Environmental Taxation Law and Policy

Question: Discuss about the Environmental Taxation Law and Policy. Answer: Introduction: The tax must be determined for every individuals and entities and for the same there must be proper awareness and finding of the residential status and the sources of the income received. Thus, in the case study we have done the same to know the amount of tax required to be paid by an individual on receiving the salary from a company based in Australia. The case here has a movement around the point of taxation and the residential position of the individual named Kit. He was born and brought up in Chile but despite the fact of his birth, it is worth noting that he is a permanent resident in the country Australia. Kit had made his abode in Australia without even having a citizenship of the nation country and the Rulings under the ITAA 1997, describes that the incomes that comes into generation by the dwellers of the country is held as collection of sources from all across the globe. The taxation systems of the countries vary from one country to another and the Australian Taxation system is different. The residing framework of the country describes that the income derived from the same country has to be assessed and taxed under the hands of an individual. Kit in the case study has income that must be identified for the determination of the taxable income and the sum to be provided in the treasury of the government of the country (Evers et al. 2014). In the given case, he was not holding an Australian citizenship as his home country was in Chile and thus a test of residency has to be considered for knowing the status and position of Kit. 183 days test The test of 183 days has an involvement of the Acts and sections that covers the residency of continuous and dwelling without any breaks. The period under consideration is more than six months to be known as a resident of the country Australia. In this case, the individual Kit has continued for more than six months in Australia. Hence, he can obtain a citizenship of Australia as he has maintained the test of 183 days. Even though he left his place of work for a month every quarter for making a visit to his family, he does not fail the test (Goerke 2014). Also, there is a house of Kit in Australia in which he dwells along with his wife and children from a period of around three years that makes his overall residential status strong. The test of the status of residence and the dwelling is done as per the legal and legislative models that are known as the domicile test. An individuals abode or dwelling is considered an important one for the determination of the assessment and taxability of the concerned incomes and other sources. The act of 1982 better discusses and describes the rules and laws relevant to the individuals and thus, the major statement depicted is that every individual get a right to maintain a residency of the state or nations (Kim 2013). The examples of the Henderson vs. Anderson 1965 present that persons have own rights in selecting the country or nation for making their long lasting houses or abodes. In the given case, the individual has made a dwelling with an intention of making a permanent state of abode in the country Australia. As per the required acts and rulings of the Australian taxes and systems, the individuals intending to live permanently must have taxability as per the norms of the legislatures of the Australian system of taxes and governing. Therefore, in the case Kit has showed intention of living for a longer period and having been stayed for more than three years, shows an intention of permanent dwelling and hence must be taxed as per the Australian taxes (Poon and Brownlow 2015). Therefore, from the above two test it can be stated that Kit has showed interest in having a permanent abode in the country Australia, thus making it efficiently passable under the domicile test. In addition the individual has lived continuously i.e. without any breaks in the country for a period of more than six months thus, making him efficiently passable under the test of 183 days too. Hence, as per the above, he is liable for the taxability under the Australian system of taxation. Income tax Assessment In the country Australia, a person becomes liable for payment of taxes, once the residency conditions are met with efficient evidences. The case here states that the individual has been receiving remuneration form a bank account in Australia i.e. Westpac and has been hosted in the country itself and thus, he has proved the residency in the country once again. The workplace of the individual also has an Australian base and thus, the income is a part of the total income under taxability. Even though, Kit has been working under the market of Chile and thus there must be taxability under the law of Australia. The case settled under Applegate per Franki J 79 ATC depicts that he is an inhabitant of the country Australia and desires to make available all his proceeds mutually in the home and the foreign countries at the time of filing the return of income tax. Consequently, the employment of the laws of Australian taxation could primarily locket towards the avoidance of the errors of the double taxation (Harper and Mullee 2017). The above stated case has a depiction of the entire issues and concerns faced by the company under the provided case. The company under consideration is California copper Syndicate Limited, which has majorly disposable or exploitation for the minerals. The availability of the capital was inefficient due to the insufficiency of the funds in the period under the test. The rulings of the court decided that the obtained incomes must be the income possible and the judgements stated that the obtained earnings from the deduction of the expenses have taxability in cases of disposal of land. The unfair practices used by the companies indulged in mining activities were observed for reduction of the same that increases the entire revenues of the company. Scottish Australian Mining Co Ltd v FC of T (1950) 81 CLR 188 The above stated case has a depiction that the earnings and proceeds of industry and its segments obtained from disposal of land are assessable and hence taxable.Hence, as per the taxability of the authorities of the Australian taxes, the commercial activities can have a treatment of the capital assets being