Task 1: Calculation of net capital gain or loss from asset sales
The current state of affairs related to the attainment of antique vase by Eric is said to have certain specific issues linked to determination of capital gains or losses stemming from proceeds of selling resources. This identified issue can be particularly comprehended using the taxation diktat stated under 108-20 of the rule declared by ITAA (England, 2016).
Rulings that can be referred to in this regard are as follows:
Founded on the taxation decree stated under the guideline mentioned under section 108-20 pronounced by ITAA, it can be hereby said that there is a total amount of loss of $1000 that essentially stems from the marketing different home sound gadget. However, as per mentioned regulation it can be said that this expenditure cannot be considered for the purpose of subtraction from the assessable income. However, the tactic used for the purpose of balancing the entire amount of losses can follow from the diktats stipulated under the 108 to that of 110 sub sections of the law pronounced by ITAA -1997 (Braithwaite, 2016). In this particular case, as Eric has achieved the profit from releasing of firm’s usual resources, therefore no amount of capital can be considered for deduction in the current year. However, the total gain obtained from investment of capital of Eric necessarily amounts to $15000.
As a result, it can be said that Eric cannot reimburse the loss suffered from various collectables as he has acquired gains from the releasing of normal reserve.
The present case on Brian can be said to have concerns regarding resolving issues for establishment of FBT that again can be linked to the taxation dictate TR 93/6 (Passant et al., 2014).
i Taxtion Rulings of TR 93/6
Analysis of the taxation regulation helps in comprehending the fact in case if the banking corporation necessarily liberates from the compulsion of refunding an interest, then in that case Brian cannot be considered to be held responsible for paying back the tax amount (Novikov et al., 2014)
Founded on specific taxation law, it can thus be stated that it is not obligatory to pay out a specific amount for resolving the tax compulsion since Brian is released by the lending bank for the payment of specific amount of interest.
The issues that can hereby be recognized from the given business scenario on Jill as well as his wife can be related to subtraction of loss from a specific rental possessions since there is co-control.
Rulings that can be linked to the present issue under reflection are as follows:
Taxation decree quoted under the directive TR 93/32 spells out that the entire amount of earnings/ loss stemming from the rental possession between two diverse holders (Weller et al., 2013). Essentially, the given set-up turns to appraisal of the tax of different co-holders of properties that are in put on rent. Basically, Jack is particularly liable for nearly 10% of the rental possession whilst Jill is liable for approximately 90% of the overall value of the co-belongings. Thorough analysis of taxation law associated to the rental properties helps in gaining deep insight regarding the fact that there subsists co-possession of different rental resources that can be taken into account as partnership of rental reserve for assessable tax (Tran-Nam, 2016). Again, earnings gathered from different rental properties can be deduced from different rented assets. Pertinent decree states that contract of partnership might possibly have the effect on allotment of earnings acquired from a rented property (Tran-Nam, 2016).
Task 2: Taxable value of fringe benefit related to employee loan
Again, taxation diktat mentioned that the co-holder of a rented resource/property under reflection can never be taken into account as associates under normal verdict (Riaz et al. 2015). As such, in case of joint venture contract whether it be oral or else written does not necessarily exert pressure on shared gain or else loss derived from a specific assets (Riaz et al., 2015). Thus, co-possessors is Jill as well as his wife of different rental assets of both can obtain the said assets on the entire amount since joint renters can be recognized to be very usual in nature/features.
As is mentioned in the legal case on the “F.C. of T. v McDonald (1987) 18 ATR 957”, it can thus be hereby stated that the spouse of payer of tax possessed two different layer title fragments as a sort of joint endeavour (AO, 2015). Essentially, the contract verified between the two possessors mention that the entire income obtained from the rental possessions can once more be doled out in particular proportion. For example, the same can be distributed in the fraction (25% to Mr. Donald and 75% to his wife). Even so, the entire loss incurred can now be acquired by Mr. Mc Donald.
As per the taxation diktat mentioned under the law stipulated under the TR 93/32 loss stemming from c-holding of rental property need to be fairly doled out among different joint owners (in this case Jack and his wife) (Lewis et al., 2014). Nevertheless, the joint possession of the rental property cannot be taken into account as partnership business dealing.
The ruling as mentioned herein the case on “IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1” helps in understanding facts about skirting of tax. However, in the current case study, a specific principle was initiated stating about the assurance as regards a particular principle. This helped in authentication of the fact that each and every individual can be approved to order particular state of affairs that can allow taxation. As rightly indicated by Van Akkeren and Tarr (2014), this regulation can be considered as an effective rule for different individuals asking for avoidance of tax, when considering intricacy of legal structure. Basically, these can be weakened by the specific cases in which courts have spoken about the authority on the whole. In this case, by referring to the verdicts of the legal cases in the “WT Ramsay v. IRC principle”, it can be better understood (Pearce & Pinto, 2015). Necessarily, in the current day circumstances, the applicable standard with the purview of Australia states that in case if a specific individual achieves success by reaching out to the conclusion, then for that case, inland earnings from the acquired revenue might possibly be used for the particular arrangement.
