Taxation Law Report - Analysis of Tax Deductions and GST for Big Bank

This comprehensive taxation law report delves into various aspects of Australian taxation, addressing key issues through detailed analysis and application of relevant legislation and case law. The report begins by examining the deductibility of expenses, including transportation costs for relocating machinery, insurance coverage effects on asset revaluation, and legal costs incurred during business operations, referencing specific sections of the ITAA 1997 and landmark cases such as British Insulated & Helsby Cables v. Atherton and Sun Newspaper Ltd v F C of T. The report then transitions to the Goods and Services Tax (GST), specifically analyzing the input tax credit privileges for advertising and promotional costs incurred by Big Bank Ltd, referencing the GST Act 1999 and GST rulings like GSTR 2006/3. The report meticulously calculates the input tax credit, considering eligible and ineligible portions of advertising expenditures, and applies the principles established in Ronpibon Tin NL v. F C of T. Overall, the report provides a clear understanding of tax implications in various business scenarios, offering valuable insights into the practical application of taxation law.

Running head: TAXATION LAW
Taxation Law
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author’s Note:

1
TAXATION LAW
Table of Contents
Answer to Question No 1...........................................................................................................3
Requirement 1.1.....................................................................................................................3
Issue:..................................................................................................................................3
Rules:..................................................................................................................................3
Application:........................................................................................................................3
Conclusion:........................................................................................................................4
Requirement 1.2.....................................................................................................................4
Issue:..................................................................................................................................4
Rule:...................................................................................................................................4
Application:........................................................................................................................4
Conclusion:........................................................................................................................5
Requirement 1.3.....................................................................................................................5
Issue:..................................................................................................................................5
Rule:...................................................................................................................................5
Applications:......................................................................................................................5
Conclusion:........................................................................................................................6
Requirement 1.4.....................................................................................................................6
Issue:..................................................................................................................................6
Rule:...................................................................................................................................6
Applications:......................................................................................................................7
Conclusion:........................................................................................................................7

2
TAXATION LAW
Answer to Question No 2...........................................................................................................8
Issue:..................................................................................................................................8
Rule:...................................................................................................................................8
Application.........................................................................................................................8
Conclusion:......................................................................................................................10
Answer to Question No 3.........................................................................................................11
Answer to Question No 4.........................................................................................................13
Reference List..........................................................................................................................14

3
TAXATION LAW
Answer to Question No 1
Requirement 1.1
Issue:
The threat and the challenge that has been depicted in accordance to the current
scenario has been to take care of the transportation cost for the moving the machine to a new
location and gaining the permissible deductions within the income tax. There are various
rules that can be used for this case study and they have been laid down as follows:
Rules: “Section 8-1 of ITAA 1997” “British Insulated & Helsby Cables v. Atherton (1926)”
Application:
The expense that is created for the intention of transferring the machine to a new site
is added in the capital expenditure which has been due to “Section 8-1 of ITAA 1997”.
“Section 8-1 of ITAA 1997” has indicated that subtractions are allowable for the income tax
purpose is permitted when the cost is undertaken for trading activities for every day. It has
even depicted that the cost that is generated for the relocation of the machine reveals a small
transition, which may not allowed for any deductions and in a manner increases the
depreciation expenses (Gitman, Juchau and Flanagan 2015).
It has been highlighted in the “Taxation Ruling of TD 93/123” that the cost
connected for the machine installation and the establishment of the process of production
declares the profit and hence leads to increase in the operational benefits of the organization.
Therefore, in accordance to “Section 8-1 of ITAA 1997” the cost of relocating of the
machine in the new area is known as the capital expenditure and hence no permissible
subtractions are given in this condition (Petty et al. 2015). In compliance to “British

4
TAXATION LAW
Insulated &Helsby Cables v. Atherton (1926), it has been observed to be a upliftment of
revenue for the company for the transference of the assets that depreciable in nature for the
companies.
Conclusion:
The description of “Section 8-1 of ITAA 1997” in accordance to the cost of relocation
of the machine to a newer location has been defined as the capital expense that is non-
permissible for income tax subtractions.
Requirement 1.2
Issue:
The topic of explanation in this section has understood the insurance coverage effect
in the revaluation of the asset and this would be regarded as granted deductions in the income
tax in accordance to “Section 8-1 of ITAA 1997”. The law that is best suited for this case has
been:
Rule: “Section 8-1 of ITAA 1997”
Application:
The background has depicted that the expenditure is associated with the recurring
expense. Hence, during the time of ascertaining the total value of the allowable
organizational deductions, it is authoritative for the company to ascertain the information that
cost incurred for the revaluation mechanism, increases the revenue of the company and the
cost that is undertaken during this process has been to secure the asset (Braithwaite 2017). In
this respect, the asset revaluation cost is determined to be the characteristic of recurrence and

