Introduction of the Weeks v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation Case
Based on the given case it can be seen that the appellant is seen to be previous employee of the statutory body of the Taxation office of Australia. The appellant is seen to take into consideration long service leave and recreational leave and various types of long service leave. It they considered plan for retirement due to reallocation of her work. While returning from the vacation, it was found that the employer was seen to make her working place redundant. This compelled to apply for voluntary redundancy to the national director of the Commission. The commission was seen to initially dismiss the role, as it was made redundant and did not agree for providing voluntary redundancy. After the reconsideration decision, the commission was seen to agree to offer voluntary redundancy in a formal manner. The appellant is seen to be dismissed after the agency made the formal offer for voluntary redundancy. The primary reason for the reason for the dispute was seen to exist between the Australian taxation office and the taxability of the appellant for the amount received prior to the termination. The appellant was further seen to argue that tax is not payable on the termination is seen to amount $ $7825. The main dispute has been discerned in form of the taxability of the redundancy payment (Russo, 2013).
The main provision associated to the genuine redundancy payment is related to the genuine redundancy under section 83-175 of Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. In case the employee is seen to be genuinely redundant, the amount is seen to be received upon termination, referred to as redundancy payment. In general the amount received from the genuine redundancy needs to be more than the amount received as voluntary retirement. In this case, the resolving of the dispute is important to determine whether the employee was dismissed by the agency due to genuine redundancy. It is provided as per the Public Service Act 1999 and the statutory agency can only cease more than the required capacity. The agency can also terminate an employee in accordance with the clauses provided under the agency agreement. In case of the agency agreement, the 97.1 clause will be able to provide the procedure which is mentioned are applied to the requirement to replace the employee in the job. It further needs to take into account the requirement of the clause 98 needs to be followed in case there is no requirement to replace the job of the employee (Taylor & Richardson, 2013).
The Tribunal is seen to decide the various types of the findings based on the para25 and this is seen to be removed by the agency. The main rationale for Para 26 is seen in terms of removing the appellant from the employment and the agency was unable to use the service of the employee effectively. This further meant to provide the agencies point of view the appellant which is seen to be in excess of the associated capacity related to the agency. However, as per the para 28 the decision the Tribunal stated that the employee position is available to the agency. This is further related to position of the employee, which is still available in the agency. This shows that the in order to perform a particular job, the employee and officer at the same level as it has been seen that of the appellant (Robson, 2014). The tribunal in paragraph 29 of the decision is seen to argue that there needs to be a distinction made between the position becoming genuinely redundant and the scenario where the employer for performing the job does not require the employee. On comparing the facts as per the section 83-175(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, it has been observed that the dismissal cannot be considered as a genuine redundancy as the position of the employee is seen to be available to the agency. Hence, it needs to be taken into account the various types of the considerations which are seen to be related to the unwillingness of the employer to use the service of the employee for a particular job cannot be regarded as a case of genuine redundancy under the provisions of the section 83-175(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997(Kpmg, 2014).
Sections that have been violated
The decision of the court is based on the different types of the considerations on the questions of law in this case. It was for the court to decide whether the payment has been done by the Australian Taxation Office to the appellant based on the dismissal from employment is a genuine redundancy payment as per section 83-175 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. The main reason for the dismissal of the employee is seen to be provided by the ATO, which is in excess to the employee available to the agency. This was seen to be associated to the clause 972 of the agency agreement and inconsistent with the clause 97.1 and the agreement of the agency for the provisions for the Public Service Act 1999. Henceforth, it is required for the court to make the decision for considering the validity of the clause 97.2of the agency agreement. The court is seen to be making a decision and to decide whether the amount needs to be paid in case the employee terminated as per the clause 97.1 of the agency considered by the employee termination payment under section 83-175 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. In general the statutory agencies are not allowed to make use of the fund for making the termination payment, other than genuine redundancy. This is also considered as the court decision whether the agency can use consolidated reserve fund for making payment for termination of employee other than the aforementioned case (Lavermicocca & Buchan, 2015). The court is further seen to give the judgment stating that the tribunal has not raised certain issues discussed above. It was further seen that judge was of the opinion that as the appeal, as it was misconceived so it cannot be misconceived so that it cannot be mistreated as per the question of the law. The judge was also seen to be of the opinion for the question whether amount received of the termination is to be regarded as a genuine case of redundancy payment as per the section 83-175 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 was not raised. The appellant was also dismissed from the employment as the employee also considered the excess requirement of the agency under the provision of section 23(3) (a) based of the Public Service Act 1999 and the agency agreement as per clause 97.1 (Saad, 2014).
The argument brought forward by the appellant has stated that the Tribunal has been able to make certain mistakes in the law. The oral submission of the appellant is based on the Tribunal was distracted by the clause 97.2 of the agency agreement. The tribunal has been seen to be introducing the facts and findings which are used for the clause of 97.2. The main question has been related to the law which has not raised any fact-findings so it is not legally impeachable as per section 44 of the AAT Act. On extensive analysis it was found that the main concept was seen to be related to the acts which are seen to be provided under the 97.2 clause and the sections included under, 83-175(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 are similar in nature (Richardson et al., 2015). The tribunal referred to this case by clause 97.2 of the agency agreement and made the distinction in terms of the narrower concept of redundancy as provided under section 83-175(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and the various types of the other concepts under redundancy.
