It is noteworthy to take into the consideration the issue that is associated with the derivation of the money from the reward for service?
The private exertion income has been defined in the “S-1 of the ITA Act 1936”. It is worth mentioning that when a taxpayer is earning income through the help of salaries or wages or earning any kind of the payment through the business which a taxpayer executes either alone or through the partners is classified as the private exertion income (Ostry, Berg and Tsangarides 2014). Ordinary income is those income that is earned majorly earned by a person with the help of ordinary concepts. The conceptual meaning of the ordinary income is explained in “S-6-5 of the ITA Act 1997”. An important consideration should be paid towards the law court decision in “FCT v Scott (1935)” (Anderson, Dickfos and Brown 2016). The explanation that has been made express that a person that earns income through the help or ordinary means is an ordinary income under “S-6-5 of the ITA Act 1997”.
It is noteworthy to denote that “S-6-1 of the ITA Act 1936” provides an explanation that private exertion earnings should be classified as statutory or the ordinary earnings (Vann 2016). It is very much important to consider that “S-15-2 of the ITA Act 1997” explains that earnings will be held classified as chargeable earnings for the money that is obtained through rendering of services of employment.
Apparently material evidences that is gained exclusively explains that Hilary was very much a famous climber of mountain. As a result the Daily Terror Newspaper decided to give Hilary $10,000 and required her to write the book by incorporating the story of her life. Signifying the explanation of “S-6-5 of the ITA Act 1997” media interview money is a chargeable income. It is noteworthy to give an important consideration that taxpayers are only liable for taxation purpose if the money is paid for rendering the service (Australian Taxation Office 2016). The explanation that has been provided by the law court in “FCT v Brent (1971)” is related to the determination of the chargeable income for the services that is provided to the media television where the wife of robber was liable for taxation for obtaining the reward for service (Berg and Davidson 2016). Representing the elucidation of “S-6-5 of the ITA Act 1997” media interview money that is received by the taxpayer is chargeable income.
The case study provides the media publications of books and receiving the money for such kind of publications by Hilary is a chargeable income. The explanation “FCT v Brent (1971)” can be relevantly cited in Hilary’s case and a conclusive evidence can be drawn by explaining that $10,000 for writing the books is taxable under the “S-6-5 of the ITA Act 1997” (Phillips and McKeown 2016). Referring to “S-1 of the ITA Act 1936” the sum of $10,000 is a private exertion income for Hilary.
Hilary on the second instances was found to have sold the manuscripts of the books and the photographs that was taken by her in the event of climbing the mountain. The elucidation that was made by the law court in “Marshall v Housden (Inspector or Taxation) (1958)” provides the taxability of the income when the taxpayer made the photographs and the cuttings of newspaper available for sale (Bajada 2017). Therefore, the court remained relied on the explanation of “S-6-5 of the ITA Act 1997” to stated that money that is received from such sale is taxable based on ordinary perceptions.
Taking into the considerations the instances where an imaginary situation of assuming that if the books was written by Hilary for her own private purpose then the outcome of such sale of books would have accounted as the Royalty income. Relying on the reference of the “Hussey v Hobbs (1942)” the taxpayer was held for assessment because the taxpayer sold the rights of autobiographies for the publications purpose (Braithwaite 2017). The money that was gained by the taxpayer from selling the books is a chargeable income based on the ordinary perceptions of “S-6-5 of the ITA Act 1997” (Doidge and Dyck 2015). Equally, for Hilary these income from the autobiography sale is taxable as the Royalty. The amount should be viewed as the assessable based on ordinary perceptions of “S-6-5 of the ITA Act 1997”.
A conclusion can be drawn by explaining that the three receipts that is earned by Hilary is a private effort or private exertion income. This income would be classified as chargeable based on the ordinary perceptions of “S-6-5 of the ITA Act 1997”. Alternatively if she chooses to write the book herself then the sale of book would result in royalties for Hilary that would be held taxable.
Will the taxpayer will be held assessable for the receipt of interest from the loan made to son under “section 6-5 of the ITAA 1997” as income from ordinary concepts?
The rule that has been identified above can be applied in the circumstances of the parent since the parent has made loan to their son and received interest when the loan was repaid by the son. An important elucidation provided in the section “S-6-5 of the ITA Act 1997” that it is imperative that the judgement of earnings should be made with respect to the surroundings of derivation (Tran-Nam and Walpole 2016). The law court has relied on the principles that was explained in “Mayes v Hochstrasser (1960)” that to hold the income character it should be classified as gain.
