The CGT small business concessions : recent evidence from the perspective of the tax practitioner

On 21 September 1999 Division 152 was inserted into the Income Tax Assessment Act (1997) (ITAA 1997). It was subsequently subject to amendments in 2006. Division 152 contains the small business CGT concessions, which enables eligible small business taxpayers to reduce the amount of tax payable on capital gains arising from certain CGT events (including the sale of the small business itself) that occur after 11:45 am on 21 September 1999. One of the stated principal objectives of the legislation was to provide a concessionary regime for small business owners who did not have the same ability to access the concessionary superannuation regime (particularly the superannuation guarantee charge) generally available to employees. The then Federal Treasurer, Mr Peter Costello, when announcing the introduction of the concessions, specifically stated that the object of Div 152 was to provide “small business people with access to funds for retirement or expansion”. The purpose of this project is to: one, assess the extent to which small business taxpayers understand the CGT small business concessions, particularly when considering sale of their business; two, determine which of the four small business CGT concessions are being adopted and/or recommended by tax advisors to clients; and three, determine whether the recent superannuation changes announced by the Federal Government in relation to the capping of the concessional superannuation thresholds have had an impact on the use of the small business retirement concession. It is anticipated that the results of this study will reveal that that small business owners are reliant on their tax advisors to explain the operation of Division 152. It is plausible that give the complexity of the CGT concessions, most small business owners are completely unaware of the four small business CGT concessions contained in Division 152 and do not understand how these concessions apply. Our study will also reveal the extent to which each CGT small business concession has been adopted (and reasons why). In particular, emphasis will be placed on the adoption of the small business retirement concession contained in Subdivision 152-D (and specific reasons for its adoption). This study also seeks to understand whether the recent (and impending) changes to the concessional superannuation cap has resulted in the retirement concession being more widely adopted (or recommended) by tax advisors. We would expect that the results of our study to confirm this to be the case, particularly coupled with the recent economic downturn, which has led to lower superannuation fund balances. By providing accounting firms with this information, small business owners will benefit from the information, becoming better placed to be long-term self funded retirees, providing not only financial benefits to the individuals and the country, but a significant increase in social self-assurance by these members of the community.

The small business CGT concessions: Evidence from the perspective of the tax practitioner

On 21 September 1999 Division 152 was inserted into the Income Tax Assessment Act (1997) (ITAA 1997). Division 152 contains the small business CGT concessions, which enables eligible small business taxpayers to reduce the amount of tax payable on capital gains arising from certain CGT events that occur after 11:45 am on 21 September 1999. One of the principal objectives of the legislation is to provide a concessionary regime for small business owners who do not have the same ability to access the concessionary superannuation regime generally available to employees. When announcing the introduction of the concessions the then Federal Treasurer, Mr Peter Costello, specifically stated that the objective of Division 152 was to provide ‘small business people with access to funds for retirement or expansion’. The purpose of this article is to: one, assess the extent to which small business taxpayers understand the CGT small business concessions, particularly when considering the sale of their business; two, determine which of the four small business CGT concessions are most commonly adopted and/or recommended by tax practitioners to clients; and three, to determine whether the superannuation changes in relation to the capping of the concessional superannuation thresholds have had an impact on the use of the small business retirement concession.

Indigenous as ’not-Indigenous' as ’Us'?: A dissident insider's views on pushing the bounds for what constitutes 'our mob'

In australia, 'Aboriginality' is often defined by people in constrictive ways that are heavily influenced by the coloniser's epistemological frameworks. An essential component of this is a 'racial' categorisation of peoples that marks sameness and difference, thereby influencing insider and outsider status. In one sense, this categorisation of people acts to exclude non-aboriginal 'others' from participation in preinvasion indigenous ontologies, ways of living that may not have contained such restrictive identity categories and were thereby highly inclusive of outsiders. One of the effects of this is that aboriginal peoples' efforts for 'advancement' - either out of 'disadvantage' and/or towards political independence (ie, sovereignty) - become confined and restricted by what is deemed possible within the coloniser's epistemological frameworks. This is so much so that aboriginal people are at risk of only reinforcing and upholding the very systems that resulted in their original and continuing dispossession.

