Taxation Law: Minh's Occupancy, Penny's Property Sales - A Case Study

This case study delves into various aspects of taxation law, analyzing the residency status of an individual named Minh and the tax implications of property sales by Penny. The analysis of Minh's residency involves applying the resides test, domicile test, and the 183-day test to determine if Minh qualifies as an Australian resident for tax purposes, considering his ties to both Australia and Malaysia. Furthermore, the case explores whether income generated from Malaysian trade is taxable in Australia. Regarding Penny's situation, the study examines whether the profits from selling townhouses built on subdivided land are taxable under the ITAA, considering the possibilities of mere realization of assets, business operations, or profit-making schemes. The analysis refers to relevant court cases and legal precedents to provide a comprehensive understanding of the taxation principles involved in both scenarios.

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 Part A........................................................................................................................2
Answer to Part B:.......................................................................................................................5
Answer to question 2:.................................................................................................................6
Answer to Part A:.......................................................................................................................6
Answer to Part B:.......................................................................................................................7
Reference List:.........................................................................................................................10

2TAXATION LAW
Answer to question 1:
Answer to Part A
The existing study is based on determining the status of occupancy for Minh for
assessment purpose. The reading will also ascertain the status of occupancy that effects the
taxation of proceeds generated from Australian and Malaysian sources.
The situation provides that Minh was native in Malaysia and executed her commercial
undertakings. Later in June 2016, Minh was approved with permit to work in Australia and
arrived to Australia with possible intention migrating and commencing business. Instances
suggest that Minh bought a house in Melbourne and lived with her husband and kids and they
were joined in local Melbourne school.
As an over-all rule under “section 6-5 (2), (6-10 (4) of the ITAA 1997” inhabitants
are held taxable for their ordinary and statutory income generated from every bases
(Woellner et al. 2016). As defined stated under “section 6-5 (3) (a) and 6-10 (5) (a) of the
ITAA 1997” an overseas resident will be held taxable on their statutory and ordinary income
obtained from Australia.
Definition provided under “section 995-1 of the ITAA 1997” and under “section 6-(1) of
the ITAA 1997” an Australian occupant for taxation purpose constitutes somebody that are
living in Australian and those that have home in Australia (Barkoczy 2016). An Australian
occupant represent those individual that have been present in Australian moreover frequently
or in breaks for a minimum of six months in a year if the commissioner is content that a
person permeant place of abode is outside Australian and does not intends to take up
Australian residency. To ascertain the residential status of Minh three alternate examination
will be performed whether he will be regarded Australian occupant for assessment purpose;

3TAXATION LAW
a. Residential test
b. Domicile Test
c. 183 days’ Test
Residents Test according to Ordinary Concepts:
The primary test of establishing the residential status of a person is the “Resides Test”.
On meeting this test no more test will be required to determine the residential status of a
person, therefore the person will be regarded as Australian occupant for levy purpose (Tan,
Braithwaite and Reinhart 2016). The word residents constitute living permanently for a
substantial time. The interrogation of detail and point is defined in “Miller v Federal
Commissioner of Taxation (1946)” where the question of fact and degree is depended on
event of case (Cao et al. 2015). The reside test takes account of an individual’s behaviour
when the person is existing in Australia. The “taxation ruling of TR 98/17” in ascertaining
the status of residency for a person under the Resides Test considers the following factors;
a. The determination of taxpayer existence in Australia
b. Taxpayer commercial and domestic links in Australia
c. The social and physical arrangement of the taxpayers
d. Maintenance and location of taxpayer’s assets.
As noticed in case of Minh he migrated to Australia in due course with the intent of
possibly migrating and starting her commercial undertakings. Additionally, she bought a
dwelling in Melbourne to reside with his spouse and kids. Citing the reference of “Macrea v
Macrea (1949)” a migrant that settles with their family in Australia and would be considered
as residing in Australia from the day of entrance in Australia (Braithwaite, 2017). For
example, a person that are migrating to Australia with their family and bought a home in

