Kit Is a Stable Inhabitant of Australiaâ€Free Samples for Students

Question: Explain Kit Is a Stable Inhabitant of Australia ? Answer: Introducation The study has shown that Kit is a stable inhabitant of Australia and it is seen that he was born in Chile. The paper is concerned for understanding the residential status of Kit as during the computation of taxation the government requires to understand the status of his resident. The tax related to Kit is computed on the salary the person receives from the Australian firm where he works. It is seen that Kit is not an Australian and as he works in an Australian based company, he has to live in the country permanently. The act of IT ruling 2650 under the ITAA 1997 Act has been framed in order to help the government understand and compute the tax of a person who is not an Australian (Vegh and Vuletin 2015). This Act helps to understand that earnings received a person residing in Australia is added with the income that is received internationally. The tax is computed on the overall income of the person. The analysis of the case study has discovered that Kit is living in Australia just because of his work. He is a Chilean citizen and thus the residential status of the person is important to be discovered so that the actual tax can be estimated by looking at the income he earns from the Australian organization. Even though Kit is not an Australian citizen, he is required to pay tax as according to the Australian regulations; a person who earns any income from Australia is required to pay tax in the country. The tax deducted from the income can only be computed after the residential condition of the person is discovered (Sharma, Vandenberg and Hollingsworth 2014). Therefore, the knowledge about the residential status of Kit is essential and therefore residential investigations are necessary so that tax computation is possible. The analysis of the residential condition is undertaken with the help of various investigations that is given below: Domicile Test The domicile test is undertaken with respect to the Domicile Act of 1982. The Act explains the precise regulations and rights that are pertinent to every individual in order to gain knowledge about their status of residency. The Act is advantageous for every individual as it provides every individual the authority and the supremacy to maintain dual citizenship. With respect to study, it is seen that Kit has bought a house within Australia where his children and wife lives (Bell and Hindmoor 2014). The idea of purchasing a house in the country makes estimation that Kit has intentions of claiming domiciles of Australia. Therefore, in order to understand his domicile, the Domicile Act of 1982 is important as it is a rationalised model that is useful for the recognition of the current residential condition of any individuals. The case study has discovered that Kits wife and children are living in Australia for more than six months. According to the Australian Residency Act, an individual is regarded a permanent resident if he or she lives in the country for six months or more without any gap. Therefore, it can be said that with respect to this act Kit can be considered as a permanent resident (Fahimnia et al. 2015). As discussed earlier, it is known that Kit has intended to purchase a house in the country and it is known that according to Section 6 of the taxation ruling 2650 that is included in the taxation procedure it is revealed that tax will be levied on any individuals who has taken a decision to build or buy a house within the Australian premises. Therefore, with respect to Kit, he will be taken as a permanent domicile of the country and thus, he will be liable for taxation according to the taxation rules of the country. Kit can therefore be taxed by the taxation office of Australia as the living c ondition of Kit is in line with the concept of permanent resident of Australia (Deeming 2014). After the analysis of both the situations, it can be justified that Kit is found to be an Australian domicile and therefore he will be taxed over his total income. 183 Days Test This investigation is another process that is undertaken in order to realize the residential status of any individual. 183 days is equivalent to approximately six months and this is the benchmark that is considered to realize whether a person is domicile of the country or not. In accordance with the case study, it is seen that Kit will be considered to be a domicile of Australia as for the past three years, he and his family has been living in the country (Meng, Siriwardana and McNeill 2013). They had been living in the country in a house purchased by Kit. The evidence that has been provided in the case study with respect to Kit is conclusive that he is a Australian resident as according to the F.C of T.v Applegate (79ATC 4307;(1979) 9 ATR 899, an individual who resides in Australia for more than 183 days will be taken as a permanent resident. It is seen that Kit due to his work goes out of the country on a quarterly basis of a year for over a month. Even though, he does the same, it is seen that Kit and his family has resided in the country for more than 183 days straight and therefore the tax will be applicable on his income as he is an Australian resident (Miller and Oats 2016). Income Tax Assessment The Income Tax Act explains that a person who is found to be a resident of Australia is found to be liable to pay taxes according to the regulations of the Government. Kit, the person under consideration undertakes various investments Chilean share market with the help of the salary he receives from his company. The other part of the money he receives as his salary is deposited in the Westpac Bank that is based in Australia. However, in accordance to the Applegate per Franki J 79 ATC, as Kit is a resident of Australia, he is accountable to give out all this investment and income information to the government so that the actual tax can be computed and the error of double taxation can be avoided (Booth and Whelan 2014). Californian Copper Syndicate Ltd vs. Harris (Surveyor of Taxes) (1904) 5 TC 159 This case considers the common issues that are faced by Copper Syndicate Ltd regarding their properties that are non-refundable mainly exploited to mine the minerals. In this case the court has given a judgement that probable income will be considered to be all the earnings