Taxation Core Tax Legislation

Question: Describe about the Taxation for Core Tax Legislation. Answer: Introduction This is a write-up that critically analyses the income tax implication between Bronx lighting pyt ltd and Mrs. Gilling who is the sole proprietor. Mrs. Gilling is in discussion and have reached a bargain with an Italian system manufacturer regarding a sole agency agreement. In order for Mrs Gilling to get the final contract, she had to travel to Italy. Mrs. Gilling transactions and actions during this period had tax implications and these are what we are emphasizing upon hereafter. Agency contract Agreement The business agent is defined in section 10 of the Agent Act 2003 as buying, selling, echanging or disposing of goods or providing a service n behalf of the principal in lieu of a reward (Barkoczy 2016). Mrs. Gilling had an agreement on being a sole agency contact with the Italian lighting company. The agreement states that in the next 5 years it is only the Bronx who could supply Allese lighting systems. However, the Bronx would have to pay for the sole distribution and sales right an amount to the tune of $205000.00. We can clearly conclude that as per section 10 of the Agent Act 2003, the business agent in this case is the Bronx. The section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997 states that a taxpayer can deduct loss or expenses from the assessable income if such expenses are incurred for earning the assessable income (Saad and Udin 2016). It goes ahead to state income that is not allowed as deduction and these would include in the act that the capital expenses, private expenses and expenses incur red for earning an exempted income. Under section 8-1 of the act it is quite clear that the expense for sole agency for distributorship of $205000.00 that the Bronx is subjected to is actually part of the business income and is an accepted deduction under section 8 of the ITAA 1997. Travelling expenses paid to Mrs. Gilling by Alesseto During the trip to Italy, the Bronx spent $9500.00 as travelling cost and $10500.00 for legal fees while bargaining for the agreement of sole agency. The company earned some measurable income from dales of lighting in as much as they had expenses while bargaining for the final contract. section 8 of the ITAA 1997 states that measurable income was attained despite some expenses incurred and these are also deductions as part of what the business spent. (Taylor and Richardson 2013). Mrs. Gillings visit to Italy also cost Allese money. During the bargaining period, there were several formal dinners that took place as the preparations for the legal agreement for sale agency of lighting was to be signed. These dinners were all paid for by Allese. Alesse also appreciated Mrs Gilling and provided her with a leather bag as a present and ensured she had tours around the city. These totaled to $2500.00. Mrs Gilling expenses will not be taxed under her name (Richardson et al. 2013). It is well noted that on normal occasions gifts are not taxed. In the case at hand the $2500.00 that was spent on the gift, will have to undergo taxation as it was received by Mrs. Gilling in matters relating to business thus is a business income. Cost of attending the launch that is paid by Bronx Business Travel expenses include expenses in travelling that have measurable income according to the section 900-95 of the ITAA 1997. Business travel is not a periphery to employees and it is not a benefit. As per section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997 deduction is made on any expense that is related to the business travel. Subsequently, every 12 months Mrs. Gilling, her son and daughter are to travel to Itally for the launch of the product. The upkeep of this family is to be incurred by Bronx. Since under section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997 (Binning and Young 2015) , these are treated as general business expenses as they were incurred during business. Expense payment fringe benefit is considered if a payment is made in to a person as they do the duty that was meant for another person. This is in accordance to The section 20 of the Fringe Benefit Tax Assessment Act 1986. Mrs Gilling, her son and daughter will be visiting Itally for the product launch. While there, they will tour the city. The expenses they will occur during these tours are taken as expense payment fringe benefit as section 20 of the FBTA 1986 clearly states.(Taylor and Richardson 2012). Hence Bronx will pay for the FBT expense of the tours. Product support Payment made by Bronx to Alesse Under section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997 deduction can be claimed on the expenses made from the measurable income. These expenses are the operating and capital expenses (Morse and Deutsch 2016). For information and marketing material that Alesse provide, Bronx is required to pay them a monthly fee of $5000.00. Under section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997 this monthly fee is allowable deduction incurred by Bronx under measurable income. Mrs. Gilling selling of Bronx Share capital From section 100-35 in ITAA 1997 usually states that the amount which is always received from CGT event usually exist any costs that its associated with in such event. Thus its a gain in capital, while id the CGT event exceeds the received amounts from CGT asset sale. It will be refereed to us capital loss. Loss and capital gain usually arise thus its important we we understand the section 100-25 of 1997 ITAA (Lanis and Richardson 2012). The CGT list provides shared capital. The section 1004-135 in 1997 ITAA provides payment for share capital which is treated as a payment made by owning a share within the company