4TAXATION LAW
Australia and returning to the place where he retains the business in the nation of his origin
would be considered ordinary residing in Australia despite the overseas absence.
As noticed in Minh case he migrated to Australia from Malaysia and bought a household
in Melbourne where he lived with his wife and kids. Minh goes back to Kuala Lumpur to
execute the commercial undertakings. Minh would not be regarded residence according to the
ordinary perceptions for 2017-18 because he did not take the residency of Australia on
permanent basis. Therefore, under the reside test Minh cannot be considered as Australian
resident he does not satisfies the resides test. The residency status of Minh with his wife and
children would be considered as independent and separate matter.
Domicile Test:
Domicile is ascertained under the “Domicile Act 1982” where a person is viewed as
Australian resident if their domicile is in Australia. Domicile associated to the choice of a
nation constitutes the circumstances where the taxpayer purposes to make their home
indefinitely (Davis et al. 2105). As noticed in case of Minh his permanent place of abode is in
Malaysia however he originally intended to migrate to Australian from Malaysia with the
purpose of living in Australia till further notice and starting the business. Minh also bought
home in Melbourne and his duration of stay and continuity of existence in overseas nation
was broken intermittently. Referring to “FCT v Applegate (1979)” Minh did not abandon his
residence and expressed his to return to Australia only after carrying out his business
activities in Malaysia.
The federal court in “Henderson v Henderson (1965)”, a person would be able to
retain the domicile of their country of origin unless the person obtains the domicile in another
nation (Saad 2014). As evident in case of Minh he cannot be deliberated as the Australian
occupant for assessment purpose under the Domicile Act 1982. Therefore, it may appear that

5TAXATION LAW
Minh is an Australian occupant then again the position of residency for Minh his family
would remain independent for the year 2017-18. Therefore, Minh would not be regarded as
resident for taxation purpose under Domicile Test.
183 Day Test:
According to the Australian taxation office a person who has been present in Australia
either in breaks or continuously for more than six months in the income year would be
regarded as the Australian resident (Miller and Oats 2016). However, there is an exemption
that an individual would not be observed as Australian occupant if the commissioner is
comfortable that the normal residence of abode is out of Australia with no committed purpose
of taking residency in Australia.
As noticed in case of Minh he has only been in Australia for 120 days. A person
would be held as Australian resident if an individual has maintained the conditions of 183
days and meets the definition of resident under “subsection 6 (1) of the ITAA 1997”
(Barkoczy 2014). Minh has not been present in Australia for 183 days or more during an
income year and for the year 2016 and cannot be held Australian dweller for assessment
purpose.
Conclusively, the residency status of Minh is distinct and self-governing substance.
He cannot be held Australian occupant for assessment reason because he did not meet the
relevant tests of Residence under ordinary concepts, Domicile Test and 183 days’ test. More
specifically the citizenship status of Minh is self-governing and separate matter.
Answer to Part B:
As per the judgement of court in “Nathan v FCT (1918)” ascertaining the novel basis
of income is matter of concrete and firm fact (Brokelind 2014). Alternatively, the court in

6TAXATION LAW
“United Aircraft Corp (1943), stated that a corporate profits refers to place where the
commercial undertakings is transacted or the place where the goods were sold.
In the condition of Minh, evidences suggest that for the purpose of tax Minh cannot
be held as Australian resident for 2017-18. Minh behaviour during his presence in Australia
does not reflects the steadiness, repetitive and custom that is constant with being an
Australian occupant. The income generated from the Malaysian trade would be held for
taxation purpose along with tax rates and withholding amounts (Coleman and Sadiq 2013).
On being the foreign resident Minh would be obligatory to lodge Australian income tax
return for the purpose of income generated in Australia from Australian sources.
Answer to question 2:
Answer to Part A:
The present study is based on determining the substitutes that originates from the
sales profits of town house which could be held taxable under the provision of ITAA. The
case study introduces that Penny purchased the large vacant block of land from the sale
proceeds of $1million of the old home. Penny decides to engage with service of builder to
provide advice on the selling of property. Following the meeting with the builder Penny
decided to subdivide the land and start the construction of house that could be sold.
Following the completion of building Penny sold the three townhouse and eventually sold at
the profit of $1 million each.
There are several instances where the property-owners possess the chance of
subdividing and marketing the land that is owned by an individual for an extensive period
(Grange et al. 2014). This generally happens when a person owns the land in the outskirts and
the expansion of land for residential purpose is for resident purpose. On numerous instances