The identified matter of concern points out towards the fact that intricacies in the process of estimation of earnings from sale proceeds of felled timber. Nevertheless, this business case can be evaluated by pointing out towards regulations announced under sub division 6(1) of the taxation regulation of Income Tax Assessment Act publicized during 1936 (Barkoczy, 2017).
Task 3: Allocation of losses and gains from rental property owned by joint tenants
Taxation ruling TR 95/6 mentioned in detail outcomes of tax occurring from activities of both production plus forestry (England, 2016). In addition to this, this ruling also talks about restriction to acceptance of proceeds obtained from selling of timber, evaluation of quantifiable earning from forestry activities. Again, sub-regulation pronounced under Income Tax Assessment Act -1936, main production is mainly linked to programs of plantation of tree considered under plantation work.
Taking into consideration the present case study, it can thus be stated that Bill owns a defined piece of land that necessarily cultivates trees. Essentially, Bill thought of using the piece of land for grazing of sheep and wanted to get it cleaned. However, the logging business can obtain right of utilizing the land. Being the holder of the land, Bill necessarily did not undertake works of plantation and the entire amount accepted from cutting trees reflected the entire amount that can be appraised for the purpose of taxation. Principally, in case if the payers of tax were essentially paid a lump sum amount of approximately $50000 by agreeing the concerned authority for removal of timber. In this specific case, the entire sum assumed can be regarded as royalty. According to the taxation ruling/dictate stated under 26 (f), royalties can be accepted from approval of the concerned authority to sell their product that is in this case necessarily timber. Then again, under this specific situation, Bill cannot assume business dealings linked to forestry. The current case explicates that expenses undertaken by diverse individual grant can be necessarily taken into account under the particular influence. Specifically, explicit amount accepted as royalty by Bill join the overall calculable earnings and can be referred to as taxation ruling under section 26 (f) (Braithwaite, 2016).
In conclusion it can be hereby stated that recognizing receipt as earnings from marketing felled trees can be taken into account as taxable earning. This can be particularly considered under ruling sub-division 6(1) of tax decree of ITAA pronounced in 1997.
References:
AO, M.D.A., (2015). Modernising the Australian Taxation Office: Vision, people, systems and values. eJournal of Tax Research, 13(1), p.1.
Barkoczy, S., (2017). Core Tax Legislation and Study Guide. OUP Catalogue.
Braithwaite, J.B., (2016). Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation: The Question of Evidence.
England, P., (2016). Between Regulation and Markets: Ironies and Anomalies in the Regulatory Governance of Biodiversity Conservation in Australia. 1 Australian Journal of Environmental Law, p.44.
Gray, E., Oss-Emer, M. & Sheng, Y., (2014). Australian agricultural productivity growth. Research by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, p.56.
Lewis, P., Richard, A. & Corliss, M., (2014). Compliance Costs of Regulation for Small Business. Journal of Business Systems, Governance & Ethics, 9(2).
Novikov, A.A., Ling, T.G. & Kordzakhia, N., (2014). Pricing of volume-weighted average options: Analytical approximations and numerical results. In Inspired by Finance (pp. 461-474). Springer International Publishing.
Passant, J., McLaren, J.A. & Silaen, P., (2014). Are returns received by householders from electricity generated by solar panels assessable income?.
Pearce, P. & Pinto, D., (2015). An evaluation of the case for a congestion tax in Australia. The Tax Specialist, 18(4), pp.146-153.
Riaz, Z., Ray, S. & Ray, P., (2015). The Synergistic Effect of State Regulation and Self-Regulation on Disclosure Level of Director and Executive Remuneration in Australia. Administration & Society, 47(6), pp.623-655.
Tran-Nam, B., (2016). Tax Reform and Tax Simplification: Conceptual and Measurement Issues and Australian Experiences. In The Complexity of Tax Simplification (pp. 11-44). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Van Akkeren, J. & Tarr, J.A., (2014). Regulation, compliance and the Australian forensic accounting profession. Journal of Forensic and Investigative Accounting, 6(3), pp.1-26.
Weller, S., Smith, E.F. & Pritchard, B., (2013). Family or Enterprise? What shapes the business structures of Australian farming?. Australian Geographer, 44(2), pp.129-142.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
