Taxation Law

Question 1


During the running the business, it can be seen that business have to face loss or expenses. In this, expenses are happen by the business owner at the time of making assessable income. The main issue in this case is to find out what loss or expenses are allowed by the section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997 for deduction.


The ITAA 1997 contain the some general deductions in the section 8.1. In regard of this, ITAA contains the core rules for deductibility of losses and outgoings. The general deductions are difference from the specific deductions.   In the other words, the term general deduction shows that loss in the business operation and these are deductible under the general principle of deductible. It is required to the loss or outgoing business provides and it also concerns on the assessable income.

In addition, there are some general deductions that are need to be consider for assessable income and loss under  section 8-1 of ITAA 1997. On the basis of 8-1 of the ITAA 1997, it can be found that which are allowable as deductions or not. The rule of the general deduction says that the deduction is possible when the loss or outgoing is incurred in gaining or producing the accessible income or with purpose of generating assessable income (Chen, et al., 2010). But on the other hand, it is found that accessible income is not deductible in different situations like when there is a loss of capital nature, private and domestic nature and also due to the purpose of exemption in income. At the same time, it is also found that under division 35 of same act, helps or prevents the organization from any losses which incur due to any non-commercial activities and this may lead to loss that is getting offset against the assessable income.

Analysis / Application

  1. Cost to move machinery at new site:

It is not tax deductible as moving any fixed asset (machinery) from one to another is capital expenses for the company under section 8-1 of ITAA 1997. However, this expense may result into the increase in the cost of machinery in relation to the compute the depreciation of asset.

  1. Revaluing assets cost for affecting the insurance cover:

Under section 8-1 of ITAA 1997, the revaluing assets cost to effect the insurance cover is classified as tax deductable because the expenses is related to the fixed assets i.e., revaluing asset cost. In this, the cost is determined is appropriately deductible from the assessable income in the situation where expenses are recurring ones at a time.

  1. Legal Expenses incurred for opposing a winding up petition:

In this situation, the tax is deductable and dependent on the given expenses that are related to the structure and operations of the organization as well as on income generating capacity of organization. These legal expenses are incurred as the eventual outcome of petition that relates to the erosion of company’s ability to generate the income and these types of legal expenses are classified as a capital expenses (Rutenberg, et al., 2010). But in contrast to it, if winding up petition case is more related to the clarification of business operational processes then it is considered as revenue is affecting one. The legal expense for opposing the winding up of petition is defined as an expense which is capital in nature. Therefore, it can also be stated easily that under section 8-1 of ITAA 1997, the legal expenses are deductible.

  1. Legal Expenses incurred for solicitor services:

It is tax deductible under section 8-1 of ITAA 1997 as this expense is generating from assessable income. In addition, there are some general needs of additional information related to expenses of business nature. In context to it, there is a fact that the activities which are being paid are related to the operation of business and are recurrent in nature and this means that these solicitor services are not any capital expenses.


It can be concluded that 8-1 of the ITAA 1997 is applicable to different nature of expenses. This question helps in developing understanding different aspects under section 8-1 of ITAA 1997 and also helps in identifying that which cost or expenses are deductible or not deductible from assessable income. In addition to this, different aspect are analysed in depth and identified that except cost of moving machine expenses would not be deductable in comparison to other expenses involved like legal expenses and revaluing assets cost.

 Question 2

Issue: Big Bank has started new product namely home and contents insurance policies and is also registered for GST purposes. The budget decided to spend on promotion of new product is $1,650,000 inclusive GST. This promotion budget consisted of television advertising campaign and general advertising campaign.  On the other hand, it claims against the advertising expenses of $ 1,650,000 for input tax credit.  In addition, this scenario also states that Big Bank certainly exceeds their Financial Acquisition Threshold (FAT).  In addition, all business acquisitions are related to financial supplies to its customers in terms of loan and deposits facilities but in this case would not be regarded as acquisitions that are creditable. In other words, all financial supplies i.e., loan and deposits are considered as input taxed supplies. In oppose to it, it is also found that there are some financial acquisition supplies like home insurance and content insurance which are treated as a creditable acquisition.

