Taxation Law Assignment - Module Name, Semester 1, University

This taxation law assignment addresses three key issues: the allocation of losses in joint ownership of a rental property, the principles of tax avoidance, and the tax implications of cutting timber. The assignment analyzes relevant legislation, including the ITAA 1997 and various taxation rulings. It references significant cases such as "FC of T v McDonald" and "IRC v Duke Westminster," applying their legal principles to the presented scenarios. The analysis covers the division of income and losses in joint property ownership, the legality of tax avoidance strategies, and the tax treatment of income derived from timber sales. The conclusion summarizes the findings, clarifying the application of tax laws in each context. The assignment also includes a detailed reference list of the sources used.

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 3:.................................................................................................................2
Issue:..........................................................................................................................................2
Laws:..........................................................................................................................................2
Applications:..............................................................................................................................2
Conclusion:................................................................................................................................3
Answer to question 4:.................................................................................................................3
Answer to question 5:.................................................................................................................4
Issue:..........................................................................................................................................4
Laws:..........................................................................................................................................4
Application:................................................................................................................................4
Conclusion:................................................................................................................................5
References..................................................................................................................................6

2TAXATION LAW
Answer to question 3:
Issue:
The identified issue has been related to the loss succumbed by taxpayer in the context
of joint ownership for the rental property.
Laws:
i. “FC of T v McDonald”
ii. “Section 51 of the ITAA 1997”
iii. “Taxation ruling TR 93/23”
Applications:
The “Taxation Ruling TR 93/32” conformity is complaint with rulings which have
been able to state on the explanation defined with the division of the income or the various
types of the losses derived from the rented property. As per the given context both Jack and
Jill are seen to be evaluated based on the assessable position from the main property rented
by them. Jack is seen to be entitled for 10% and Jill on the other hand is seen to be entitled
for 90% of the profit derived from the property rented (Mann 2013).
The various considerations has been defined as per “TR 92/32” joint ownership
determination from joint ownership of the rented property and the same has been identified
with the income tax concerns. This is further linked to the partnership which has been taken
into account under the notion of general law. The partnership of Jack and Jill are seen to be
containing either oral or written agreement which is not seen to be having any effect based on
the share of income and the various losses taken with the rented property. The various types

3TAXATION LAW
of the agreement with the clause for Jack have been seen with 100% accountability of the
losses which is as a result of the rental property. Based on the given case “FC of T v
McDonald (1987)” where the main agreement with Mr McDonald is seen to be entitled with
25% of the profits and Mrs McDonald would be getting 75% of the profit (Australian
Government 2015).
Conclusion:
Based on the given case both Jack and Jill needs to share the loss equally and the joint
ownership shall not be considered as partnership.
Answer to question 4:
The most noted subject on the tax avoidance has been evident with the legal citation
from the case “IRC v Duke Westminster (1936)”. “Duke of Westminster” is observed to pay
for the Gardener wages which is measured on weekly basis and entered with the contract with
stopping of the wage and the same was drawn up with the covenant agreement along with the
sesame amount. Under thegiven cases it has been discerned that Gardener got identical
amount of the wages, on the other hand Duke had the advantage of considerable tax benefit
as per the law applied at the time when the covenant lowered the total liability of Duke to
Surtax (Waris 2013). As per the situation the eligible orders and order for the tax affairs and
the objective of the tax attaining under the appropriate acts, which is lower than it would have
been otherwise. It has been further seen that an individual cannot be forced to pay for the
increased taxation amount (Qureshi 2015).
The application of the present age of the principles has been able to define the
purpose of obtaining of the result and the taxpayers with their ingenuity cannot be forced to
pay any amount of the tax. The various decisions under this has provided with the

4TAXATION LAW
opportunity of reducing the tax liability in terms of the financial frame work and liability of
tax.
Answer to question 5:
Issue:
Present issue has been able to highlight on the assessment associated to cutting of
timber as per “subsection 6 (1) of the ITAA 1997”.
Laws:
i. “Subsection 6 (1) of the ITAA 1936”
ii. “McCauley v FC of T”
Application:
The present issue has been seen to be applied with the various types of the
consideration which has been able to state on the owner of the pine tree plantation. Initially
Bill considered to clear the land for grazing sheep and approached to the logging company
which agreed to pay “$ 1000 for 100 meter” of timber which has been taken for logging firm
from Bill’s land (Doran et al. 2013).
The application of the taxation ruling “TR 95/6” has considered the IT rulings which
have led to the increase in the activities in the primary production and forestry. It has further
seen to be defined with the degree till individual is seen to be deriving the income from the
activities associated to forestry (Abdulkarimli 2015). The explanation of the “Subsection 6
(1) of the ITAA 1936” shows that the individual taxpayer are having the specific associates

5TAXATION LAW
with the specific forest operations and primary producer of the IT related to the activities of
the forest operations (Jones 2015).
The primary production is taken into account for the planting of trees and tending
down of trees has been considered with “subsection 6 (1) of the ITAA 1997” which has been
originally seen with tending vegetation for the trees (ATO 2015).
The case of “McCauley v The Federal Commissioner of Taxation” payments has
been regarded with the grantor by the assigning of the tending of the timber. The repercussion
of this has been identified with amount to be received by Bill in the alternative scenario from
the timber sale included the taxable income in compliance with the “section 26 (f)” (Sharkey
and Murray 2016).
Conclusion:
The given case enumerates that the amount received by Bill from tending of timber
needs to be measured as per the taxable income and the alternative case has been further seen
to be considered with the total amount with the granting of the right seen as royalty.

6TAXATION LAW
References
Abdulkarimli, O. (2015) ‘Taxation of E-commerce’, Baku State University Law Review, 1,
pp. 99–109.
ATO (2015) Simplified depreciation rules | Australian Taxation Office, ATO. Available at:
https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Small-business-entity-concessions/In-detail/Income-tax/
Simplified-depreciation-rules/.
Australian Government (2015) ‘Australian Taxation Office’, Registerting for GST. Available
at: https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/GST/Registering-for-GST/.
Doran, C. M., Byrnes, J. M., Cobiac, L. J., Vandenberg, B. and Vos, T. (2013) ‘Estimated
impacts of alternative Australian alcohol taxation structures on consumption, public health
and government revenues’, Medical Journal of Australia, 199(9), pp. 619–622. doi:
10.5694/mja13.10605.
Jones, C. (2015) ‘Making the Modern American Fiscal State: Law, Politics, and the Rise of
Progressive Taxation, 1877–1929’, Law & History Review, 33(1), pp. 253–255. doi:
10.1017/S0738248014000704.
Mann, T. (2013) Australian Law Dictionary, Australian Law Dictionary (2 ed.). doi: Online
Version: 2012 eISBN: 9780191726842.
Qureshi, A. H. (2015) ‘Coherence in the Public International Law of Taxation: Developments
in International Taxation and Trade and Investment Related Taxation’, Asian Journal of WTO
& International Health and Law Policy, 10, p. 193.
Sharkey, N. and Murray, I. (2016) ‘Reinventing administrative leadership in Australian
taxation: Beware the fine balance of social psychological and rule of law principles’,

7TAXATION LAW
Australian Tax Forum, 31(1), pp. 63–97.
Waris, A. (2013) ‘Taxation without Principles: A Historical Analysis of the Kenyan Taxation
System’, Kenya Law Review, 1, pp. 272–304.