Taxation Law: Analyzing CGT, Restrictive Covenants & FBT Implications

This assignment provides a detailed analysis of taxation law, focusing on capital gains tax (CGT) and fringe benefit tax (FBT). It examines CGT implications arising from the sale of a business, specifically addressing the taxability of goodwill and restrictive covenants, referencing relevant sections of the ITAA 1997 and case law. The report also explores the applicability of the main residence exemption. Furthermore, it assesses fringe benefit tax consequences related to various transactions, considering the provisions of section 6-1 of the ITAA 1997. The document is available on Desklib, which provides a platform for students to access past papers and solved assignments.

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
Issue:......................................................................................................................................2
Laws:......................................................................................................................................2
Application:............................................................................................................................5
Conclusion:............................................................................................................................7
Answer to Question 2.................................................................................................................7
Issues:.....................................................................................................................................7
Laws:......................................................................................................................................7
Application...........................................................................................................................10
Conclusion............................................................................................................................12
References................................................................................................................................13

2TAXATION LAW
Answer to question 1:
Issue:
The issue in the current case is based on the determination of the capital gains tax
consequences originating from the transactions reported during the year under “S 104,
ITAAA 1997”.
Laws:
As stated under “s 102-5, ITAA 1997” the taxable income of the taxpayer also
comprises of the net amount of capital gains that is derived during the income year. In order
to ascertain whether the taxpayer has reported any capital gains or loss it is vital to take into
the account whether any CGT event took place (Barkoczy, 2018). Additionally, the taxpayer
must be understand whether the asset is eligible as the CGT asset. As per “section 102-20” a
taxpayer only derives capital gains or loss arising from the CGT event. As per “section 104-
10 (1)” for a taxpayer a CGT event A1 happens when the CGT asset is disposed.
According to the “s 104-25 (1), ITAA 1997” a CGT event C2 takes place when the
intangible CGT assets ends. Alternatively, a taxpayers, ownership of the intangible CGT
asset ends upon the expiration of the asset. Relating to the business goodwill, the
interpretative view of ATO suggest that CGT event C1 occurs when the business is stopped
enduringly. For an individual taxpayer upon selling the business the taxation ruling of TR
1999/16 is applicable when the goodwill of the business is sold under ITAA 1936 act
(Douglas et al., 2014). On noticing that the business is ceased permanently or due to the
outcome of the voluntary act, it is worth mentioning that the business must be permanently
ceased because closure of business on temporary basis would not give rise to CGT event C1.
The federal court in “Murry v FC of T (1998)” held its view on goodwill. According
to the view of commissioner goodwill is viewed as the quality which is acquired from other

3TAXATION LAW
business assets (Grange et al., 2014). The presence of goodwill is dependent upon the
evidence that the business generates revenue from the asset. Referring to the definition stated
in “Subsection 108-5 (2)” the CGT of asset of business considers the goodwill. The law court
verdict in “IRC v Muller & Co Margarine Ltd (1901)” stated that goodwill of a business is
reliant upon the character and business nature (James, 2015). An individual taxpayer should
account in their assessable income the net amount of capital gains derived upon selling the
business goodwill.
As per the explanation stated in “taxation ruling of TR 1999/16” restrictive
covenants refers to the covenants that consist of agreement between the purchaser and the
vendor regarding the sale of business or any form of separate agreement where the vendors
are required to not directly compete in that business (Jover-Ledesma, 2014). The taxation
ruling of “taxation ruling of TR 1999/16” provides explanation regarding the restrictive
covenants amid the vendors and purchaser regarding the agreement that is formed for
disposal of business on the grounds that the employer vows to not compete or attract the
clients directly.
An individual taxpayer that receives the payment for restricting or relinquishing the
rights are not regarded as the income. Generally these payments are made as an agreement of
not doing something or competing directly in any business. As held in the case of
“Dickenson V FC of T (1958)” the taxpayer received an amount for selling shell products for
a period of ten years from its petrol station and in the next five years selling only products of
shell within the area of 5 miles (Kenny et al., 2018). Such a payment will not be treated as
income. In another event of “Jarrold v Boustead (1964)” the taxation commissioner held that
the lump sum payment that is made to the rugby player for giving up the position of amateur
were not treated as income (Kenny, 2014).

