Perspectives On The Accountability Of Australian Taxpayers And Companies

Deductions under ITAA 1997

Discuss About The Perspectives On The Accountability Of Australian?

The main aim is to evaluate section 8-1(1) of the ITAA 1997 and identify the relevant deductions that could be used by taxpayers. These relevant deductions would eventually allow the taxpayers to reduce the assessable income and retain more cash. The Section 4-15 of the Income Tax Assessment Act mainly indicates the relevant exemption that could be used by the taxpayers for reducing its overall taxable income. Hence, the overall deductions rules that is been laid down in the overall product mainly helps in identifying the ways in which overall assessable income of the individual could be reduced. Fry (2017) mentioned that with the help of overall sections the expenses that is conducted by individual could be deducted, which might help in reducing the overall tax liability on the individual. Moreover, deductions provided by section 8-1(1) of the ITAA 1997 can directly be posted on the assessable income calculation.

Under the cases “Smith v Westinghouse Brake Company (1888) and Granite Supply Association Ltd v Kitton (1905)” overall expenses on transfer of machinery from one place to another is identified to be deductible expenses. The situation directly portrays that the relevant expenditure is been conducted on transferring the machinery from one place to another. Therefore, under the section 8-1 of ITAA the expense of transferring machinery is deductible in nature (Barkoczy 2017).

Deductions on revaluation of property or asset is not calculated under the section 8-1 of ITAA 1997. Therefore, the situation directly states that no relevant adoption will be provided for revaluation of assets is conducted by the organisation under the section 8-1 of ITAA 1997. The overall deduction on the revaluation could not be conducted, as it is not an actual expenses, whereas it is just a revaluation of the assets that is been conducted by the operations. Therefore, the decline in overall assets value could not be considered an expense and no deductions are allowed as per 8-1 of ITAA 1997.

Section 8-1 of ITAA 1997 mainly indicates that any kind of expenses that are conducted for law proceedings are mainly deductible in nature. Section directly indicates that law proceeding expenses can be reduced by the assessable income.

The section 8-1 of ITAA 1997 directly mentioned that any kind of expenses that has been conducted on solicitor is mainly deductible in nature.

The situation directly indicates that Big Bank Limited has paid for advertisements, which could indicate the relevant GST tax credit that needs to be provided to the bank for its expenses. According to the GST 1999 Act, overall management that have GST can be used as a tax credit by the organisation, which provide them extra lineage and increase retained earnings. The relevant evaluation of the situation that is currently been faced by Big Bank is relatively considered regarding GST tax credit that is mentioned in GST Act 1999. The overall expenses that is been conducted by the bank could provide relevant tax exemption to the company, which could help in increasing its retained income. The overall tax credit increment is mainly beneficial for the company, which could directly help in reducing any kind of ax obligations of the organisation.

GST Tax Credit and Rules

There are relevant settings and ruling about GST, under the chapter 2, GST Act 1999, where companies conducting expenses inclusive GST is relevantly deductible in nature as tax credit.  GST paid in the expenses are mainly tax deductible, where relevant access of your organisation it with you while increasing its retained income (Fry 2017). The relevant rule regarding GST is that any kind of payments that is been conducted by the organisation for its activities can be considered under this rule. Hence, the GST paid on the expenses can be deducted from taxes or considered a tax credit, which reduces the overall taxable amount of the organisation. Furthermore, the ruleing alo states that any kind of expenses that is not an activity of the organisation cannot be considered under this ruling and no tax credit will be allotted.

The main issue is needed to segregate the expenditure on an advertisement that is conducted by Big Bank. The $1,650,000 expenses on advertisement that is being conducted by the organisation for supporting its promotional needs. The main aim is to identify whether the expenditure on advertisement GST is tax deductible or not (Ismer and Jescheck 2017). Therefore, there are two types of expenses, which is been conducted through advertisements, firstly the expense on promotion of expecting activities and second promotion of new activity. Therefore, whether the expense is considered under the GST rule or not is mainly identified, this could help the Big Bank get the required tax credit.

The evaluation of the situation mainly indicates that the Big Bank Company has high infrastructure, which has allowed them to operate smoothly and conduct adequate operation. Therefore the expenses on advertisement conducted by Big Bank are segregated in two segments, where the first expenses are conducted on current promotional needs and other expenses is conducted on promotion of new product. Hence, expenses of $1,100,000 and that GST is mainly deductible in nature under GST Act 1999. However, expenses conducted for the new product is not considered to be under GST. Therefore, only 2% of the expense of $550,000 is considered under GST Tax credit (Williamson et al. 2017).

Conclusion:

Hence, from the evaluation of case study it could be understood that GST tax credit is mainly provided on advertisement expense of $1,100,000, while providing only 2% on the other expenses on advertisements. Therefore, the rule regarding GST can be utilised by Big Bank and reduce its overall tax liability and increase retained income.

Table 1: Big Bank input credit allowed

(Source: created by author)

Table 2: Inclusive method used in identifying assessable income

(Source: created by Author)

Table 3: Exclusive method depicting the income tax payable

(Source: created by author)

With the help of figure 2 and 3 all the relevant taxable income that needs to be paid by Angelo is mainly depicted. Moreover, both Income Tax payable inclusive and exclusive method has been provided in the figure 2 and 3, which could help in deriving minimum tax that is to be paid by Angelo (Braithwaite 2017). In addition, (13,040.18 – 4,221.68) = $8,818.51 is mainly identified in overall tax that needs to be provided by Angelo for the current fiscal year.

Table 4: Mentioning about the total income generated from partnership

(Source: created by Author)

Reference

Barkoczy, S., 2017. Core Tax Legislation and Study Guide. OUP Catalogue.

Braithwaite, V. ed., 2017. Taxing democracy: Understanding tax avoidance and evasion. Routledge.

Fry, M., 2017. Australian taxation of offshore hubs: an examination of the law on the ability of Australia to tax economic activity in offshore hubs and the position of the Australian Taxation Office. The APPEA Journal, 57(1), pp.49-63.

Ismer, R. and Jescheck, C., 2017. The Substantive Scope of taxation Treaties in a Post-BEPS World: Article 2 OECD MC (Taxes Covered) and the Rise of New Taxes. Intertax, 45(5), pp.382-390.

Williamson, A., Luke, B., Leat, D. and Furneaux, C., 2017. Founders, Families, and Futures: Perspectives on the Accountability of Australian Private Ancillary Funds. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, p.0899764017703711.