7TAXATION LAW
the actions of property development that are undertaken by the land owners is considered as
considerable and holds the outlook of generating large sum of income from the development.
Significant deliberations should be paid in the conditions where small to medium
range division may succeed as the mere realization of the land and the development may
constitute a profit deriving undertakings or business. In certain state of affairs where the
individual possesses a land that is appropriate for enlargement would make sure that the
income that is generated from the activities will be considered as capital account. The land
owner in such event can decide selling the whole of the property to the developer (James
2014). As held in “Westfield Limited v Commissioner of Taxation (1991)”, the federal court
stated that the sole sale of asset that is not purchased for resale at profit or enlargement would
be considered as the capital receipt.
Instances obtained in case of Penny subdividing the block of land and building the
townhouse for the purpose of sale holds substantial amount of relation in generating large
sum of profit from the project. Nevertheless, there are certain kinds of substitutes where the
receipts from sale of townhouse may be held for assessment under ITAA (Kavelaars and
Korving 2014). In the present situation of Penny there are alternatives on the basis of which
the proceeds from sale of subdivided land may be liable for levy under the ITAA that are as
follows;
a. The subdivision of land may be held as mere recognition of asset
b. The extent of business is carried on in a manner that it may be regarded as carrying of
the occupation of property expansion by the taxpayer (Kenny 2013.
c. The expansion may go pass further than the idea of mere recognition of land but may
fall short of the necessities of performing of commercial activities. therefore, it would
be held as profit making scheme or undertaking.

8TAXATION LAW
Answer to Part B:
As understood from the case of Penny the above discussed three alternatives overhead
can be used to determine whether the sale of town house by Penny could be assessed ITAA.
In circumstance of the above stated changes in mere realization of capital asset is applied on
Penny subsequently the possessions was subdivided and sold by Penny in three lots.
The verdict in “FC of T v Allied Pastoral Holdings T (1983)” states the expression of
mere realization of asset (Krever 2015). The commissioner of taxation has affirmed that the
taxpayer having land is regarded as the capital asset and developing the land in an
enterprising manner may be regarded as the profit generated from the land constitutes a mere
realization of capital asset on conditions that development cannot be held greater mere
realization of capital asset. Before embarking on the in depth analysis of current situation of
Penny building of townhouse on land represents a mere realization of asset that is vital in
ascertaining whether Penny has acquired the land resale at earnings. Profit derived from the
sale of land would be considered taxable under ordinary sense irrespective of the sale of
property (Morgan, Mortimer and Pinto 2013). While advising Jack related to above defined
issue it is vital to ascertain whether there are instances of making profit when acquiring land.
As held in “Reiger v Commissioner of taxation” the court of law confronted the
problems of mere realization of capital asset (Sadiq et al. 2014). The court held that intention
associated to subdivision of land is considered terminal in the quarrel bought by taxpayer
where the court held that intention of the taxpayer was to commence business on property.
The “taxation ruling of 92/3” defines whether the activity undertaken by taxpayer in the
development of land constitute mere realisation or it is profit making scheme. The
commissioner in “Californian Cooper Syndicates v Harris (1904)” defined mere realization
of capital asset.

