Relevant Sections of ITAA for Capital Gains Taxation
In this report, the yearly transaction of Amber for the year 2018 will be discussed and the tax consequences for the transactions will be evaluated in accordance with the legislations stated in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. It is required to identify which of these transactions can be regarded as capital gains taxation and the important sections of ITAA will be referred in order to evaluate the statement.
In accordance with the section 102-5 of ITAA 1997, the assessable incomes gained by an individual needs to be recorded in order to measure the total tax payable by the individual. The income needs to be incurred as a capital gain in order to be considered as a taxable income. The capital gains taxation measurements determine whether the income gained by the individual will be considered as a profit or loss (Sharkey, 2015). In order to identify the capital gains or loss, section 102-20 needs to be considered in order to evaluate the CGT event A1. Another important section to dispose the CGT event in the incurred income is the section 104-10 of ITAA 1997.
In order to evaluate the CGT event C2 which is particularly associated with the intangible assets, section 104-25 needs to be considered. This section determines the end or expiry of an intangible assets or the end of ownership of the assets. In order to calculate the goodwill associated with the assets, it is needed to consider the CGT event C1. But this CGT measurement can only occur when the business is permanently ceased or the lifespan of the asset is permanently ended. In order to evaluate the disposal over the goodwill or the interest over the goodwill, the taxation ruling 1999/16 needs to be considered. The CGT event C1 cannot be considered as a temporary closure in case of the business is permanently ceased (Becker et al., 2015).
Some other case laws that are required to evaluate the taxation consequences of Amber, In the case of FCT v Murry, the citation states that the goodwill is considered as evidence where the assets are capable of generating the revenue. The asset is regarded as an intangible if such conditions prevail in the operation of the business. For another instance, the goodwill must be regarded as a CGT assets as per the guideline is stated in the section 108-5 (2). In the case of IRC v Muller and Co Margarine Ltd, it is stated that the nature and the character of the business decides the type of goodwill incurred from the assets. Thus, the amount received from the selling of goodwill will be concluded in the capital gain (Burkhauser et al., 2015).
Case Laws for Determining Tax Consequences
In order to evaluate the restrictions among the purchaser in accordance with the competitiveness of similar business, it is required to follow the legislations stated in the Taxation ruling 1999/16. In this legislation, it is stated that in case of having an agreement between the seller and the purchaser, the seller cannot attract the clients of the purchaser for a similar business towards them (Parker, 2018).
However, in order to figure out whether the income gained from the agreement of restriction can be regarded as a taxable income or not, it is required to consider the legislations stated in the case law of Jarrold v Boustead. In the citation of the case, it is stated that in case of incurring such income from this particular type of agreement, the income will be considered as a taxable income in accordance with TR 1999/16.
For another instance, the goodwill can be represented over the CGT assets in case of any restrictive covenants are vested upon the purchaser. This covenant will be regarded as the CGT event D1 in accordance with the section 104-35 of ITAA 1997. In this particular case, the conditions or the legal right that is created by the taxpayer will be vested upon the other entity (Saad, 2014). But this transaction will not be regarded as an income in case any of the party does not wish to continue the contract in return of getting paid by the entity. In such cases, the total income vested from the contract will be regarded as the CGT event D1 and thus will be imposed by a trade agreement (Wilkins, 2015).
In the last part, it is required to state the consideration about the taxation consequences of the multiple residence of the taxpayer. In this segment, the primary dwelling place of the taxpayer is regarded as the main residence and this residential status is dependent on certain criteria. In order to figure out the primary residence of the taxpayer, it is required to understand the legislations stated in the section 118-110 and taken into consideration by the citation of the Taxation Commissioner (Endres & Spengel, 2015). The primary requirement for stating a main residency of a tax payer is to figure out the total period of physical occupancy by the taxpayer in that particular property. Apart from that, as it is stated in section 118-110 of the ITAA 1997, the incurred exemption received from the residential status will be considered as a CGT event in case of obtaining some capital gain or loss from that exemption. This exemption can only be considered in case of the CGT assets are being generated from the main residency of the tax payer. A partial exemption will also be allocated to the taxpayer in case of the residential status of the taxpayer in the main residency is temporary (Hanlon et al., 2015).
Evaluation of Tax Consequences for Amber’s Transactions
In the given case it is clear that Amber was the owner of the chocolate shop that was worked from Sydney. However, the choice to offer the shop was activated by the introduction of a kid in 2018 for a sum t of $440,000 out of which $280,000 was from goodwill. The taxation ruling “TR 1999/16” can be connected to the circumstance here. Considering the choice of court in the event of “FC of T v Murry (1998) and section 104-25(1) of the ITAA 1997″, a CGT event occurred when Amber sold the business. The individual playing tax went into contract that evented to the finish of benefits of the business. The revenues obtained from the advantages and goodwill is a proof of such business. Amber stopping such business was a voluntary demonstration (Bankman et al., 2017). The sale of such business offered ascend to a CGT event which can be taxable or even not taxable that will be resolved from the proportion of other chose cases under a similar demonstration.
