Set for Life Lottery: Taxation of Annual Payment Income
A lottery commission has arranged a lottery which has been termed as “Set for Life” and decided to pay $50000 every year (consecutive to 20 years) to the winner who will scratch “Set for Life” lottery. When the winner of this lottery will be declared, that individual person will get an amount of $50000. Moreover, the second payment will be permissible for the lottery’s anniversary regarding the initial payment. In this context, an issue has been aroused regarding the payment of lottery which will be made after the death of an individual winner.
The Federal Government of Australia has already been declared that every lottery winner is considered to be taxable for such income. In the context of the death of a winner, the tax needs to be paid by the winner’s guarantee (classic.austlii.edu.au, 2018). Rules of Registration 24 of 2014 mentioned that every winner of a lottery is not considered as taxable to those who possess ordinary income (classic.austlii.edu.au, 2018). The customs of HM do not term lottery prize as a generator of income, therefore, such lottery amount considered as tax-free. In accordance to the Income Tax Assessment Act of 1936, the grantee receives a handsome amount after the death of lottery winner.
The issue rises whether to consider lottery winning as an income or not. In accordance with the Australian Income Tax laws and regulation, it has been stated that the amount received by the grantee is a part of an estate also (Saad, 2014, p. 1069). In this context, the grantee is needed to pay 40% of Inheritance Tax, which the individual had already signed an agreement before the death of the winner (Cassidy and Cheng, 2017, p. 25). A lucid drafted agreement (with a signature of the grantee) will save the syndicates of a lottery from the risk of nonpaying of tax on the amount of lottery winning.
Australian Federal estates tax involves receiving the lottery winning amount after the demise of a winner, which will be valued on the fair rate of market. The Customs (HMRC) and HM Revenue will charge tax on the lottery winning amount based on the Inheritance Tax (IHT) (Evans et al. 2015, p. 735). The taxation scale is as follows:
– Decreasing of tax by 20% if the winner dies after providing the amount in 3 to 4 years
– Decreasing of a rate of tax by 40% if the winner dies after providing the amount in 4 to 5 years
This overall fact of taxation on the winning of lottery totally depends, when the grantee signs an agreement for paying the tax after the winner’s death within 7 years (Symes, 2016, p. 50).
Conclusion
The above-mentioned analysis regarding the diagnosis of lottery winning has been concluded. The annual income of the grantee, if it has been banked, then the grantee is bound to pay tax on such lottery winning amount, will be considered as Inheritance Tax of 40%. Moreover, the grantee has to sign an agreement with winner before the death, therefore, the remaining tax has to pay by the grantee after the demise of a winner, and this rule has also been concluded.
Corner Pharmacy: Calculation of Taxable Income and Relevant Pharmaceutical Benefits
Corner Pharmacy is a respective pharmacy shop in Australia which does not prefer to include credit cards operation in its business operating procedure. Although the pharmacy shop tends to accept credit cards for sales operations still the prescriptions get filled up using certain schemes registered under the Pharmaceutical benefit schemes. There is an existing issue of taxable income that has to be paid by the Corner Pharmacy. In order to identify and determine the taxable income of this respective pharmacy certain things are required to be measured such as purchase or sales records, on stock record, rent charges and remuneration structure and so on. These things will be measured as per the record of the present financial year only. Hence, the taxable income of the chosen pharmaceutical shop named Corner Pharmacy has its taxable income identified based on each individual transaction record of accrual basis and they can be applied to both parts like credit card sales cost and cash sales cost (Lancaster et al. 2015, p. 1198).
As per the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, it is stated that a pharmacy has to keep both of the copy of the prescription like the original copy as well s the carbon copy for reimbursement procedure (aph.gov.au, 2018). According to the Australian government, which are registered under this Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme are liable to provide medicines to their customers without taking full price of them (healthdirect.gov.au, 2018). A wide range of doctor prescribed medicines can be purchased using this scheme as Australian government tends to provide affordable and safe medication to all its citizens (Brett et al. 2018, p. 439). The Australian citizens who have an authentic Medicare card are eligible for applying PBS (McKittrick and McKenzie, 2018, p. 317). This scheme was introduced in Australia in 1953 when it got registered under the National Health Act (legislation.gov.au, 2018). All the other countries that have a reciprocal health care agreement with Australia will also get the benefit of this scheme (Kelty et al. 2018, p. 78).
This benefit states that all the customers will have to pay a certain portion of the medicine and the rest of the amount will be paid by the Australian government. The price structure of PBS is also uncapped as certain medicines’ price structure might increase as well in terms of demands (Vitry and Roughead, 2014, p. 345).
It is quite clearly identified that the taxable income of Corner Pharmacy assumes each of the transaction records as per the accrual basis (Grossi et al. 2014, p. 32). As per the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, it is clearly mentioned that all the pharmacy shops will have to accept cash as well as credit cards in order to operate the business within the country. Hence, the violation of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme will be happening in this case if Corner Pharmacy denies accepting credit card in business transactions. Corner Pharmacy is liable to provide the customers their desired medicines in credit cards too because as per Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the pharmacy shops have to accept credit cards while business transaction because customers will not pay full money only to buy the medication (Page et al. 2015, p. 25). The law also states to provide an accurate assumption purchase record so if Corner Pharmacy is not keeping the transaction record statements then the violation of PBS will occur.