9TAXATION LAW
As held in the event of “Commissioner of Taxation v Westfield Limited” the
commissioner stated that the activity of purchase and sale giving rise to profit cannot be
regarded as activity under the ordinary business course (Woellner 2013). As an alternative an
ordinary event originating from other business activities in enquiry would be portion of
taxable income under the regular notion if the taxpayer possesses the intention of deriving
profit when the property was acquired.
The “taxation ruling of 92/3” states that an reckonable profits rises if the taxpayer enters
into the business with the motive of making revenue through a sole particular means but
derives income through other means (Woellner et al. 2013). The current issue of Penny
whether the activities of land development undertaken by the land owner possess the nature
of profitable transaction. In determining whether the profits derived by the taxpayer is
derived from the single subdivision of land would be regarded as the mere realisation or a
profit making scheme, numerous factors have been defined by ATO under the
“Miscellaneous Taxation Ruling of MT 2006/1” which includes the following;
a. Is there is any change in the objective for which the land is held?
b. Whether there is any preparation for subdivision of land?
According to ATO there are no sole factor is decisive if other factors are existent. Views
might vary that subdivision of land into number of plots may be regarded as the mere
realization of property. However, this cannot be regarded in the case of Penny at the time of
implementing the mere realisation of land. It is important to appreciate the court decision in
certain occasion that building of houses into number of lots would be held as mere realisation
of property (Sadiq et al. 2014). Citing the reference of “F.C of T v Casimaty (1997)”
subdividing the land into 80 plots would be considered as the mere realisation of land.

10TAXATION LAW
Referring to the case of “FCT v McCorkell” the court of law held that the division of
land that was used previously as orchard would be regarded as the mere realisation of
property. Similarly as held in “Statham v F.C of T (1989)” the building of 105 lots would be
held as mere realisation of capital asset (Sadiq et al. 2014). In the current situation of Penny,
acquisition of land and selling the subdividing land into three townhouses will be considered
as the mere realisation of asset. The profits that are generated by Jack will be considered on
the capital account and not under the proceeds account.

11TAXATION LAW
Reference List:
Barkoczy, S 2014 Foundations of taxation law.
Barkoczy, S., 2016. Foundations of taxation law 2016. OUP Catalogue.
Braithwaite, V. ed., 2017. Taxing democracy: Understanding tax avoidance and evasion.
Routledge.
Brokelind, C. 2014. Principles of law: function, status and impact in EU tax law.
Amsterdam: IBFD.
Cao, L., Hosking, A., Kouparitsas, M., Mullaly, D., Rimmer, X., Shi, Q., Stark, W. and
Wende, S., 2015. Understanding the economy-wide efficiency and incidence of major
Australian taxes. Canberra: Treasury working paper, 2001.
Coleman, C. and Sadiq, K. 2013. Principles of taxation law.
Davis, A.K., Guenther, D.A., Krull, L.K. and Williams, B.M., 2015. Do socially responsible
firms pay more taxes?. The accounting review, 91(1), pp.47-68.
Grange, J., Jover-Ledesma, G. and Maydew, G. 2014. principles of business taxation.
James, M. 2014 Taxation of small businesses.
Kavelaars, P. and Korving, J. (2014). Tax case law of the Court of Justice of the European
Union. Edition 2014. Direct taxes, social security law, procedural law, pending cases. Den
Haag: SDU.
Kenny, P. 2013. Australian tax 2013. Chatswood, N.S.W.: LexisNexis Butterworths.
Krever, R. 2015. Australian taxation law cases.
Miller, A. and Oats, L., 2016. Principles of international taxation. Bloomsbury Publishing.

12TAXATION LAW
Morgan, A., Mortimer, C. and Pinto, D. 2013. A practical introduction to Australian taxation
law. North Ryde [N.S.W.]: CCH Australia.
Saad, N., 2014. Tax knowledge, tax complexity and tax compliance: Taxpayers’
view. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, pp.1069-1075.
Sadiq, K., Coleman, C., Hanegbi, R., Jogarajan, S., Krever, R., Obst, W. and Ting, A.
2014. Principles of taxation law 2014.
Tan, L.M., Braithwaite, V. and Reinhart, M., 2016. Why do small business taxpayers stay
with their practitioners? Trust, competence and aggressive advice. International Small
Business Journal, 34(3), pp.329-344.
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. (n.d.). Australian taxation
law 2014.
Woellner, R., Barkoczy, S., Murphy, S., Evans, C. and Pinto, D., 2016. Australian Taxation
Law 2016. OUP Catalogue.