As indicated by the instance of “IRC v Muller and co Margarine LTD (1901), amber needs to incorporate the net capital income in her taxable income that was gained from the sale of her business. In this way the sum got from the sale of chocolate shop frames some portion of taxable income under section 104-10(1)”.
Later in a similar case Amber was required to consent to a contract that would put confinement in regards to working same sort of business inside 5-mile range for the following 5 years. For entering in such a contract, she got a measure of $50,000. This sum would be viewed as CGT event. Be that as it may, considering the instance of “Jarrold v Boustead(1964)”, the entirety Amber got for restrictive pledge can’t be viewed as a piece of income or it measures of CGT event D1 (Frey & Feld, 2018).
Considering the instance of “Dickenson v FC of T(1958)”, the sum was gotten keeping in mind the end goal to not let her not participate in business. After such a declaration the buyer has the rights identifying with the CGT resource of Amber and under “section 104-35(1)”, the measure of $50,000 gotten by Amber would be dealt with as CGT event D1. In this way the receipt of such a sum characterizes the limitation of Amber from not contending in same sort of business.
In events, emerging later on Amber got the house from her uncle who obtained such property in September 2013 and the contract of offering the same was entered in to by Amber in May. For exemption the abode needs to frame some portion of the principle residence of Amber and it relies upon an issue of actuality (Enste, 2018). This can be demonstrated on the grounds that Amber dwelled in that house as the principle residence. Accordingly, the case laws recommend, that, sale of shop and business result in capital gain that is taxable yet the capital gain that is earned from restrictive pledge is not taxable as their inclination is unique.
The tax commissioner clarifies, that Amber and her family dwelled in that property for a long time and under section 118-110(1) can be considered as there as physical inhabitance for the whole time of ownership. Along these lines, a piece of exemption can be guaranteed as it was her principle residence as it was acquired from her uncle. So Amber is entitled to fractional exemption as it was her home and primary residence all through the time of ownership. Along these lines, again we can see that there is arrangement that gives exemption yet not full rather halfway.
Conclusion:
So, to conclude was can state that Amber is liable to pay tax on the sum she got from the sale of the shop under section 104-10(1). While the measure of $50,000 got as restrictive contract will frame some portion of CGT event D1 and won’t be a piece of taxable income. The receipt made a restrictive trade agreement. Subsequently she is qualified for partial exemption as it was the fundamental residence all through the time of ownership.
Reference
Avi-Yonah, R. S. (2015). Advanced introduction to international tax law. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Bankman, J., Shaviro, D. N., Stark, K. J., & Kleinbard, E. D. (2017). Federal Income Taxation. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Becker, J., Reimer, E., & Rust, A. (2015). Klaus Vogel on Double Taxation Conventions. Kluwer Law International.
Burkhauser, R. V., Hahn, M. H., & Wilkins, R. (2015). Measuring top incomes using tax record data: A cautionary tale from Australia. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 13(2), 181-205.
Endres, D., & Spengel, C. (Eds.). (2015). International company taxation and tax planning. Alphen aan Den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
Enste, D. H. (2018). The shadow economy in OECD and EU accession countries–empirical evidence for the influence of institutions, liberalization, taxation and regulation. In Size, Causes and Consequences of the Underground Economy (pp. 135-150). Routledge.
Frey, B. S., & Feld, L. P. (2018). Illegal, immoral, fattening or what?: How deterrence and responsive regulation shape tax morale. In Size, causes and consequences of the underground economy (pp. 27-50). Routledge.
Hanlon, M., Maydew, E. L., & Thornock, J. R. (2015). Taking the long way home: US tax evasion and offshore investments in US equity and debt markets. The Journal of Finance, 70(1), 257-287.
Parker, H. (2018). Instead of the Dole: an enquiry into integration of the tax and benefit systems. Routledge.
Saad, N. (2014). Tax knowledge, tax complexity and tax compliance: Taxpayers’ view. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 1069-1075.
Sharkey, N. (2015). Coming to Australia: Cross border and Australian income tax complexities with a focus on dual residence and DTAs and those from China, Singapore and Hong Kong-Part 1. Brief, 42(10), 10.
Wilkins, R. (2015). Measuring income inequality in Australia. Australian Economic Review, 48(1), 93-102.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