Towards Humane Technologies: Biotechnologies, New Media and Ethics

What are the ethical and political implications when the very foundations of life —things of awe and spiritual significance — are translated into products accessible to few people? This book critically analyses this historic recontextualisation. Through mediation — when meaning moves ‘from one text to another, from one discourse to another’ — biotechnology is transformed into analysable data and into public discourses. The unique book links biotechnology with media and citizenship. As with any ‘commodity’, biological products have been commodified. Because enormous speculative investment rests on this, risk will be understated and benefit will be overstated. Benefits will be unfairly distributed. Already, the bioprospecting of Southern megadiverse nations, legally sanctioned by U.S. property rights conventions, has led to wealth and health benefits in the North. Crucial to this development are biotechnological discourses that shift meanings from a “language of life” into technocratic discourses, infused with neo-liberal economic assumptions that promise progress and benefits for all. Crucial in this is the mass media’s representation of biotechnology for an audience with poor scientific literacy. Yet, even apparently benign biotechnology spawned by the Human Genome Project such as prenatal screening has eugenic possibilities, and genetic codes for illness are eagerly sought by insurance companies seeking to exclude certain people. These issues raise important questions about a citizenship that is founded on moral responsibility for the wellbeing of society now and into the future. After all, biotechnology is very much concerned with the essence of life itself. This book provides a space for alternative and dissident voices beyond the hype that surrounds biotechnology.

MicroRNAs targeting mutant K-ras by electrotransfer inhibit human colorectal adenocarcinoma cell growth in vitro and in vivo

Mutations of K-ras have been found in 30-60% of colorectal carcinomas and are believed to be associated with tumor initiation, tumor progression and metastasis formation. Therefore, silencing of mutant K-ras expression has become an attractive therapeutic strategy for colorectal cancer treatment. The aim of our study was to investigate the effect of microRNA (miRNA) molecules directed against K-ras (miRNA-K-ras) on K-ras expression level and the growth of colorectal carcinoma cell line LoVo in vitro and in vivo. In addition, we evaluated electroporation as a gene delivery method for transfection of LoVo cells and tumors with plasmid DNA encoding miRNA-K-ras (pmiRNA-K-ras). Results of our study indicated that miRNAs targeting K-ras efficiently reduced K-ras expression and cell survival after in vitro electrotransfection of LoVo cells with pmiRNA-K-ras. In vivo, electroporation has proven to be a simple and efficient delivery method for local administration of pmiRNA-K-ras molecules into LoVo tumors. This therapy shows pronounced antitumor effectiveness and has no side effects. The obtained results demonstrate that electrogene therapy with miRNA-K-ras molecules can be potential therapeutic strategy for treatment of colorectal cancers harboring K-ras mutations. © 2010 Nature Publishing Group All rights reserved.

"Rebirth: Combined art performance"--Shirin Madg & Sweet Sound Ensemble

Vanessa Mafe-Keane was invited to participate as choreographer in Iranian singer Shirin Madg 's project, Rebirth: Combined art performance. This project integrated singing, music, visual-art, film, dance and is based on the dissident poetry of female Iranian poet, Forough Farrokhzad. The choreographic dance movement focused on simple, lyrical, flowing classical dance forms that also incorporated everyday gestures and actions performed by two Queensland dancers, Caitlin MacKenzie and Abby Johnson. The choreographic intention was not to attempt to re-create Iranian dance practices instead, to draw inspiration and reference specific movement qualities. This was achieved through the subtle inclusion of spinning movements and focusing attention on the dancers’ arms and upper torso. This fusion became an underlying theme reflected throughout the choreographic component. Additionally, this project presented an opportunity to draw on past experiences and problem-solve ways to construct choreographic work where the dancers and the musical assemble group could be staged side by side. This experience highlighted differing approaches to rehearsal protocols within disciplines, the practicalities of staging different artists, understanding musical cues and the diversity of audience engagement. Performances: BEMAC Multicultural Centre, Brisbane 06 February 2015 and Helensvale Cultural Centre, Gold Coast 07 February 2015

Greenwashing the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Fossil fuels, the environment, and climate change