5
TAXATION LAW
has been treated as subtractions that can be allowed for the income tax purpose provided in
“Section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997”.
Conclusion:
By looking at “Section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997”, it is depicted that the revaluation of
the asset has a key effect on the insurance coverage and therefore is considered as income tax
deduction. The essential reason for adding the deductions in the income tax is mainly due to
the fact that the cost has the recurrence characteristics.
Requirement 1.3
Issue:
The issue that has been defined in this question has been managing the threats that are
associated to the legal cost that occurs during the process of closing the operations of the
firm. Hence, legal costs have been experienced to be subtractions that are non-permissible
under “Section 8-1 of ITAA 1997”. The law that can be compared with this situation is given
as follows:
Rule:
 Sun Newspaper Ltd v F C of T (1938)
 Section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997
Applications:
“Taxation Ruling of ID 2004/367” explains the feature that there are various legal
costs that can be cleaned for intention of any deductions associated with the operations of the
business. By looking at “Sun Newspaper Ltd v F C of T (1938)” and its verdicts it has been
said that in case the legal cost is engrossed in the matter towards structural purpose rather
than the operational functions then the cost and the expenses would be regarded as cost of

6
TAXATION LAW
capital (Miller and Oats 2016). It is due to this effect that costs are not taken for the purpose
of deductions in the income tax. There are specific legal expenses that have taken in the
process of the operations of the company and these expenses have been taken for subtractions
in the revenue in accordance to “Section 8-1 of ITAA 1997”. Additionally, it is essential to
determine the characteristics of the legal expenses while claiming for the deductions
associated with the income tax (Picciotto 2015). By looking at the operations of the lawyer is
represented as business costs that are related directly to the establishment of the profit for the
organization. Due to this impact, the costs would be allowable for ascertaining the income
tax as it has been generated from the operations of the business.
Conclusion:
The observations of the factors that has been given description earlier and taking help of the
“Section 8-1 of ITAA 1997”, it is said that the solicitor cost can be taken for subtractions that
would be granted.
Requirement 1.4
Issue:
The issue statement has highlighted the concerns that the payment of legal cost that is
paid to the solicitor is ascertained as subtractions that would be allowable in accordance to
“Section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997”. The laws similar to this condition are as follows:
Rule: Section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997 Herald and Weekly Times v F C of T (1962)

7
TAXATION LAW
Applications:
In regards to “Section 8-1 of ITAA 1997”, there has been a precise explanation that
the legal cost incurred for the charging of the business activities establishes a portion on the
everyday operations of the individuals who pay tax and these are considered for deductions.
There exist an exclusion in case the cost has been nationalised or the carrying feature of the
private cost that has taken place for the establishment of the income that is not exempted and
in this manner taken for deductions within the income tax (Lang 2014). The decisions that
has been depicted in the case of “Herald & Weekly Times v F C of T (1932)” the cost that
official in nature and conformity to “Section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997” and has been seen from
everyday actions of the business and in that case would be considered as the income tax
deductions (Dowling 2014).
The present case has focused that legal expense for undertaking the service of the
solicitor is in conformity to several business functions, which are regarded as permissible
income tax subtractions under “Section 8-1 of ITAA 1997”. The service of the solicitor
explains the cost that is related in a direct manner for the liberation of the activities of the
business and hence would be considered as income tax deduction purpose.
Conclusion:
As explained in the case scenario, it is said that the legal cost for the activities of the
solicitor in giving out numerous services that are connected with the daily activities would be
regarded as deductions in accordance to “Section 8-1 of ITAA 1997”.

8
TAXATION LAW
Answer to Question No 2
Issue:
The problem statement of this question has depended on ascertaining the privileges of
the advertisement and the promotional costs that have been paid out by Big Bank Ltd under
“Legislation of GSTR Act 1999”. There are distinct rules that can be implied in accordance
to this situation and they have been highlighted below:
Rule: “GST Act 1999” Paragraphs 11-5 and 15-5 Subsection 15-25 “Goods and Services Tax ruling of GSTR 2006/3” “Ronpibon Tin NL v F C of T”
Application
The problem that is in connection to Big Bank aims to ascertain the input tax credit by
understanding the “Taxation Ruling of GSTR 2006/03”. “GSTR 2006/3” has been hesitant
with the process that needs to be implied in the present condition of Big Bank so as to
understand the amount of input tax credit for the financial supplies values that is taken by Big
Bank in addition to the amount that includes the “GST Act 1999”. The GST legislation
expressively brings forward that the degree of understanding the creditable intentions and this
has been seen in “Section 11-15 and 129 of the GST Act”. The entities that can be taxed
need to be recorded according to GST Act 1999 and has even overpassed the degree of the
financial achievements (Zucman 2014). The “Goods and Service Tax Ruling of GSTR
2006/3” specifically highlights the objects of the organization needs to be incurred in
accordance to GST Act 1997 for the value of GST that is added in the supply of finance.