4TAXATION LAW
If the taxpayer forms an agreement of entering into the restrictive covenants for the
sale of business, the restrictive covenants will be treated as the CGT asset which is created
and vested in to own rights of the purchaser associated to the goodwill obtained by the
purchaser. According to the “section 104-35 (1)” payment received from entering into the
restrictive covenants agreement are considered as “CGT event D1” (McCouat, 2018). When
a taxpayer creates any contractual or other legal rights on another entity it give rise to CGT
event D1. The judgement made in “Higgs v Olivier (1951)” stated that the lump sum
payment made to the actor for agreeing not to direct, produce or act in another movie for 18
months does not constitute income (Morgan et al., 2016). The judgement in the above stated
case stated that the receipt of such amount give rise to CGT event D1 because it gave rise to
contractual right of exclusive trade agreement.
A taxpayer is only permitted to claim for the main residence exemption when the
dwelling qualifies as the taxpayer’s main residence. If it is found that the taxpayer has more
than one dwelling it is essential to determine which is the main residence for the taxpayer and
hereafter suitable for exclusion (Sadiq, 2018). Whether the dwelling of the taxpayer forms the
main residence is reliant on the matter of fact. The views stated by the ATO is based on
determining the length of time till where the taxpayer lived on that dwelling or the place
where the taxpayer’s family resided. The interpretative views of ATO states that certain
extent of physical occupancy is required to be eligible for claiming main residence
exemption.
As stated under “Section 118-110 (1) of the ITAA 1997” a taxpayer is allowed
exemption from the capital gains or loss arising from the CGT event given that the CGT asset
is the dwelling as well as the main residence for the taxpayer all through the period of
ownership (Sadiq et al., 2018). A taxpayer is allowed to claim partial main residence
exemption where the dwelling is used partly for residence by the taxpayer.

5TAXATION LAW
Application:
As understood in the current case of Amber, she owned a chocolate shop which she
operated from Sydney. After the birth of her child Amber decided to sell the chocolate shop
in 2018 for an amount of $440,000. A sum of $280,000 was also attributable to the goodwill.
In the current state of Amber the taxation ruling of “TR 1999/16” is relevant. Quoting the
instance stated in “FC of T v Murry (1998)” goodwill was regarded as the lawful concept of
Amber business. Referring to “section 104-25 (1) of the ITAA 1997” a CGT event C1
happened when a decision of closing the business was undertaken by Amber (Taylor et al.,
2018). As a result the selling of chocolate shop resulted in CGT event C1. Amber formed a
contract of selling the business which eventually ended the asset. It is worth mentioning that
the existence of business is dependent upon the proof that generated revenue from her
business.
The permanent cessation of business by Amber give rise to the voluntary act. The
cessation of business on permanent basis by Amber resulted in CGT event C1. Quoting the
instance of “IRC v Muller & Co Margarine Ltd (1901)” the taxable of income of Amber
must include the net amount of capital gains that is made from the disposal of business
goodwill (Woellner et al., 2018). Referring to “section 104-10 (1)” capital gains derived by
Amber from selling her chocolate shop will attract tax liability.
Following events obtained from the case study suggest that as the part of the sale
contract Amber entered into the contract that would restrict her from opening any similar
business within the radius of 20 km for the period of five years. The contract of restrictive
contract that was entered into by Amber fetched her a sum of $50,000. Referring to the
judgement made in “Jarrold v Boustead (1964)” the receipt of $50,000 by Amber gave rise
to CGT event D1 (Blakelock & King, 2017). This is because the payment for restrictive

6TAXATION LAW
covenant received by Amber cannot be treated as income instead it amounted to CGT event
D1.
Denoting the judgement made in “Dickenson v FC of T (1958)” receipt of payment
by Amber was for agreeing not open same business or restricting her rights (McCouat, 2018).
The restrictive agreement that was entered by Amber constituted CGT asset which was
created and vested into the own rights of the purchaser associated to the goodwill acquired.
Referring to “section 104-35 (1)” the receipt of $50,000 will be treated as the “CGT event
D1” because a contractual right of restrictive trade arrangement was entered into that
restricted Amber of not competing in the identical business.
In later part of the case it is found that an apartment was inherited by Amber from her
Uncle in October 2013. Her uncle purchased the property during September 2013 and from
October 2013 Amber lived in that apartment. A contract for the sale of apartment was entered
into by Amber however the settlement for sale of apartment occurred in July 2018. In the
current situation of Amber main residence exemption can be claimed by her. This is because
the dwelling qualifies as the main residence. However, it should be noted that the dwelling is
reliant on the matter of fact (Sadiq, 2018). The substance of fact can be ascertained for
Amber since the property was inherited from her uncle and was used as the main residence
when she moved in the dwelling.
Referring to the interpretative view of ATO, the time period until Amber lived on that
dwelling was for the period of five years. In respect of the evidences gained reference of
“section 118-110 (1)” can be sought to state that a certain extent of physical dwelling is
existed when Amber used the dwelling as her main residence until she inherited the
apartment from her uncle (Woellner et al., 2018). The property had certain degree of dwelling
by Amber as she resided in it following inheritance. Referring to “section 118-110 (1), ITAA