IRC v Duke of Westminster: Principle Established and Relevance Today
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme mainly states that every customer will get a concession card when they will purchase medicines from a respective pharmacy in Australia (Harris et al. 2017, p.1). There is no such record of concession providing found in the recorded financial statement of Corner Pharmacy. Hence, another aspect of PBS violation is observed to occur in this case of Corner Pharmacy and they can get convicted of a serious punishable offense for not keeping clear records of business operations and not following the guidelines of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
Conclusion
At the end of this discussion, it can be concluded that the entire taxable income of Corner Pharmacy incurred on the basis of annual financial expenditure is 45%. The pharmacy was obligated to pay a lot more than this amount and the expected amount is $166500 and this amount was supposed to pay by them at the very end of the financial year. Since the cash sales cost structure and also the credit card sales cost structure both are the income source of Corner Pharmacy so both of them are added in order to determine the total value of taxable income.
This case has been occurred many years ago which led to the establishment of principle of avoidance of tax. Duke of Westminster paid £ 3 to his gardener every week. By making an agreement with his gardener he stopped paying the weekly wage and accessed into a contract to pay the gardener an equal amount. Based on the taxation law of 1929 to 1932, the wage of gardener would not have given rise to decreasing of tax. On the other hand, the contract decreases the liability of Duke in the context of the surtax. Now, on to thrive on this violation of taxation law, this case came into the notice of House of Lords. Lord Tomlin made a statement and it had become the principles, moreover, such principles mainly deal with tax avoidance.
In accordance with the Income Tax Act of 1936 (Cth0), the provision of tax avoidance is complex which can be found in Part IVA of the ITA 1936. Moreover, this law renders the authority of the Commissioner of Taxation regarding the rejection of tax that has been based under Part IVA (Asuzu, 2017, p. 80). The commissioner intervenes regarding the construction of assessment if taxable income determines certain after the rejection of benefit of tax. The principles that have been implemented, during the case of IRC vs Duke of Westminster 1936 AC 1, mentioned that an individual is bound to gather its affair legitimately with the purpose of decreasing the burden of tax (Phillips, 2018, p. 20). The rules and regulation mentioned by Lord Tomlin, that every person needs to gather affairs, therefore, to avoid the burden of a tax.
The above-mentioned case study mentioned case study has mentioned a case between IRC vs Duke of Westminster, this case has led to the establishment of principle of tax avoidance. Lord Tomlin had declared that every man is bound to order his or her affairs; therefore, the tax attached based on accurate act would be less than otherwise. Now, onto thrive on this case, a similar case has occurred in the year 2005, TRENNERY V WEST (INSPECTOR OF TAXES): HL 27 JAN 2005. In this case, the declaration had been made by imposing a charge on the profits based on a settlement under a specific situation of Taxation Chargeable Act 1992 77 (1).
Joseph and Jane’s Rental Property: Allocation of Loss and Tax Implications on Capital Gains/Losses
Conclusion
From the case study of IRC vs Duke of Westminster, it is concluded that the applicable doctrine of tax avoidance by the arrangement of expenditure and income issue can be considered as relevant. The principle which was founded during the case of Duke of Westminster has relevance with Australia Taxation law. Moreover, that case was closed by a statement, which was made by Lord Tomlin that the accuser cannot compel an individual regarding its amalgamation of affairs of tax evasion.
Joseph and Jane, a married couple borrowed an amount of money to acquire an asset property (house) as joint tenants. They signed an agreement which actually mentioned that Joseph will get 20% of the total profit and Jane will get 80% of the total profit from the rental property. Furthermore, the agreement also mentioned that if the asset generates a loss, in this context, Joseph has to bear the loss of 100%. The rental property had already incurred a loss which roses to $40,000.
In accordance with the Australian Law of Taxation, the division asset income between the couple is bound for the payment of 20% and 80% interest (Graetz and Warren, 2016, p. 20). Whenever a case arises regarding the division of interest which is mentioned in the agreement, the interest is segregated in proportion from the equivalent division will have no impact on tax. The issues arise that the loss of 100% will be conveyed by Joseph, which is not allowed regarding the Australian Law of Taxation (Cobiac et al. 2017, p. 14). The decision regarding the selling of rental property by Joseph for eradicating loss of capital by 100% is a necessity to balance the capital gain in the preliminary stage.
In the case study of Joseph and his wife who has borrowed money in order to purchase a rental house and share profit of 20% and 80% regarding the Taxation Law of Australia. Hence, the loss of $40000 was totally suffered by Joseph, which has no relevance in this case. In accordance to the Capital Gain Tax; after 19th September 1985 purchasing NBA and selling of an asset will incur both capital gain and loss on the asset. The capital gain of an asset is estimated by subtracting the price of capital and additional capital expenditure with a sale price. On the other hand, the Australian Law of Taxation has mentioned that capital loss will be incurred by joint partners which need to the allocated equivalently.