Analyzing the decision of the tribunal and court
It has been observed that in this particular case the clause 97.2 of the agency agreement tried to make a distinction between the narrower concept associated to the redundancy which has been provided as per the as per Dibb detail, fact-finding was conducted by the court. In this case he Tribunal has not conducted a detailed finding of facts as was done as per mentioned. Hence, the appellant has been able to argue this case in terms of the Tribunal who has not conducted a detailed finding of facts as was done in the mentioned case. Hence, the appellant have stated of the blunder associated to the law which has been made by the Tribunal as per the section 44 of the AAT Act. The appellant has been identified with the blunder of law that is made by the Tribunal as per section 44 of the AAT Act. The appellant has been further seen to raise the question relevant to the collected facts associated to the Tribunal associated to the case. The tribunal has been seen to use this method of the written statement from the officers and questioning of the evidence obtained the relevant facts related to the case. The main method of finding the facts has been further related to the case of Dibb which is not applicable in this case due to the first appeal which was seen to be made before the tribunal.
Hence, the decision of the Tribunal to use any method has been based on the appropriate measure for collecting the facts associated to the case. IT has been further argued that the appellant of the tribunal has been misinterpreted the agency for the agreement based on the clause 97.2. On extensive analysis it was found that the Tribunal has not made any misconstruction of the section 83-175(1) or the clause 97.2 of the agency agreement. The employee has been further seen not to perform the job based on the various arguments put forward by the agency agreement. The employees were further not seen to be performing the job was the argument forwarded by the agency under clause 97.1 of the agreement by the agency. In this case the determination of the tax was further seen to be based on the different types of the assumptions which are seen to be related to the genuine redundancy payment (Taylor, Richardson, & Taplin, 2015). Hence, the taxation office has argued that the taxpayer should be able to pay the amount received by the appellant and this is seen due to genuine redundancy in the position. Based on the analysis it has been it can be seen there is no inconsistency among the position becoming redundant and the excess employee in the agency. The tribunal findings and the language has been taken into consideration based on section 83-175(1) of the income tax assessment Act 1997. The respective relationship has been also observed as per the section 83-175(1) and the clause of employee termination given under section 29(3) of the Public Service Act. Hence, it can discerned that there is no inconsistency in finding of facts by the Tribunal or the error in law. The appellant has been further seen to fail to establish of any sort of the error regarding law so the appeal was dismissed (Rootes, 2014).
Conclusion:
The discussion has been able to show the relevant amount received on the disposal as it should be treated as the employee termination payment and the payment is taxed. It has been further seen to be argued by the taxpayer that the amount received as per section 83-175 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 is seen to be a case of genuine redundancy and this should not be taken for taxation purpose. The appellant opted for private ruling in order to resolve the dispute. The main decision in the private rolling did not favor the appellant. After this the appellant went to the Tribunal Court for dispute resolution. The decision was further seen to be in favor of the private rolling of the appellant. Hence, the appellant reached to the federal court for making the appeal. The tribunal was seen to argue the position of the employee as it has not disappeared in the agency. It can be further seen that the court held the case for the purpose of voluntary redundancy. The decision of the Tribunal that the tax should be paid on the redundancy amount is seen to be made correctly by the court.
Reference:
Kpmg. (2014). Corporate tax rates table | KPMG | GLOBAL. KPMG.com, 1–5. Retrieved from https://www.kpmg.com/global/en/services/tax/tax-tools-and-resources/pages/corporate-tax-rates-table.aspx
Lavermicocca, C., & Buchan, J. (2015). Role of reputational risk in tax decision making by large companies. eJournal of Tax Research, 13(1), 5–50. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84930342919&partnerID=tZOtx3y1
Richardson, G., Taylor, G., & Lanis, R. (2015). The impact of financial distress on corporate tax avoidance spanning the global financial crisis: Evidence from Australia. Economic Modelling, 44, 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2014.09.015
Robson, A. (2014). Australia’s Carbon Tax: An Economic Evaluation. Economic Affairs, 34(1), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecaf.12061
Rootes, C. (2014). A referendum on the carbon tax? The 2013 Australian election, the Greens, and the environment. Environmental Politics, 23(1), 166–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2014.878088
Russo, F. F. (2013). Tax morale and tax evasion reports. Economics Letters, 121(1), 110–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2013.07.004
Saad, N. (2014). Tax Knowledge, Tax Complexity and Tax Compliance: Taxpayers’ View. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 1069–1075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.590
Taylor, G., & Richardson, G. (2013). The determinants of thinly capitalized tax avoidance structures: Evidence from Australian firms. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 22(1), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2013.02.005
Taylor, G., Richardson, G., & Taplin, R. (2015). Determinants of tax haven utilization: evidence from Australian firms. Accounting & Finance, 55(2), 545–574. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12064
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