Rule: Input tax credit (ITC) is one of the elements of the GST framework that is considered as the credit of the GST into the buyer’s account (Murray & Wright, 2015). It is equal to the amount charged by the supplier from the buyer in form of the tax and paid to the government. This tax paid by the seller enables the buyer to claim ITC of an equal amount. Under GST, all the manufacturers and traders of goods and service providers can get a credit. It can be advertising or marketing service (Kaldor, 2014). If the firm is a service provider, it can also get a credit for all the procured goods. In addition, the provisions of service tax law hold that expenses incurred in advertising and promotion of the brand can be eligible for ITC because such services are qualified as input services. Rule 2 of the CENVAT rules include the advertisement or sales promotion as input service (Sackman, et al., 2016).

Application:  Mostly, big bank may claim input tax credits (ITC) in respect to advertising expenses. It is entitled to get input credits of service tax paid on advertising expenses. ITC allows for recovering the GST paid out on expenses regarding commercial activities including marketing and advertising expenses. These ITC provisions under GST allow the firm to get tax credit on all the input services (Rutenberg, McIntire & Bronner, 2010). While studying this case, it is found that television advertising campaign is related to home and content insurance and also treated as creditable. The tax credit (input) pegged is available of about $50000. However, when it comes to general advertising, it would use reasonable fair methodology and this technique will be computed of 2% of total expenses that are covered under the taxable supplies where as remaining 98% are covered under input taxed supplies which reflects both actual and forecasted business spilt line. Therefore this would end up by leaving input tax credit of $2000. But in this case, input tax credit would not be reduced as this would be available in the sake of advertisement.

Conclusion: According to rules of application, it can be interpreted easily that big banks have authority to claim for input tax credit in against of advertising expenses i.e., $1,650,000. Moreover, this analysis also helped in understanding that how income tax credit can be claimed or deducted from the taxable income. From this study, it is identified that advertisement spending on television are considered under into two categories in big banks like taxation supplies includes home insurance and content insurance is one category and another category includes deposits and loans that are not creditable.

Question 3: Offset Angelo’s foreign tax

According to Grubert & Altshuler (2016), foreign income tax offset helps in reducing or avoiding the impact of double taxation by making available credit on foreign tax which is paid. In case, is foreign tax is actually paid is not more than $1000 then taxpayer can claim the amount paid as foreign income tax offset (Nunns, et al., 2014). In other words, foreign income tax offset is claimed when it is paid in another country on employment income or capital gains from assessable income.

For calculating the foreign income tax offset limit, the following steps are followed:

Step 1: Tax payable on income which is taxable

Under this step, Angelo would evaluate the tax amount which he is payable on taxable income.

Taxable income = Gross income – expenses

= $68000-$11000

= $57000

Taxable income = $57000

According to Resident Tax Rates (2014 – 2015):


$3,572 + 32.5c for each $1 over $37,000

= $3572+ 32.5c *(57000-37000)

= $3572+$6500

= $10072

Medicare lavy @1.5% = $10072*1.5% = 151.08

Tax payable will be: $10072+$151.08 = $10223.08


Step 2: Tax payable if:

Under this step, Angelo would excludes any amount from his assessable income in respect to specific amount of the foreign income tax paid as long as tax is counted towards his foreign income tax offset.

(a) Below amount of foreign income is not included in assessable income:

Employment income from United States12,000
Employment income from United Kingdom8,000
Rental income from property in United Kingdom2,000
Dividend income from United Kingdom1,200
Interest income from United Kingdom800
Total 24,000

(b) Expenses related to other non-Australian income

Expenses incurred in deriving employment income from United States900



Taxable income (disregarding step 2(a) amount):44,000
Less allowable deduction (disregarding step 2(b) amount):10100
Taxable income under step 2 assumptions:33,900

Tax on taxable income of 33,900

$18,201– $37,00019c for each $1 over $18,200

= 19c * (33900-18200)

=15700* 19c

= $2983


Step 3: Subtracting the result of step 2 from step 1

Step 2 –Step 1

=$10223.08– $2983

= $7240.08

From this computation, it is identified that the limit of Angelo’s foreign income tax offset is $7240.08. Even though, she has paid $4,400 as foreign income tax, but on the other hand, her limit to pay the foreign income tax offset is $7240.08.

