Fundamental Tax Legislation [23nd Edition]

Fundamental Tax Legislation 2015 contains the essential provisions from the primary legislation that affects Australia’s taxation system. Updated and expanded for changes which occurred in 2014, this volume is an indispensable reference for undergraduate and postgraduate students of taxation. The Year in Review section has been updated to summarise the main legislative developments in taxation over the previous 12 months, a listing of the passage of tax related legislation during the last year and the inclusion of reference statistics (such as CPI quarterly figures and individual tax rates for residents and foreign residents). Also fully updated and revised to reflect the changes in 2014 is the Tax Rates and Tables section, which contains an accessible summary of the main tax rates and tables that students will need to refer to for their tax studies.

Regulating against corporate phoenix activity

This paper considers the adequacy and efficiency of existing legal and regulatory frameworks to deal with corporate phoenix activity. Phoenix activity, which is often triggered by a solvency crisis, is estimated to cost the Australian economy up to $3 billion each year. Despite the raft of piecemeal Australian legislation directed at this activity, phoenix activity does not appear to be abating. This paper considers regulatory approaches to detection and enforcement of the underlying law. This study reveals and explores a perception that the law is deficient, and the tension that exists between the adequacy of the law and the regulatory approach.

Phoenix activity: Regulatory challenges and the law

Remedying the mischief of phoenix activity is of practical importance. The benefits include continued confidence in our economy, law that inspires best practice among directors, and law that is articulated in a manner such that penalties act as a sufficient deterrent and the regulatory system is able to detect offenders and bring them to account. Any further reforms must accommodate and tolerate legal phoenix activity. Phoenix activity pushes tolerance of entrepreneurial activity to its absolute limits. The wisest approach would be to front end the reforms so as to alleviate the considerable detection and enforcement burden upon regulatory bodies. There is little doubt that breach of the existing law is difficult and expensive to detect; and this is a significant burden when regulators have shrinking budgets and are rapidly losing feet on the ground. This front end approach may need to include restrictions on access to limited liability. The more limited liability is misused, the stronger the argument to limit access to limited liability. This paper proposes that such an approach is a legitimate next step for a robust and mature capitalist economy.

The fisc and the frontier: Approaches to cross-border charity in Australia and the UK

The late twentieth century witnessed the transformation of the global economy beyond the fixed geographic boundaries of the nation-state system to one dominated by financial centers, global markets, and transnational firms. In the two decades to 2011, cross-border philanthropy from OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) donor countries to the developing world grew from approximately USD 5 billion to USD 32 billion (OECD, n.d.),[1] with some estimates for 2011 as high as USD 59 billion (Center for Global Prosperity, 2013). This is only part of cross-border philanthropy, which also includes remittances from migrant communities, social-media-enabled global fundraising, and medical research collaborations.

Using global formulary apportionment for international profit allocation: The case of Indonesia's mining industry

My thesis examined an alternative approach, referred to as the unitary taxation approach to the allocation of profit, which arises from the notion that as a multinational group exists as a single economic entity, it should be taxed as one taxable unit. The plausibility of a unitary taxation regime achieving international acceptance and agreement is highly contestable due to its implementation issues, and economic and political feasibility. Using a case-study approach focusing on Freeport-McMoRan and Rio Tinto's mining operations in Indonesia, this thesis compares both tax regimes against the criteria for a good tax system - equity, efficiency, neutrality and simplicity. This thesis evaluates key issues that arise when implementing a unitary taxation approach with formulary apportionment based on the context of mining multinational firms in Indonesia.

Still in Search of the Good Life

At the 2014 G20 held in Brisbane, Australia took the position that climate change is not an economic issue. Most others thought it was - especially the Turkish Prime Minister who is hosting the 2015 G20. It is certainly an economic issue. But, it is not just an economic issue - either in the source or the solution.

Economic theory informing approaches to phoenix activity in small business: A neo-Schumpeterian analysis