There has been much controversy over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a plurilateral trade agreement involving a dozen nations from throughout the Pacific Rim – and its impact upon the environment, biodiversity, and climate change. The secretive treaty negotiations involve Australia and New Zealand; countries from South East Asia such as Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, and Japan; the South American nations of Peru and Chile; and the members of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Canada, Mexico and the United States. There was an agreement reached between the parties in October 2015. The participants asserted: ‘We expect this historic agreement to promote economic growth, support higher-paying jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in our countries; and to promote transparency, good governance, and strong labor and environmental protections.’ The final texts of the agreement were published in November 2015. There has been discussion as to whether other countries – such as Indonesia, the Philippines, and South Korea – will join the deal. There has been much debate about the impact of this proposed treaty upon intellectual property, the environment, biodiversity and climate change. There have been similar concerns about the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – a proposed trade agreement between the United States and the European Union. In 2011, the United States Trade Representative developed a Green Paper on trade, conservation, and the environment in the context of the TPP. In its rhetoric, the United States Trade Representative has maintained that it has been pushing for strong, enforceable environmental standards in the TPP. In a key statement in 2014, the United States Trade Representative Mike Froman insisted: ‘The United States’ position on the environment in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations is this: environmental stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP or we will not come to agreement.’ The United States Trade Representative maintained: ‘Our proposals in the TPP are centered around the enforcement of environmental laws, including those implementing multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) in TPP partner countries, and also around trailblazing, first-ever conservation proposals that will raise standards across the region’. Moreover, the United States Trade Representative asserted: ‘Furthermore, our proposals would enhance international cooperation and create new opportunities for public participation in environmental governance and enforcement.’ The United States Trade Representative has provided this public outline of the Environment Chapter of the TPP: A meaningful outcome on environment will ensure that the agreement appropriately addresses important trade and environment challenges and enhances the mutual supportiveness of trade and environment. The Trans-Pacific Partnership countries share the view that the environment text should include effective provisions on trade-related issues that would help to reinforce environmental protection and are discussing an effective institutional arrangement to oversee implementation and a specific cooperation framework for addressing capacity building needs. They also are discussing proposals on new issues, such as marine fisheries and other conservation issues, biodiversity, invasive alien species, climate change, and environmental goods and services. Mark Linscott, an assistant Trade Representative testified: ‘An environment chapter in the TPP should strengthen country commitments to enforce their environmental laws and regulations, including in areas related to ocean and fisheries governance, through the effective enforcement obligation subject to dispute settlement.’ Inside US Trade has commented: ‘While not initially expected to be among the most difficult areas, the environment chapter has emerged as a formidable challenge, partly due to disagreement over the United States proposal to make environmental obligations binding under the TPP dispute settlement mechanism’. Joshua Meltzer from the Brookings Institute contended that the trade agreement could be a boon for the protection of the environment in the Pacific Rim: Whether it is depleting fisheries, declining biodiversity or reduced space in the atmosphere for Greenhouse Gas emissions, the underlying issue is resource scarcity. And in a world where an additional 3 billion people are expected to enter the middle class over the next 15 years, countries need to find new and creative ways to cooperate in order to satisfy the legitimate needs of their population for growth and opportunity while using resources in a manner that is sustainable for current and future generations. The TPP parties already represent a diverse range of developed and developing countries. Should the TPP become a free trade agreement of the Asia-Pacific region, it will include the main developed and developing countries and will be a strong basis for building a global consensus on these trade and environmental issues. The TPP has been promoted by its proponents as a boon to the environment. The United States Trade Representative has maintained that the TPP will protect the environment: ‘The United States’ position on the environment in the TPP negotiations is this: environmental stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP or we will not come to agreement.’ The United States Trade Representative discussed ‘Trade for a Greener World’ on World Environment Day. Andrew Robb, at the time the Australian Trade and Investment Minister, vowed that the TPP will contain safeguards for the protection of the environment. In November 2015, after the release of the TPP text, Rohan Patel, the Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, sought to defend the environmental credentials of the TPP. He contended that the deal had been supported by the Nature Conservancy, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, the World Wildlife Fund, and World Animal Protection. The United States Congress, though, has been conflicted by the United States Trade Representative’s arguments about the TPP and the environment. In 2012, members of the United States Congress - including Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and John Kerry (D-MA) – wrote a letter, arguing that the trade agreement needs to provide strong protection for the environment: ‘We believe that a '21st century agreement' must have an environment chapter that guarantees ongoing sustainable trade and creates jobs, and this is what American businesses and consumers want and expect also.’ The group stressed that ‘A binding and enforceable TPP environment chapter that stands up for American interests is critical to our support of the TPP’. The Congressional leaders maintained: ‘We believe the 2007 bipartisan congressional consensus on environmental provisions included in recent trade agreements should serve as the framework for the environment chapter of the TPP.’ In 2013, senior members of the Democratic leadership expressed their opposition to granting President Barack Obama a fast-track authority in respect of the TPP House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said: ‘No on fast-track – Camp-Baucus – out of the question.’ Senator Majority leader Harry Reid commented: ‘I’m against Fast-Track: Everyone would be well-advised to push this right now.’ Senator Elizabeth Warren has been particularly critical of the process and the substance of the negotiations in the TPP: From what I hear, Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, telecom, big polluters and outsourcers are all salivating at the chance to rig the deal in the upcoming trade talks. So the question is, Why are the trade talks secret? You’ll love this answer. Boy, the things you learn on Capitol Hill. I actually have had supporters of the deal say to me ‘They have to be secret, because if the American people knew what was actually in them, they would be opposed. Think about that. Real people, people whose jobs are at stake, small-business owners who don’t want to compete with overseas companies that dump their waste in rivers and hire workers for a dollar a day—those people, people without an army of lobbyists—they would be opposed. I believe if people across this country would be opposed to a particular trade agreement, then maybe that trade agreement should not happen. The Finance Committee in the United States Congress deliberated over the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations in 2014. The new chair Ron Wyden has argued that there needs to be greater transparency in trade. Nonetheless, he has mooted the possibility of a ‘smart-track’ to reconcile the competing demands of the Obama Administration, and United States Congress. Wyden insisted: ‘The new breed of trade challenges spawned over the last generation must be addressed in imaginative new policies and locked into enforceable, ambitious, job-generating trade agreements.’ He emphasized that such agreements ‘must reflect the need for a free and open Internet, strong labor rights and environmental protections.’ Elder Democrat Sander Levin warned that the TPP failed to provide proper protection for the environment: The TPP parties are considering a different structure to protect the environment than the one adopted in the May 10 Agreement, which directly incorporated seven multilateral environmental agreements into the text of past trade agreements. While the form is less important than the substance, the TPP must provide an overall level of environmental protection that upholds and builds upon the May 10 standard, including fully enforceable obligations. But many of our trading partners are actively seeking to weaken the text to the point of falling short of that standard, including on key issues like conservation. Nonetheless, 2015, President Barack Obama was able to secure the overall support of the United States Congress for his ‘fast-track’ authority. This was made possible by the Republicans and dissident Democrats. Notably, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden switched sides, and was transformed from a critic of the TPP to an apologist for the TPP. For their part, green political parties and civil society organisations have been concerned about the secretive nature of the negotiations; and the substantive implications of the treaty for the environment. Environmental groups and climate advocates have been sceptical of the environmental claims made by the White House for the TPP. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, the Australian Greens and the Green Party of Canada have released a joint declaration on the TPP observing: ‘More than just another trade agreement, the TPP provisions could hinder access to safe, affordable medicines, weaken local content rules for media, stifle high-tech innovation, and even restrict the ability of future governments to legislate for the good of public health and the environment’. In the United States, civil society groups such as the Sierra Club, Public Citizen, WWF, the Friends of the Earth, the Rainforest Action Network and 350.org have raised concerns about the TPP and the environment. Allison Chin, President of the Sierra Club, complained about the lack of transparency, due process, and public participation in the TPP talks: ‘This is a stealth affront to the principles of our democracy.’ Maude Barlow’s The Council of Canadians has also been concerned about the TPP and environmental justice. New Zealand Sustainability Council executive director Simon Terry said the agreement showed ‘minimal real gains for nature’. A number of organisations have joined a grand coalition of civil society organisations, which are opposed to the grant of a fast-track. On the 15th January 2013, WikiLeaks released the draft Environment Chapter of the TPP - along with a report by the Chairs of the Environmental Working Group. Julian Assange, WikiLeaks' publisher, stated: ‘Today's WikiLeaks release shows that the public sweetener in the TPP is just media sugar water.’ He observed: ‘The fabled TPP environmental chapter turns out to be a toothless public relations exercise with no enforcement mechanism.’ This article provides a critical examination of the draft Environment Chapter of the TPP. The overall argument of the article is that the Environment Chapter of the TPP is an exercise in greenwashing – it is a public relations exercise by the United States Trade Representative, rather than a substantive regime for the protection of the environment in the Pacific Rim. Greenwashing has long been a problem in commerce, in which companies making misleading and deceptive claims about the environment. In his 2012 book, Greenwash: Big Brands and Carbon Scams, Guy Pearse considers the rise of green marketing and greenwashing. Government greenwashing is also a significant issue. In his book Storms of My Grandchildren, the climate scientist James Hansen raises his concerns about government greenwashing. Such a problem is apparent with the TPP – in which there was a gap between the assertions of the United States Government, and the reality of the agreement. This article contends that the TPP fails to meet the expectations created by President Barack Obama, the White House, and the United States Trade Representative about the environmental value of the agreement. First, this piece considers the relationship of the TPP to multilateral environmental treaties. Second, it explores whether the provisions in respect of the environment are enforceable. Third, this article examines the treatment of trade and biodiversity in the TPP. Fourth, this study considers the question of marine capture fisheries. Fifth, there is an evaluation of the cursory text in the TPP on conservation. Sixth, the article considers trade in environmental services under the TPP. Seventh, this article highlights the tensions between the TPP and substantive international climate action. It is submitted that the TPP undermines effective and meaningful government action and regulation in respect of climate change. The conclusion also highlights that a number of other chapters of the TPP will impact upon the protection of the environment – including the Investment Chapter, the Intellectual Property Chapter, the Technical Barriers to Trade Chapter, and the text on public procurement.