where payment is not included Discount method can be used to calculate the profit if the payment is held for more than 12 month. Section 115 in ITAA 1997 provides for discounting method to be used where it can only be applied where CGT will be required after 1999 September. With a discount rate of 50% as provided under 115-100 act. Division 114 of the act also provides the formula to be used in calculating capita income. Any asset acquired before 1999 September indexation method will be applied. The share capital was purchased in 2000 for $256000 thus the capital gain discount method is used. For the new room shares, which were sold for $1,500,000.The net capital gain is $710200 which is taxable income .The following are the calculations. Capital gain using discount method Particulars Amount Profits from sale of shares $ 1,500,000.00 Less: cost of acquisition $ (51,200.00) sale of shares $ (21,900.00) purchase Legal fees Share $ (6,500.00) capital Gain from sale of shares $ 1,420,400.00 less: Deduction@50% $ (710,200.00) Net Capital Gain $ 710,200.00 CGT cost base in purchase of the show room Mrs. Gilling bought the showroom for $ 1,500,000. This is the cost base for the showroom. According to section 112-25, the cost attributable to Australian tax should be adjusted to include other miscellaneous costs relevant to the property. In this case, the miscellaneous costs include $ 7,600 for paint and $ 16,600 which totals to$ 7,600+ $16,600= $ 24,200. Therefore, the total cost base attributable to tax will be $1,500,000+ $ 24,200 =$ 1,524,200. Statement showing Calculation of Cost Base Particulars Amount purchase price of show room $ 1,500,000.00 painting cost $ 7,600.00 New flooring cost $ 16,600.00 Total Cost Base $ 1,524,200.00 The new show room is $1524200.00.CGT Insurance Payment According to the Australian Tax regulations, payment of insurance premiums is tax exempt in an attempt to reduce the cost of premiums so as to motivate more individuals to acquire insurance packages. Due to this on the occurrence to insured risk, payment of damages is also tax exempt. This is because if they are taxed, the value of the damages will be too high for the insurance companies which will prevent them from meeting their obligations (Ostergren, 1970). As such, Mrs. Gilling will not be taxed on her payment of insurance premiums. Even though the insurance company negated her claim for the need of compensation, on payment for the damaged the company could not be taxed. This could have motivated the company to pay the damages but still negated the claims. Calculation of the expenses incurred Particulars Amount Cost of Repairing $ 85,000.00 Structural job $ 180,000.00 insurance received $ (85,000.00) Total Cost Base $ 180,000.00 Silvio to leave in Australia Silvio visited Australia and fell in love with the place to the point of quitting his job. Due to this he can obtain Australian citizenship and be eligible to taxes based ITAA 1936 in section 995-1 on his source of income and assets acquired (Tiley, 1992).The amount of money that he receives yearly from his former employer as a means of preventing him from working for rival companies is subject to income tax regulations according to Australian regulations. Thus Silvio satisfying the domicile test is considered to pay taxes from the amount receivable of $90000.00 in Australia. Conclusion On signing the contract, Bronx Company paid $ 205,000. For tax purposes, the Agency contract agreement will be taxed on this amount (Braun et al, 2004). Alesse agreed to offer product support, information and marketing at a fee of $ 5,000 payable by Bronx Company. However, these payments will be in support of activities of operations in Australia. The Australian government is entitled to tax a certain amount. The fees will be paid to Alesse net of the tax payable to the government (Brown et al, 2001). Reference Barkoczy, S., 2016. Core tax legislation and study guide.OUP Catalogue. Binning, C. and Young, M., 2015.TALKING TO THE TAXMAN ABOUT NATURE CONSERVATION_Proposals for the introduction of tax incentives for the protection of high conservation value native vegetation. Brown, K. Ke, Y. (2001) Agreements and Tax Avoidance.SSRN Electronic Journal. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2715879 Jones, D., 2016. Capital gains tax: The rise of market value?.Taxation in Australia,51(2), p.67. Lanis, R. and Richardson, G., 2012. Corporate social responsibility and tax aggressiveness: a test of legitimacy theory.Accounting, Auditing Accountability Journal,26(1), pp.75-100. Morse, S.C. and Deutsch, R., 2016. Tax Anti-Avoidance Law in Australia and the United States. Richardson, G., Taylor, G. and Lanis, R., 2013. The impact of board of director oversight characteristics on corporate tax aggressiveness: An empirical analysis.Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,32(3), pp.68-88. Saad, N. and Udin, N.M., 2016. Public Rulings as Explanatory Materials to the Income Tax Act 1967: Readability Assessment.Advanced Science Letters,22(5-6), pp.1448-1451. Snape, J. and De Souza, J., 2016.Environmental taxation law: policy, contexts and practice. Routledge. Taylor, G. and Richardson, G., 2012. International corporate tax avoidance practices: evidence from Australian firms.The International Journal of Accounting,47(4), pp.469-496. Braun, J. Fuentes, D. A (2004) Legal and Economic Analysis of Austria's Double Tax Treaty Network with Developing Countries.SSRN Electronic Journal. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2516308 Taylor, G. and Richardson, G., 2013. The determinants of thinly capitalized tax avoidance structures: Evidence from Australian firms.Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation,22(1), pp.12-25.