7TAXATION LAW
1997” the taxpayer will be entitled to claim the partial main residence exemption from the
capital gains tax since the residence was the main residence for Amber during the period of
her ownership.
Conclusion:
Conclusively, the sum of capital gains that is derived by Amber from the disposal of
her chocolate shop will attract tax liability under section 104-10 (1)”. Whereas the amount of
$50,000 that is obtained from entering into the agreement of restrictive will be regarded as
CGT event D1 under section 104-10 (1)”. The receipt from restrictive arrangement gave rise
to contractual right of exclusive trade arrangement. Later the selling apartment by Amber
qualifies for the partial main residence from CGT since the asset formed the main residence
from the period when she inherited from her uncle.
Answer to Question 2
Issues:
The case is based on determination of fringe benefit tax consequence related to the taxpayer
which originates from the transaction reported by the taxpayer.
Laws:
As per the provisions of “section 6-1 of the ITAA 1997” any income which is
consequent from personal exertion can be represented as income of the taxpayer which
includes wages, salaries, allowances, superannuation or any other proceeds in any form
which is received by the tax payer for the services which is provided by the taxpayer. Any
receipt from employment and from personal service offering might be subjected to taxation
on the part of employee or as a fringe benefit tax on the employer (Nijland & Dijst, 2015). In
case of any receipt to be considered to be an income there must be a nexus with the personal
services of taxpayer from which the receipts originate.

8TAXATION LAW
The nexus which is established is applicable for items which are common for personal
services that consist of salary and wages, commissions or any other related payments which
falls in the scope of labour. “Section 6-5 of the ITAA 1997” states that the income which are
covered under ordinary concepts are taxable under the relevant sections of “ITAA 1997”. As
per the provisions of “section 6-5 of the ITAA 1997” most of incomes which are earned by
taxpayers are covered under ordinary income under this section (Kaplan & Price, 2014). An
understanding of income under ordinary concept can be provided by examine the case laws of
“Scott v Commissioner (1935)” which states that income should be based on ordinary
concepts and the same should be related to the application made by mankind. An item can be
considered to be income for a taxpayer if the same comes home to the taxpayer. As per the
opinion of the court in the case of “Dean v FC of T (1997)” retention payment which is made
to the employees in connection with remaining employed with the company after takeover for
a period of 12 months is regraded as income which is generated from the employment
(Schenk, 2017).
The term fringe benefit relates to the payment which are made to the employees but
the same are not in the form of salaries or wages. In general terms as stated in legislation
fringe benefits can be described as benefits which are provided to the individuals as they are
employed by a particular business. The fringe benefits with relation to car is stated in
“subsection 136 (1) of the FBTAA 1986”. In case an employer provides benefits of cars than
the same is covered under “subsection 136 (1) of the FBTAA 1986”. Thus, from the
legislation it is clear that fringe benefits refer to the benefits which are received by
individuals just because they are employees of an organization.
The tax legislation which specifies the meaning of fringe benefit taxes which is
related to the employment status of an individual is covered in “subsection 136 (1) of the
FBTAA 1986”. A fringe benefit which is related to providing the employee with the benefits

9TAXATION LAW
of a car is generally for travel purpose from residence of the employee to the place of work or
any official work-related travels or any other use (Voßmerbäumer, 2013). The employee can
make use of he car for official purpose as well as for personal purpose. As per the provisions
of taxation rulings, fringe benefits income are regarded as exempted in nature in the hands of
the recipients for taxation purposes.
A loan fringe benefit refers to a case where the employer allows an employee a loan
for which the employee is charged a low rate of interest for a specified period which can be a
year or even more (Piketty, Saez & Stantcheva, 2014). Low rate of interest means the rate of
interest which is charged for the loan provided by the employer is much lower than the
statutory rate of interest. In order to compute the taxable value, the difference is considered
between the interest payment which the employee paid and the interest amount which the
employee had to pay as per the statutory rate of interest.
As shown in the case of “Moore v Griffiths (1972)” mere prize winnings are not to be
considered as income of the taxpayer. However, the same will be considered to be an income
source for the taxpayer if it is established that there is a direct link between the income from
winning prizes have close connection with the revenue generating activities of the business.
In the case laws of “Kelly v FCT” the award prize received by the taxpayer for being the
fairest and best player will be regarded as taxable as the revenue which was generated was
closely associated with the work and employment of the taxpayer and also it involved a
degree of skills. In the case of “FC of T v Stone” the income which the taxpayer earned
through prizes and endorsements were assessible.
The tax payer in the case of “FC of T v Stone”, was an engaged in the business of
professional athletics and thus money generated was held as income. The non-cash benefits
might be closely related to the personal services however the same cannot be considered as