Conclusion
The case study was able to conclude that, regarding the Taxation Law of Australia, if the profits are allocated in the ratio of 20% to Joseph and 80% to Jane, then the loss confronted by asset need to be divided equally. A capital loss of $40000 faced by selling of rental asset needs to be accounted for the balance of preliminary capital gain. Taxation is the procedures of gathering an amount from an individual by the Government across this globe. The below-mentioned case study gives importance mainly to the Law of Taxation in the country of Australia which is based on the current scenario.
References
aph.gov.au (2018) News Available at https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201718/PBS [Accessed on 31st August 2018]
Asuzu, C., 2017. Interpreting Tax Statutes: Should Judges Fight Tax Avoidance. P.80.
Brett, J., Schaffer, A., Dobbins, T., Buckley, N.A., and Pearson, S.A., 2018. The impact of permissive and restrictive pharmaceutical policies on quetiapine dispensing: Evaluating a policy pendulum using interrupted time series analysis. Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 27(4), pp.439-446.
Cassidy, J. and Cheng, A., 2017, January. Legislative Responses to GST Tax Avoidance in Australia and New Zealand: Lessons for China?. In 2017 International Conference of Chinese Tax and Policy: The Function of Tax in the New Wave of Economic Development in China
classic.austlii.edu.au/ (2018) News Available at: https://classic.austlii.edu.au/[accessed on 31st August 2018]
Cobiac, L.J., Tam, K., Veerman, L. and Blakely, T., 2017. Taxes and subsidies for improving diet and population health in Australia: a cost-effectiveness modelling study. PLoS medicine, 14(2), p.e1002232.
coop.com.au (2018) News Available at: https://www.coop.com.au australian-taxation-law-2018/9780190310653 [Accessed on 31st August 2018]
Evans, C., Minas, J. and Lim, Y., 2015. Taxing personal capital gains in Australia: an alternative way forward. Austl. Tax F., 30, p.735.
Graetz, M.J. and Warren, A.C., 2016. Integration of corporate and shareholder taxes, P.20.
Grossi, G., Mori, E., and Bardelli, F., 2014. From consolidation to segment reporting in local government: accountability needs, accounting standards, and the effect on decision-makers. Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing, 10(1), pp.32-46.
Hajarizadeh, B., Grebely, J., McManus, H., Estes, C., Razavi, H., Gray, R.T., Alavi, M., Amin, J., McGregor, S., Sievert, W. and Thompson, A., 2017. Chronic hepatitis C burden and care cascade in Australia in the era of interferon?based treatment. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 32(1), pp.229-236.
Harris, C.A., Daniels, B., Ward, R.L. and Pearson, S.A., 2017. Retrospective comparison of Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme claims data with prescription data in HER2-positive early breast cancer patients, 2008-2012. Public Health Research and Practice, 27(5), pp.1-9.
healthdirect.gov.au (2018) News Available at https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/pharmaceutical-benefits-scheme-pbs [Accessed on 31st August 2018]
Kelty, E., Tran, D., Lavin, T., Preen, D.B., Hulse, G. and Havard, A., 2018. Prevalence and safety of acamprosate use in pregnant alcohol-dependent women in New South Wales, Australia, p. 78
Lancaster, K., Seear, K. and Treloar, C., 2015. Laws prohibiting peer distribution of injecting equipment in Australia: A critical analysis of their effects. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26(12), pp.1198-1206.
legislation.gov.au (2018) News Available at https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C1953A00095 [Accessed on 31st August 2018]
McKittrick, R. and McKenzie, R., 2018. A narrative review and synthesis to inform health workforce preparation for the Health Care Homes model in primary health care in Australia. Australian journal of primary health, 24(4), pp.317-329.
Page, E., Kemp-Casey, A., Korda, R. and Banks, E., 2015. Using the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme data for pharmacoepidemiological research: challenges and approaches. Public Health Res Pract, 25(4), p.e2541546.
Phillips, M., 2018. Comment on the Decision in RFC 2012 Plc (in Liquidation) v Advocate General for Scotland. Southampton Student L. Rev., 8, p.23.
Saad, N., 2014. Tax knowledge, tax complexity and tax compliance: Taxpayers’ view. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, pp.1069-1075.
swarb.co.uk (2018) TRENNERY V WEST (INSPECTOR OF TAXES): HL 27 JAN 2005 available at: https://swarb.co.uk /trennery-v-west-inspector-of-taxes-hl-27-jan-2005[Accessed on 31st August 2018]
Symes, C.F., 2016. Statutory priorities in corporate insolvency law: an analysis of preferred creditor status. Abingdon: Routledge.
Vitry, A. and Roughead, E., 2014. Managed entry agreements for pharmaceuticals in Australia. Health Policy, 117(3), pp.345-352.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