realised. As a result, as per the stated rulings and judgements, it can be said that whichever action is undertaken for the sale of the land is mostly treated as the capital assets being realised and taxed accordingly. The above stated case has a depiction about a query that whether the generated cash or income from the dealing of land has a capital nature or not. The renowned judgement and rulings provided in the case of Mason, Morphy and Wilson for the most part depicted that the sections under the proper acts describes that any amount of income produced commencing from the disposal of possessions requires to be held by sufficient individual. The entire decision of the case principally provided by the court shapes and forms that profits must be assessed in form of the measurable income and with the conformity of the principles of general accounting. Statham Anor v FC of T 89 ATC 4070 The above case stated that proceeds acquired from dealing or sale of subdivided properties has to be assessed under the respective sections of the Act. The case states that a business is taxable if income from sale of property is achieved due to an incurred of losses. There was a loss in the business of farming but that did not mean that the offer of realisation can lead the company to be taxable in nature. Therefore, the case describes the rules for the measuring of the realisations and the amount of tax abilities (Fong 2013). The above stated case describes about the payment of the taxes and other liabilities that are required in the case of the conduction of old properties and on the disposal of their separate and wide ranges of events and occurrences. The law of court principally states in the case that the obtained income from the sale of blocks of an individual nature is part of common takings and has taxability based on the subdivisions. If a land that had been purchased for farming gets used as the residence for private dwelling on the occasion of the loss faced, then it would not be held liable or taxable. Thus, in the given case, the business had faced huge losses and also the farmer had made subdivisions for the realisations of the land and its overall potentiality of acquiring profits. Therefore, the court stated that the same was not held liable under the acts and laws of the country (Omar 2016). Moana Sand Pty Ltd v FC of T 88 ATC 4897 The above case states that the rationale of acquiring a land does not have a sole intention of making profits even though the original purpose was the profit making scenarios. The law stated that for the taxability of the same, there must be defined purposes and intentions of disposing off the land. The main advice by the court of law is that persons buying land merely for purposes of profit making has to pay an amount of additional tax and liabilities under the acts (Barkoczy 2016). The above rulings and judgements has an intention of stating the fact that in the past, property were purchased for the intention of farming, nevertheless subsequent to the passing of the period of two or more years, there was subdivision of the land in diverse blocks. Therefore, the law of court passed a judgment that stated that earnings completed from trading of properties would be termed as profits and thus assessable under the required taxing authorities (Snape and De Souza 2016). The above case states and implemented rulings and judgements that the individuals have a responsibility towards the conversion into a new house from the old house for growing up the gains from the proceeds of the sale. As per the court of law,the old property was not held exclusively on behalf of the business intention and in observation of proceeds from sale conducted. The taxpayers intention enters into business-related activities through eventually growing and development of the possessions and exchanging them with the other individuals (Williams 2017). Conclusion The above discussions help us to conclude that Kit was liable for the taxability structure as per the rules and regulations of Australia, though he was an actual resident of Chile. The same has been proved through the two most important tests that include the 183 days test and the Domicile test as he had shown interest in having a permanent abode in Australia. Also, the above case laws with the stated laws and regulations are described and discussed in the second part of the question. Therefore, the applicable case laws can help in understanding of the related cases to the same case laws, which are under the discussion above. Reference: Barkoczy, S., 2016. Foundations of Taxation Law 2016.OUP Catalogue. Burnett, C., 2016. Justice Edmonds' contributions to extra-judicial writing and tax reform.AUSTRALIAN TAX REVIEW,45(2), pp.88-98. Deutsch, R.L., 2014. Australian Tax Handbook 2006. Evers L, Miller H and Spengel C, 'Intellectual Property Box Regimes: Effective Tax Rates And Tax Policy Considerations' (2014) 22 International Tax and Public Finance Fong, C. (2013). Publications of the Honourable Justice Graham Hill.Austl. Tax F.,28, 169. Gallagher, D.R., 2015. CIFR Submission: the Australian Tax White Paper Task Force. Goerke L, 'Income Tax Buyouts and Income Tax Evasion' (2014) 22 International Tax and Public Finance Harper, P. and Mullee, A., 2017. Voluntary disclosure options for US taxpayers with Australian assets.Tax Specialist,20(3), p.114. Kim Jihyun, 'Review Of 2012 Corporate Tax Act Law And Income Tax Law Cases' (2013) 19 Seoul Tax Law Review Omar, P. ed., 2016.International insolvency law: Themes and perspectives. Routledge. Petty, J.W., Titman, S., Keown, A.J., Martin, P., Martin, J.D. and Burrow, M., 2015.Financial management: Principles and applications. Pearson Higher Education AU. Poon J and Brownlow M, 'Real Estate Student Satisfaction In Australia: What Matters Most?' (2015) 33 Property Management Saad, N., 2014. Tax knowledge, tax complexity and tax compliance: Taxpayers view.Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,109, pp.1069-1075. Sadiq, K. and Mack, J., 2015. " Re-thinking" the influence of regulatory capture in the development of government regulation.Australian Business Law Review,43(5), pp.379-399. Snape, J. and De Souza, J., 2016.Environmental taxation law: policy, contexts and practice. Routledge. Williams, L., 2017. Risk: Real property changes: Risk management tips for solicitors.LSJ: Law Society of NSW Journal, (30), p.76.