter, R. 2014. Australian feminist judgments.
Finkelstein, M., 2014. Cases on Federal Taxation (Book Review).
Fleurbaey, M. and Maniquet, F., 2015. Optimal taxation theory and principles of
fairness (No. 2015005). Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research
and Econometrics (CORE).

19TAXATION LAW
Grange, J., Jover-Ledesma, G. and Maydew, G. 2015. Principles of business taxation.
Hoffman, W.H., Raabe, W.A., Maloney, D.M., Young, J.C. and Smith, J.E., 2014. South-
Western Federal Taxation 2015: Corporations, Partnerships, Estates and Trusts. Nelson
Education.
James, S. 2016. The economics of taxation.
James, S.R. and Nobes, C., 2016. Economics of Taxation: Principles, Policy and Practice.
Fiscal Publications.
Jover-Ledesma, G. 2014. Principles of business taxation 2015: Cch Incorporated.
Kenny, P. 2014. Australian tax.
Kenny, P., Blissenden, M. and Villios, S. 2018. Australian Tax 2018.
Maley, M.N., 2018. Australian Taxation Office Guidance on the Diverted Profits Tax.
Martin, F. and Connor, M., 2017. Using Blended Learning to Aid Law and Business
Students' Understanding of Taxation Law Problems. J. Australasian Tax Tchrs. Ass'n, 12,
p.53.
McCouat, P. 2018. Australian master GST guide.
Miller, A. and Oats, L., 2016. Principles of international taxation. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Morgan, A., Mortimer, C. and Pinto, D. 2017. A practical introduction to Australian taxation
law.
Murphy, K.E. and Higgins, M., 2016. Concepts in Federal Taxation 2017. Cengage
Learning.
Oats, L., Miller, A. and Mulligan, E., 2017. Principles of International Taxation.

20TAXATION LAW
Robin, H., 2017. Australian taxation law 2017. Oxford University Press.
Sadiq, K., Coleman, C., Hanegbi, R., Hart, G., Jogarajan, S., Krever, R., McLaren, J., Obst,
W. and Ting, A., 2013. Principles of taxation law 2018. Thomson Reuters.
Sadiq, K., Coleman, C., Hanegbi, R., Jogarajan, S., Krever, R., Obst, W., Teoh, J. and Ting,
A. 2018. Principles of taxation law.
Schenk, D.H., 2017. Federal Taxation of S Corporations. Law Journal Press.
Schmalbeck, R., Zelenak, L. and Lawsky, S.B., 2015. Federal Income Taxation. Wolters
Kluwer Law & Business.
Seto, T., 2015. Federal Income Taxation: Cases, Problems, and Materials. West Academic
Publishing.
Sikka, P., 2017, December. Accounting and taxation: Conjoined twins or separate siblings?.
In Accounting forum(Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 390-405). Elsevier.
Taylor, C., Walpole, M., Burton, M., Ciro, T. and Murray, I. 2018. Understanding taxation
law.
Woellner, R., Barkoczy, S., Murphy, S., Evans, C. and Pinto, D. 2014. Australian taxation
law select.
Woellner, R., Barkoczy, S., Murphy, S., Evans, C. and Pinto, D., 2016. Australian Taxation
Law 2016. OUP Catalogue.
Zeff, S.A., 2016. Forging accounting principles in five countries: A history and an analysis
of trends. Routledge.

21TAXATION LAW