10TAXATION LAW
income if the they are not convertible to cash. In the case of “Payne v FCT (1996)” the court
had given the verdict that the frequent flyer points which was related to work related travel
would be considered to be income and the non-cash benefits would be taxable under the
provisions of “section 15-2 of the ITAA 1997” or alternatively can be held for fringe benefit
taxes.
In certain cases when an employee incurs certain expenses which are for official use
or personal use and the amount is reimbursed by the employer than such will be considered to
be expense payment fringe benefits (Givati, 2015). The taxable value of such fringe benefits
is the amount which is reimbursed or paid. The provisions further provides that if the
employee incurs expenses solely for business purpose than the same will be held as allowable
for deductions under income tax assessment (Tang & Wan, 2015). Therefore, in instances
where the employee undertakes certain expenses on behalf of business and the employer
reimburses the same fringe benefits arises for which deductions are also available.
Application
The case study which is provided deals with fringe benefit tax application for Jamie
who is employed as an agent for Houses R Us which has a business dealing with real estate
operations. The contract of employment of Jamie stated that he was to receive $ 50,000 as
alary income (Argente & García, 2015). In relation to this, “section 6-1 of the ITAA 1997”
clearly identifies receipt of salaries as income from personal exertion and therefore the same
represent income of Jamie which can be subjected to income tax.
The receipt of salary will be considered to be income under ordinary concepts as there
is a connection with the receipts and the services which provided by Jamie. The income
would be considered as ordinary income under ordinary concepts as per the provisions stated
in “section 6-5 of the ITAA 1997”. In connection to this, the case of “Scott v Commissioner

11TAXATION LAW
(1935)” can be cited where the receipt of salary shall be considered to be income covered
under ordinary concepts (Le Vine, Jones & Polak, 2013). Moreover, in the case of “Dean v
FC of T (1997)”, the salary received by taxpayer will be considered as remuneration of
employment.
In the case study it is further noticed that Jaime was given further benefits which
included a car which the employer had provided for both business and personal use (Pasztor
& Valent, 2016). The situation is similar to the criteria stated in “subsection 136 (1) of the
FBTAA 1986” where such benefits which are given in the course of employment are covered
(Urbancová & Šnýdrová, 2017). The car provided by the employer is given as employment
benefits which Jaime can use for personal use as well outside working hours of the office.
In the subsequent year, the salary package of Jaime was upgraded as provided in the
case study where Jaime was offered a laptop which had a cost of $ 2,300 and also mobile
phone which had a cost of $ 1,200 on a yearly basis. In addition to this, the employer
provided allowances such as entertainment allowances and also reimbursed an amount of $
550. All the expenses which Jamie incurred on behalf of the employer was reimbursed and
alongside certain other benefits were also provided which comes under the purview of Fringe
Benefit taxes and therefore Jaime will be held taxable for Fringe Benefits under “FBTAA
1986”.
The case study further provides that Jaime won a prize of $ 4,800 for good
performance in terms of achieving maximum sales in last 6 months in comparison to others.
The employer rewarded Jaime with a home entertainment system for a sum of $ 4,800.
Taking reference from the case laws of “Kelly v FCT” home entertainment system can be
considered as a non-cash benefit which can be converted easily to cash. This will be regarded
as income as the same is incidental t work and employment (Soled & Thomas, 2016). The