As evident in the current situation a loan was provided by the parent to the son as the short term housing loan based on the agreement that the son would be paying the principle amount following the end of the five years. Though the parents of son did not charged any interest from the son but the sum was paid by son inside two years along with the interest payment (Scholes 2015). By remaining reliant on the principles of the “S-6-5 of the ITA Act 1997” the homecoming of income carries the element of the income based on the notion of ordinary concepts. An individual is considered to have received the amount as soon as the sum is received or dealt in on behalf of the individual that directs it.
Preceding the explanation of the “S-6-5 of the ITA Act 1997” the parents have received the interest income for the loans made to son and the interest amount is a chargeable income (Heider and Ljungqvist 2015). This is because the receipt of interest possessed the character of income and constituted a gain by the taxpayer. However, the repayment of principle loan amount is not assessable since it constituted capital for the parents. By remaining reliant on the principles of the “S-6-5 of the ITA Act 1997” the interest must be classified as income which would attract tax liability (Slemrod and Bakija 2017). Citing the reference of the “Hochstrasser v Mayes (1960)” the interest income had the character of income and should be held as the element of gain for the taxpayer.
On a conclusive note, the receipt of interest constituted an element of gain which is considered as the taxable income under “section 6-5 of the ITAA 1997”. The amount was paid by the son to the parents three years before the prescribed time with an additional 5 per cent for the sum that was borrowed.
The land and building will be considered as the separate capital gains tax assets. It is noteworthy to denote that the purchase of land was made during the pre-CGT years while the constructions of land was constructed in post-CGT years (Yinger, Bloom and Boersch-Supan 2016). Considering the explanation of “S-105-55 (2) of the ITA Act 1997” building construction has resulted in post CGT asset and selling the same has given rise to CGT event A 1 (Golosov et al. 2014). Based on the information that has been presented above the net capital gains for Scott during the year ended 30 June of the present tax year stood $650,000.
If a decision is undertake by Scott to sell the property to the her daughter for a sum of $200,000 then the net capital gains for Scott for the year ended 30th June stands $50,000. To support the statement the calculations has been stated below;
In an alternative situation if the owner of the property was a company rather than the individual then the amortization payment and the taxes must be deducted.
Reference List:
Anderson, C., Dickfos, J. and Brown, C., 2016. The Australian Taxation Office-what role does it play in anti-phoenix activity?. Insolvency Law Journal, 24(2), pp.127-140.
Australian Taxation Office (ATO), 2016. Self-Managed Super Fund Statistical Report.(March 2016).
Bajada, C., 2017. Australia’s Cash Economy: A Troubling Issue for Policymakers: A Troubling Issue for Policymakers.
Berg, C. and Davidson, S., 2016. Submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue Inquiry into the External Scrutiny of the Australian Taxation Office.
Braithwaite, V. ed., 2017. Taxing democracy: Understanding tax avoidance and evasion. Routledge.
Doidge, C. and Dyck, A., 2015. Taxes and corporate policies: Evidence from a quasi natural experiment. The Journal of Finance, 70(1), pp.45-89.
Golosov, M., Hassler, J., Krusell, P. and Tsyvinski, A., 2014. Optimal taxes on fossil fuel in general equilibrium. Econometrica, 82(1), pp.41-88.
Heider, F. and Ljungqvist, A., 2015. As certain as debt and taxes: Estimating the tax sensitivity of leverage from state tax changes. Journal of Financial Economics, 118(3), pp.684-712.
Ostry, M.J.D., Berg, M.A. and Tsangarides, M.C.G., 2014. Redistribution, inequality, and growth. International Monetary Fund.
Phillips, K. and McKeown, T., 2016. Understanding Self-Employment: The Opportunities and the Challenges for Good Policy. Government, SMEs and Entrepreneurship Development: Policy, Practice and Challenges, p.157.
Scholes, M.S., 2015. Taxes and business strategy. Prentice Hall.
Slemrod, J. and Bakija, J., 2017. Taxing ourselves: a citizen’s guide to the debate over taxes. MIt Press.
Tran-Nam, B. and Walpole, M., 2016. Tax disputes, litigation costs and access to tax justice. eJournal of Tax Research, 14(2), p.319.
Vann, R., 2016. Hybrid Entities in Australia: Resource Capital Fund III LP Case.
Yinger, J., Bloom, H.S. and Boersch-Supan, A., 2016. Property taxes and house values: The theory and estimation of intrajurisdictional property tax capitalization. Elsevier.
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