that will be received by the firm or the management of the firm (Byrnes et al. 2013). The outcome has relevancy on the capital as the capital was not sufficient for extra finances. The judgment has aided in the lowering of the frauds in the mining industry as the profit that are deductible will even be under the scanner of tax if it involves anything related to property sales (Schiermeier 2014). Scottish Australian Mining Co Ltd vs. FC of T (1950) 81 CLR 188 It is another case that discovers that any earnings that is generated from land sales may or may not be considered as capital. It is seen mainly in the case of Mason, Wilson and Morphy where in accordance to Section 25(I), the income established from the sale of a land is regarded as a property of a human being. The income that is generated from tax shows that there is hesitancy in the profits and the land and therefore is not useful for the investigation of the value (Binning and Young 2015). The final judgment of the court actually states that the income from the sale of property is needed to be compared in accordance to the taxpayers earnings by maintain the general accounting principles. Statham Anor vs. FC of T 89 ATC 4070 Sections 25 and 26 reveal that the earnings from the property exchanges are divided so that they can be measured and evaluated. The section claims that income from the sale of property due to any financial loss in the operations of the business is taxable. Any sales that relates to property due to loss in farming is even taxable (Zakeri et al. 2015). The hesitancy that is prevalent is regarding the classification of the income that is gained from the sale of land. Casimaty vs. FC of T 97 ATC 5135 This case refers to the circumstances that indicate the real alterations in the value of the tax, which is to be given out due to the division of a land that has become aged and thereby selling them off to a person or an organization. The land division was completed to attain the complete capability of the land and therefore by looking at the features of the land, the precise price can be placed thereby eliminating the chances of the land of getting listed under the capital gains (Apps, Long and Rees 2014). Before, doing this business, it is important to highlight that the land was not used for any sort of business activities. Moana Sand Pty Ltd vs. FC of T 88 ATC 4897 This case underlines that lands purchased in order to make profits by any organization or individuals is required to give out surplus taxes in accordance to the real concepts by considering the profit earned from sale (Saad 2014). Therefore, it can be said that any land purchased for the purpose of making profit does not always reap the profit out of it. Crow vs. FC of T 88 ATC 4620 In this case, it is seen that there are circumstances when a land is bought in order to undertake farming for making profit by selling the end results of farming but due to any adverse circumstances, the property is broken and sold off for the purpose of earning income or make profits (Hallsworth et al. 2017). The selling of the land is concluded in a systematic manner so that the income of the holder of the land can be improved as it is seen that the court has given the judgment that the earnings from the land selling is considered as income and thus a tax will be levied on the profit that is gained by the owner. Mc Curry Anor Vs. FC of T 98 ATC 4487 In this case, it is seen that there are situations when the owner of a house renovates their aged house to a brand new one and then selling it off so that profit can be earned from the sale proceedings. The court finds the individual who undertakes such actions to be guilty and therefore asks the individual to pay taxes for the renovated house that is sold for profit as it is seen that the earlier house was not constructed for undertaking profit (Richardson, Taylor and Lanis 2013). It is seen that tax is levied on the new house as the intention of the owner of the property was clear to renovate the property so that it could be sold off for profit making purposes. Reference List Apps, P., Long, N. and Rees, R., 2014. Optimal piecewise linear income taxation.Journal of Public Economic Theory,16(4), pp.523-545. Bell, S. and Hindmoor, A., 2014. The structural power of business and the power of ideas: The strange case of the Australian mining tax.New Political Economy,19(3), pp.470-486. 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. Booth, S. and Whelan, J., 2014. Hungry for change: the food banking industry in Australia.British Food Journal,116(9), pp.1392-1404. Byrnes, L., Brown, C., Foster, J. and Wagner, L.D., 2013. Australian renewable energy policy: Barriers and challenges.Renewable Energy,60, pp.711-721. Deeming, C., 2014. Social democracy and social policy in neoliberal times.Journal of Sociology,50(4), pp.577-600. Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J., Choudhary, A. and Eshragh, A., 2015. Tactical supply chain planning under a carbon tax policy scheme: A case study.International Journal of Production Economics,164, pp.206-215. Hallsworth, M., List, J.A., Metcalfe, R.D. and Vlaev, I., 2017. The behavioralist as tax collector: Using natural field experiments to enhance tax compliance.Journal of Public Economics,148, pp.14-31. Meng, S., Siriwardana, M. and McNeill, J., 2013. The environmental and economic impact of the carbon tax in Australia.Environmental and Resource Economics, pp.1-20. Miller, A. and Oats, L., 2016.Principles of international taxation. Bloomsbury Publishing. 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., 2014. Tax knowledge, tax complexity and tax compliance: Taxpayers view.Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,109, pp.1069-1075. Schiermeier, Q., 2014. Anger as Australia dumps carbon tax.Nature,511(7510), p.392. Sharma, A., Vandenberg, B. and Hollingsworth, B., 2014. Minimum pricing of alcohol versus volumetric taxation: which policy will reduce heavy consumption without adversely affecting light and moderate consumers?.PLoS One,9(1), p.e80936. Vegh, C.A. and Vuletin, G., 2015. How is tax policy conducted over the business cycle?.American Economic Journal: Economic Policy,7(3), pp.327-370. Zakeri, A., Dehghanian, F., Fahimnia, B. and Sarkis, J., 2015. Carbon pricing versus emissions trading: A supply chain planning perspective.International Journal of Production Economics,164, pp.197-205.