The adequacy and efficiency of existing legal and regulatory frameworks dealing with corporate phoenix activity have been repeatedly called into question over the past two decades through various reviews, inquiries, targeted regulatory operations and the implementation of piecemeal legislative reform. Despite these efforts, phoenix activity does not appear to have abated. While there is no law in Australia that declares ‘phoenix activity’ to be illegal, the behaviour that tends to manifest in phoenix activity can be capable of transgressing a vast array of law, including for example, corporate law, tax law, and employment law. This paper explores the notion that the persistence of phoenix activity despite the sheer extent of this law suggests that the law is not acting as powerfully as it might as a deterrent. Economic theories of entrepreneurship and innovation can to some extent explain why this is the case and also offer a sound basis for the evaluation and reconsideration of the existing law. The challenges facing key regulators are significant. Phoenix activity is not limited to particular corporate demographic: it occurs in SMEs, large companies and in corporate groups. The range of behaviour that can amount to phoenix activity is so broad, that not all phoenix activity is illegal. This paper will consider regulatory approaches to these challenges via analysis of approaches to detection and enforcement of the underlying law capturing illegal phoenix activity. Remedying the mischief of phoenix activity is of practical importance. The benefits include continued confidence in our economy, law that inspires best practice among directors, and law that is articulated in a manner such that penalties act as a sufficient deterrent and the regulatory system is able to detect offenders and bring them to account. Any further reforms must accommodate and tolerate legal phoenix activity, at least to some extent. Even then, phoenix activity pushes tolerance of repeated entrepreneurial failure to its absolute limit. The more limited liability is misused and abused, the stronger the argument to place some restrictions on access to limited liability. This paper proposes that such an approach is a legitimate next step for a robust and mature capitalist economy.

A study of professional advisers in Australia

Since 2002, ACPNS has been surveying professional advisers to affluent Australians intermittently to seek their views and experiences around client and personal philanthropy. Why?: because professional advisers on finance, wealth management, law, accounting, taxation, estate management and beyond are an important nexus with people who have the capacity to channel significant funding into community need. Overall, this study suggests a slight shift away from advising affluent clients on philanthropic matters. It also highlights some perceived lack of organisational and professional association support and the feeling of many advisers that they do not have the expertise yet to advise in this area. These results provide thought fodder for advisers, their organisations and sector bodies.

Developing nations need more than words from G20 tax reform

Tax reform is squarely on the agenda for the G20 Brisbane summit in November. The current international tax regime is broken and it’s going to take significant effort on a global scale to fix it. In a recently released CEDA Report on securing the G20’s future, I recommended the role Australia could play in ensuring real and substantive progress is made in international tax reform. There’s a very real need to ensure the Brisbane summit is not just a “talkfest”. One group that stands to significantly win or lose from reform, or lack of it, is developing nations.

G20 host Australia faces hard truths of multinational profit shifting

The G20 Finance Ministers have the opportunity this weekend to endorse the initial recommendations of the OECD on how to address the global problem of multinational tax avoidance. The work of the OECD on the issue to date is substantial. Most notable is the adoption by many nations, including Australia, of the Common Reporting Standard for the automatic exchange of tax information. This standard will allow significant inroads to be made into tax avoidance, particularly by individuals sheltering money offshore. This is the first step in an ambitious tax reform program. There is a long way to go if we are to end the issue now known as Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS). This week’s release of the first of the OECD recommendations contains some positive signs that further advances will be made. It also recognises some hard truths.

G20 tax reform plan should prevent another Lux leaks

The G20 Communique is good news on the international tax reform front. As part of the G20 commitment to boost economic resilience the Communique commits G20 nations to taking action to ensure fairness in the international tax system. This means they are looking at ways to ensure profits are taxed where economic activities deriving the profits are performed and where value is created.

Tax transparency can work for companies if they do it right

The Tax Transparency Package released by the European Commission last week comes amid global moves by the G20 and others to make it more difficult for companies to avoid paying their fair share of tax. But as serious information sharing plans are hammered out between nations around the world, the Australian government is considering protecting the privacy of some of Australia’s richest people, diluting transparency measures aimed at private companies.

Not all corporate tax avoiders will be snared by new rules

Hockey’s budget announcement of two major tax integrity measures was flagged before the budget was handed down, but even that came as no surprise. Integrity, or lack thereof, in our tax system is a hot topic and an easy target for a Treasurer looking to sell a federal budget. The first of the proposed changes is to our GST regime. No-one likes hearing that they will be paying more tax. But, the charging of GST on supplies of digital products and services in Australia by an off-shore supplier will at least make sense to the general public. With the inherent unfairness in the current system and a revenue raising prediction of A$350 million over the next four years, most are likely to accept the logic of such a measure. The second of the proposed changes are new laws to be included in Australia’s general anti-avoidance provision. New laws, which will apply from 1 January 2016, are aimed at multinational companies engaged in aggressive tax practices. The proposed anti-avoidance law is designed to stop multinationals that artificially avoid a taxable presence in Australia. It is difficult to see how this strategy of addressing specific behaviour through what is considered a general provision will work. And, it is these changes that are already causing confusion.