The basic functions of taxations are as follows;
Funding government expenditure: The most important vital function of tax is to fund the expenditure of government. It provides varying amount of justifications and explanation for taxes that has been offered all through the history. Previously, taxes were used in supporting the “ruling classes”, increase armies and create defences (Saez and Stantcheva 2018). Later explanations have been offered across the utilitarian financial or the moral contemplations. The advocates of high income earners have argued that taxes helps in encouraging a highly reasonable society. Imposing higher duties on specific goods and services namely tobacco or petrol have vindicated as the preventive on consumption.
Redistributive function: Taxes have redistributing function as helps in lowering the unequal distribution of income as well as health which results in normal operations of market-based economy. Taxes has the regulatory component which is used in steering the activity of private sector in the desired government directions. Taxes have been built and used largely for the redistribution of income in the society.
Welfare function: The taxes has social welfare functions as well. It aims to simply increase the overall welfare of the members in society (Fleurbaey and Maniquet 2018). This function requires the government to weigh poor more heavily than the rich. The view of social policies should be measured based on the perspective of changes in the individual welfare.
Controlling: With the help of controlling functions, the state imposes controls on the financial as well as social economic activity of juridical as well as natural persons. This further helps in imposing controls on the sources of income and direction of spending.
Replication: This function of taxes involves imposing tax on use of natural resources, minerals, roads and primary resources. The state uses these proceeds to reproduce the exploited resources.
“Sec 6 (1) ITAA 1936” says that an individual is said to “Australian resident” if they live in Australia physically and have their domicile in Australia unless it is proven to tax commissioner that the taxpayer has perpetual “place of abode” in foreign (Biørn 2017).
The circumstance provides that Amandeep migrated from India to Australia and lives permanently with his family in an apartment in Sydney. Amendeep is employed with New Zealand Princess Cruise tours and in majority of the income year he lives in New Zealand. As per the “Domicile Test” if an individual that is domiciled in Australia then they will be considered Australian occupant even though they are living in foreign except the ATO is content that a person has domicile out of Australia. Relevant consideration given in “IT 2650” involves that the intended length of a person’s stay in overseas nation. It also includes leaving of home in Australia. As held in “Boer v FCT (2012)” the taxpayer was considered to be Australian throughout his stay in foreign because the taxpayer did not established permanent home outside Australia (Berliant and Gouveia 2018).
Likewise, in case of Amandeep, even though he toured and worked in New Zealand, he did not abandoned his residence in Australia. By quoting the example of “Boer v FCT (2012)” Amandeep should be considered Australian inside the sense of “sec 6 (1) ITAA 1936” throughout his stay in overseas because the taxpayer did not set up fixed home outside Australia.
The “sources of income” is fundamental in levying taxes. As found in “FCT v French (1957)” employment salaries are taxable where the services are performed. As noted in “sec 23AG ITAA 1936” foreign employment earnings earned by Australian resident for providing services in foreign is excluded from tax in Australia (Farhi and Gabaix 2020). Quoting “FCT v French (1957)”, the salary earned by Amandeep from his overseas service will be excluded from duty in Australia “sec 23AG ITAA 1936”.
Dividends are usually taxable where it is sourced. In “Esquire Nominees v FCT (1973)” the court of law held that dividends taxable where the profits out of which dividend is paid are earned (Jones and Rhoades-Catanach 2015). Amandeep reports receipt of Dividend from Hindustan Unilever an Indian company. Quoting “Esquire Nominees v FCT (1973)” the dividends are sourced in India and hence it is excluded from tax in Australia.
According to “sec 15-25 ITAA 1997” the amounts that is received by a lessor arising from the lessee because of failure to adhere with the obligations relating to lease to repair the premises is considered as assessable income (Miller and Oats 2016). The taxpayer should denote that the lessee has made use of the premises for generating assessable income and the payment cannot be considered as ordinary income.
The case study provides that Gary an owner of commercial building provided John his premises for carrying on his bakery business. The lease obligations contained that John must modify or repair the damaged parts of building following the lease term. Nevertheless, John was unable to repair the damaged within the stipulated lease agreement and paid Gary with a sum of $3,100 for covering the repair expenditure. With regard to “sec 15-25 ITAA 1997” the amount of $3,100 that is received by Gary from John because of failure to abide by with the obligations relating to lease to repair the premises will be considered as assessable income. This is because John has used the premises of Gary for generating assessable income and the payment is not treated as “ordinary income” with “sec 6-5 ITAA 1997”.