Moreover, the difference between the limit of foreign income tax that Angelo has paid and the offset cannot be refunded or carried forward in coming next income year.


Question 4

Net income for the partnership

Assessable income
Sales of sporting goods4,00,000
Interest on bank deposits10,000
Dividend franked to 60% received from an Australian resident company21,000
Imputation gross up [(21,000 × 30 / 70) × 60%] (s207-20 ITAA970)5,400
Bad debts recovered10,000
Exempt income – not assessable: (s6-20 ITAA97)0
Capital gain: regarded as made by the partners individually: (s106-6 ITAA97)0
Sales proceeds stolen by employee: (s25-45 of ITAA97)3000
Partner’s salaries: not deductible Scott0
FBT: (s8-1 ITAA97)16000
Interest on partner’s capital contribution: not deductible0
Interest on partner’s loan to the partnership: deductible under (s8-1 ITAA97)4000
Travel expenses of J between home and office: personal expenses: not deductible0
Legal fees for office lease renewal: (s8-1 ITAA97)2000
Legal expenses for preparation of partnership agreement: capital expense: ditto0
Legal fees for new office lease: ditto700
Debt collection expense500
Council rate500
Staff salaries (25,000-5,000): (ss8-1 & 26-35 ITAA97)20000
Purchase of trading stock: (s8-1 ITAA97)30000
Rent on shop20000
Provision for bad debts: not deductible until written off 25-35 (ITAA97)0
Business lunches: not deductible assuming the expenses are not subject to FBT: (ss32-5 & 3(2-20 ITAA97)0
Excess of opening stock over closing stock (20,000 – 16,000): (s70-35 ITAA97)4000
Net partnership loss last income year: not deductible, as the amount was attributed to partners last income year0
Net income of the partnership 345,700


Chen, S., Chen, X., Cheng, Q., & Shevlin, T. (2010). Are family firms more tax aggressive than non-family firms?. Journal of Financial Economics95(1), 41-61.

Grubert, H., & Altshuler, R. (2016). Shifting the Burden of taxation from the Corporate to the perSonal level and getting the Corporate tax rate down to 15 perCent.

Kaldor, N. (2014). Expenditure tax. Routledge.

Mirrlees, J. A. (2010). Dimensions of tax design: the Mirrlees review. Oxford University Press.

Murray, I., & Wright, S. (2015). The taxation of native title payments for indigenous groups and resource proponents: Convergence, divergence and reform. UW Austl. L. Rev.39, 99.

Nunns, J., Eng, A., Austin, L., & Center, U. B. T. P. (2014). Description and Analysis of the Camp Tax Reform Plan. Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center Research Report.

Pinto-Sanchez, M. I., Verdu, E. F., Gordillo, M. C., Bai, J. C., Birch, S., Moayyedi, P., & Bercik, P. (2015). Tax-deductible provisions for gluten-free diet in Canada compared with systems for gluten-free diet coverage available in various countries. Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology29(2), 104-110.

Rutenberg, J., McIntire, M., & Bronner, E. (2010). Tax-exempt funds aid settlements in West Bank. New York Times5.

Sackman, J., Van Brunt, R., Rohan, P. J., & Reskin, M. (2016). Tax Issues in Condemnation Cases (Vol. 7). Nichols on Eminent Domain.

Shubita, M. F., & Alsawalhah, J. M. (2012). The relationship between capital structure and profitability. International Journal of Business and Social Science3(16).

Leave a Comment