9
TAXATION LAW
Therefore, as a result, the companies would be liable for input tax credit only if they are
registered.
With respect to the current condition, depicted in the case of Big Bank, it is clear from
the operation that the bank has undergone a cost of $1,650,000, which has been due to the
advertisement cost this cost is GST inclusive. It can be explained with respect to Big Bank
that they are qualified for the input tax credit privilege or reduced input tax credit. It has been
explained in “GSTR Ruling of 2006/3”, a company who is GST Act registered are required
to undertake the registration so that the company can price for the financial supplies that is
GST inclusive. The legislation of GST defines that the companies are required to GST
included in the financial supplies produced or imported by the company.
Calculation of Input Tax credit
Particulars Amount ($)
Amount
($)
Total spending on advertisement and promotional activities
1,650,000.0
0
GST input credit 100% eligible for:
1,100,000.0
0
Portion of advertisement expenditures ineligible for input credit in respect of
GST 550,000.00
100% GST input credit
100,000.0
0
Add: 2% contribution in revenue 3,000.00
Amount of input credit allowed to the bank
103,000.0
0
In conformity to “Ronpibon Tin NL v. F C of T”, the principle of the degree that is
incorporated is with the aim of investigating the GST Act. The verdict in this case has
highlighted those favourable mechanisms of assigning that practically needs to be
implemented by the organization. Paragraph 11-5 and the 15-5 of the GST Act 1999, has
highlighted that the ownership to be qualified for the purpose of undertaking a credit and the
mechanism of undertaking a credit requires being permanent or temporary (Snape and De

10
TAXATION LAW
Souza 2016). By looking at the present condition of Big Bank, it is seen that financial supply
given out by the bank has overpassed the entry limit of the financial credit (McCluskey and
Franzsen 2017). So in order to be qualified for the input credit tax, Big Bank can undertake
temporary claims for the financial credit asked by it. In regards to Section 11-5 and 15-10 of
the “GSTR Ruling of 2006/3” it is depicted that the financial supplies by the firm and they
can ask for the input tax credit privilege in compliance to the undertaken financial supplies
(Dicey 2017).
By looking at the case study of Big Bank, the cost of advertisement paid for the
creditable purpose will be entitled for gaining the input tax credit. In accordance to
“Taxation Ruling of GSTR 2006/3”, it can be explained that Big Bank looks to attain the
objective of gaining the input tax credit in relation to the financial supplies that have been
incorporated by the bank.
Conclusion:
In accordance to the answers obtained from the assessment of the case study of Big
banks, it can be said that the bank would be qualified for asking for input tax credit claims.
The financial supplies done with respect to the “Goods and service tax ruling of GSTR
2006/3” related with the amount has been included in the price of the financial supplies taken
by the bank.

11
TAXATION LAW
Answer to Question No 3
Computation for Foreign tax Offset for Angelo
Assessable Income Amount ($) Amount ($)
Gross Income
Employment income from Australia 44000
Employment income from United States 12000
Employment income from United Kingdom 8000
Rental income from property in United Kingdom 2000
Dividend income from United Kingdom 1200
Interest income from United Kingdom 800
Total Taxable Income 68000
Tax on Taxable Income 13647
Medicare Levy 1360
Less: Tax Offset for Medical Expenses 750
(5000-1250)
Total Tax Payable 14257
Average rate of tax payable on Angelo Taxable Income (%) 21.0
(14257/68000)*100
Net Foreign Income From Each Class
Foreign Rental Income 2000
Less: Expenses incurred in Deriving 500 1500
Gross foreign dividend income 1200
Gross Interest income from United Kingdom 800
Net passive foreign income 3500
Other Foreign Income
Gross Employment income from United States 12000
Less: Expenses incurred in deriving employment income from United States 900 11100
Gross Employment income from United Kingdom 8000
Less: Expenses incurred in deriving employment income from United Kingdom 500 7500
Net Other Foreign Income 18600
ANFI for each Class
ANFI For Passive Foreign Income 3479
(3500*68000(68000+400)
ANFI other Foreign Income 18491
(18600*(68000/68000+400)
Amount of Australian Tax Payable on Passive Foreign Income (3749*21%) 787.29
Amount of Australian Tax Payable on Other Foreign Income (18491*21%) 3883.11