4:
(i):
Usually legal spending that happened by taxpayer because of income generating activities are permitted for deduction given that the payments is not capital in type. As noted in “Herald & Weekly Times v FCT (1952)” the taxpayer and their spouse were permitted for deduction under “sec 8-1 ITAA 1997” regarding the legal expenditure that were incurred in defending the claims for damages (Sadiq et al. 2020).
The legal expenditure incurred by John for false advertisement will be allowable for deduction under “sec 8-1 ITAA 1997”. Quoting “Herald & Weekly Times v FCT (1952)” the expenditure were incurred in his income generating activities and no enduring benefit is produced by the expenditure.
(ii):
“Division 40” deals with the capital allowance regime. Under the “sec 40-25 (1)” a person can claim deduction for a value equal to “decline in value” relating to an income year regarding “depreciating asset” which is held during the year (Woellner et al. 2016). John purchased a new fridge to shop. The fringe can be refereed as a depreciating asset under “sec 40-30 (1) ITAA 1997”. John under “sec 40-25 (1)” can claim deduction for a value equal to “decline in value” relating to an income year regarding refrigerator which is held by him during the year.
A repair which amounts to capital expenditure is not permitted for deduction in “sec 25-10 (3) ITAA 1997”. Improvement usually involves improvement of effectiveness character of the property. In “FCT v Western Suburbs Cinemas Ltd (1952)” the reparation of ceiling with new solid material was not considered as repair (Christie 2015). Likewise, the adding up of more space on the shop front is regarded as enhancement of efficiency character of property. Quoting “FCT v Western Suburbs Cinemas Ltd (1952)” John will be denied deduction “sec 25-10 (3) ITAA 1997”. relating to an expense of $22,000 because it is capital spending and constitute improvement to the property.
(iii)
As per the “ATO ID 2005/284” a taxpayer is permitted to get deduction for outgoing incurred in sponsorship under “sec 8-1 ITAA 1997”. As noted in “FCT v Snowden & Wilson Pty Ltd (1958)” the expenditures incurred for advertisement was allowed for deduction since it was directed towards income generating activities of the taxpayer (Sadiq et al. 2020).
Likewise in case of John, the printing of company long on 1000 new T-Shirt for marketing purpose is an ordinary business expense which is identical to advertisement. Quoting “FCT v Snowden & Wilson Pty Ltd (1958)” the expenditures incurred for marketing purpose John is allowed for deduction since it is directed towards income generating activities of John’s business.
(iv):
No deduction for penalties is given under “sec 26-5 ITAA 1997”. As per “sec 25 (1)” a person is denied deduction for amount which is to be paid as penalty within the Australian law or foreign law. John received a penalty for putting is item on display outside his shop with any permission. Under “sec 26-5 ITAA 1997” John cannot deduct the fine imposed on him because it is a penalty within Australian Law.
Under the “sec 40-25 (1)” a person can claim deduction for a value equal to “decline in value” relating to an income year regarding depreciating asset which is held during the year. Under “sec 40-60 ITAA 1997” the “decline in value” of depreciating asset starts from when the asset is installed as ready for use. An entity is permitted to choose under “sec 40-65” to compute the depreciation of depreciating asset by using “diminishing method under” “sec 40-72” or “prime cost method” under “sec 40-75”.
Requirement A:
Requirement B:
Alex is advised to use diminishing value method under “sec 40-72” as this will result in highest deduction for tax purpose.
References:
Berliant, M. and Gouveia, M., 2018. On the political economy of income taxation.
Biørn, E., 2017. Taxation, technology, and the user cost of capital. Elsevier.
Christie, M., 2015. Principles of Taxation Law 2015.
Farhi, E. and Gabaix, X., 2020. Optimal taxation with behavioral agents. American Economic Review, 110(1), pp.298-336.
Fleurbaey, M. and Maniquet, F., 2018. Optimal income taxation theory and principles of fairness. Journal of Economic Literature, 56(3), pp.1029-79.
Jones, S. and Rhoades-Catanach, S., 2015. Principles of taxation for business and investment planning. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Miller, A. and Oats, L., 2016. Principles of international taxation. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Sadiq, K., Black, C., Hanegbi, R., Jogarajan, S., Krever, R., Obst, W. and Ting, A.K., 2020. Principles of Taxation Law 2020.
Saez, E. and Stantcheva, S., 2018. A simpler theory of optimal capital taxation. Journal of Public Economics, 162, pp.120-142.
Woellner, R., Barkoczy, S., Murphy, S., Evans, C. and Pinto, D., 2016. Australian Taxation Law 2016. OUP Catalogue.
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download