12TAXATION LAW
sum of $ 4,800 received as reward will also be held as income as there is sufficient link
between the income and Jaime’s revenue generating activities.
The case study also shows that the management of Houses R Us have the policy of
providing the employees a sum of $ 100,000 for the purpose of purchasing their own houses
at an interest rate of 4% per annum. Jaime is interested in taking the loan for purchasing his
own house. The interest rate which is charged for the loan is lower than the statutory interest
rate. In case Jamie decides to take up the loan from the employer, a loan fringe benefit would
arise as the employer is providing the loan at an interest rate lower than statutory rate. In case
Jamie takes the loan, the taxable amount will be determined by analyzing the difference
between the interest charged by employer and the statutory interest amount if Jamie had taken
the same from outside source.
Conclusion
Thus, from the above discussion, it can be concluded that the salary amount which
Jamie is provided will be considered to be taxable under the provisions of “section 6-5 of the
ITAA 1997”. The use of car constitutes as fringe benefit and the same is covered in
“subsection 136 (1) of the FBTAA 1986”. The amount which Jamie receives as prize will
also be held as income as there is appropriate connection with existing revenue generating
activities of Jamie. Moreover, Jaime will also be held taxable for expenses undertaken by his
for the employer for which he got reimbursement for whatever expenses incurred as fringe
benefit.

13TAXATION LAW
References
Argente, D., & García, J. L. (2015). The price of fringe benefits when formal and informal
labor markets coexist. IZA Journal of Labor Economics, 4(1), 1.
Barkoczy, S. (2018). Australian Tax Casebook 2018 14e ebook. Melbourne: OUPANZ.
Blakelock, S., & King, P. (2017). Taxation law: The advance of ATO data
matching. Proctor, The, 37(6), 18.
Douglas, H., Bartlett, F., Luker, T., & Hunter, R. (2014) Australian taxation judgments.
Givati, Y. (2015). Googling a Free Lunch: The Taxation of Fringe Benefits. Tax L. Rev., 69,
275.
Grange, J., Jover-Ledesma, G., & Maydew, G. (2014) principles of business taxation.
James, S. (2015). The economics of taxation.
Jover-Ledesma, G. (2014). Principles of business taxation 2015. [Place of publication not
identified]: Cch Incorporated.
Kaplan, R. L., & Price, D. J. (2014). Change and Continuity in Fringe Benefit Taxation:
Seeking Sense and Sensibility. NYL Sch. L. Rev., 59, 281.
Kenny, P. (2014) Australian tax.
Kenny, P., Blissenden, M., & Villios, S. (2018) Australian Tax.
Le Vine, S., Jones, P., & Polak, J. (2013). The contribution of benefit-in-kind taxation policy
in Britain to the ‘Peak Car’phenomenon. Transport Reviews, 33(5), 526-547.
McCouat, P. (2018) Australian master GST guide.

14TAXATION LAW
Morgan, A., Mortimer, C., & Pinto, D. (2016) A practical introduction to Australian taxation
law.
Nijland, L., & Dijst, M. (2015). Commuting-related fringe benefits in the Netherlands:
Interrelationships and company, employee and location
characteristics. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 77, 358-371.
Pasztor, J., & Valent, S. (2016). Fringe Benefit-still a Motivation?. In Proceedings of
FIKUSZ Symposium for Young Researchers (p. 127). Óbuda University Keleti Károly
Faculty of Economics.
Piketty, T., Saez, E., & Stantcheva, S. (2014). Optimal taxation of top labor incomes: A tale
of three elasticities. American economic journal: economic policy, 6(1), 230-71.
Sadiq, K. (2018). Australian taxation law cases 2018. Pyrmont, NSW: Thomson Reuters.
Sadiq, K., Coleman, C., Hanegbi, R., Jogarajan, S., Krever, R., & Obst, W. et al.
(2018) Principles of taxation law.
Schenk, D. H. (2017). Federal Taxation of S Corporations. Law Journal Press.
Soled, J. A., & Thomas, K. D. (2016). Revisiting the Taxation of Fringe Benefits. Wash. L.
Rev., 91, 761.
Tang, R., & Wan, J. (2015). Fringe benefits tax and fly-in fly-out arrangements: John Holland
Group Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation. Australian Resources and Energy Law
Journal, 34(1), 17.
Taylor, C., Walpole, M., Burton, M., Ciro, T., & Murray, I. (2018) Understanding taxation
law.

15TAXATION LAW
Urbancová, H., & Šnýdrová, M. (2017). Remuneration and employee benefits in
organizations in the Czech Republic. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae
Mendelianae Brunensis, 65(1), 357-368.
Voßmerbäumer, J. (2013). Incentive effects and the income tax treatment of employer-
provided workplace benefits. Review of Managerial Science, 7(1), 61-84.
Woellner, R., Barkoczy, S., Murphy, S., Evans, C., & Pinto, D. (2018) Australian taxation
law.