The 1998 tax reform proposal fringe benefits tax and nonprofit organisations

Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) is a tax payable by employers on the value of certain fringe benefits that have been provided to their employees or to associates of those employees. It was introduced on 1 July 1986 to improve the equity of the taxation system because non-salary and wage benefits were escaping the taxation base. FBT ensures that tax is paid on those fringe benefits provided in place of, or in addition to, salary or wages of employees.

Revitalising the Australian Shipping Industry through Tax Reform: Alchemy or Piracy?

The Australian Federal Government has recently passed reforms to the shipping industry. These reforms are aimed at removing barriers to investment in Australian shipping, fostering global competitiveness and securing a stable maritime skills base. The shipping reform package adopts a two pronged approach designed to achieve its stated goals by providing both a ‘stick’ and ‘carrot’ to industry participants. First, the ‘stick’ is delivered via the provision of tighter regulation of coastal trading operations through a new licencing system, along with the introduction of a civil penalty regime and an increase in existing penalties. Second, the ‘carrot’ is delivered via taxation incentives available to vessels registered in Australia where the registrant meets certain specified criteria. These incentives, introduced through amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and contained in the Tax Laws Amendment (Shipping Reform) Act 2012, provide five key tax incentives to the shipping industry. From 1 July 2012, amendments give effect to an income tax exemption for qualifying ship operators, accelerated depreciation of vessels, roll-over relief from income tax on the sale of a vessel, an employer refundable tax offset, and an exemption from royalty withholding tax for payments made for the lease of certain shipping vessels.

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 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.

What if tax reform was a fundamental human right?

As an election looms in Australia, the tax debate continues unabated. Self-interest abounds. When we remove self-interest, we are often reduced to standard design principles for a taxation system. Lost in this discussion is the fundamental purpose of tax, which is to finance government expenditure. Most would argue that tax revenue should be sufficient to meet basic economic and social needs of the community. But how does a community determine what these basic economic and social needs should be? One way is by using a human rights framework. This can provide guidance for both developing and developed countries considering tax reform.

Conceptualising tax expenditures : commentary

The tax expenditures concept has been part of the Australian tax review system since 1973. In view of the fact that tax expenditures are considered part of the tax-transfer system, and that paragraph 9 of the terms of reference for the Review Panel requires a consideration of all relevant tax expenditures, we can be confident that they will be considered once again in the final report of Australia’s Future Tax System Review Panel. However, an examination of previous Government and Parliamentary reviews suggests that few of the resulting recommendations are adopted. Previous recommendations have resulted in the acknowledgement of and concern over tax expenditures, but have led to only one significant advancement: the publication of an annual tax expenditures statement. It is apparent that Brooks in his paper aims to ensure, and makes a compelling case for, the significance and central role tax expenditures should play in the Review Panel deliberations. In doing so, Brooks explores the concept itself as well as the conceptual implications impacting on the more pragmatic aspects of tax expenditure analysis. At the outset, Brooks explains why tax expenditures cannot be evaluated using traditional criteria of equity, neutrality, and simplicity, but rather can only be understood and evaluated using budgetary criteria.

Powering innovation through tax concessions : the changing research and development tax incentives

The changing R&D Tax Concession has been touted as the biggest reform to business innovation policy in over a decade. But, is it a changing tax for changing times? This paper addresses this question and further asks ‘what’s tax got to do with it?’. To answer this question, the paper argues that rather than substantive tax reform, the proposed measures simply alter the criteria and means by which companies become eligible for a Federal Government subsidy for qualifying R&D activity. It further argues that when considered as part of the broader innovation agenda, the R&D Tax Concession should be evaluated as a government spending program in the same way as any direct spending on innovation. When this is done, the tax regime is arguably only the administrative policy instrument by which the subsidy is delivered. However, it is proposed that this may not be best practice to distribute those funds fairly, efficiently, and without distortion, while at the same time maintaining adequate government control and accountability. Finally, in answering the question of ‘what’s tax got to do with it?’ the paper concludes that the answer is ‘very little’.

Small business entity tax concessions : through the eyes of the practitioner

The often competing imperatives of equity, simplicity and efficiency in the income tax regime, particularly the notion of simplicity, has been most evident within Australia’s small business sector over the last decade. In an attempt to provide tax simplification and reduce the tax compliance burden faced by Australian small businesses, provisions collectively referred to as the ‘simplified tax system’ or STS were introduced. The STS was designed to provide eligible small businesses with the option of adopting a range of ‘simplified’ tax measures designed to simplify their tax affairs whilst at the same time, reducing their tax compliance costs. Ultimately, a low take-up rate and accompanying criticisms led to a remodelled and rebadged concessionary regime known as the ‘Small Business Entity’ (SBE) regime which came into effect from 1 July 2007. This paper, through a pilot study, investigates the SBE regime though the eyes of the practitioner. In line the Australian Federal Government’s objective of simplification and reduced compliance costs, the purpose of the study was to (1) determine the extent to which the SBE concessions are being adopted by tax practitioners on behalf of their clients, (2) gain an understanding as to which individual SBE tax concessions are most favoured by practitioners, (3) determine the primary motivation as to why tax practitioners recommend particular SBE concessions to their clients, and (4) canvass the opinions of practitioners as to whether they believed that the introduction of the SBE concessions had met their stated objective of reducing tax compliance costs for small businesses. The findings of this research indicate that, while there is a perception that the SBE concessions are worth embracing, contrary to the policy intent, the reasons behind adopting the concessions was the opportunity to minimise a clients’ tax liability. It was revealed that adopting particular concessions had nothing to do with compliance costs savings and, in fact, the SBE concessions merely added another layer of complexity to an already cumbersome and complex tax code, which resulted in increased compliance costs for their small businesses clients. Further, the SBE concessions allowed tax practitioners the opportunity to engage in effective tax minimisation, thereby fulfilling the client advocacy role of the tax practitioner in maximising their clients’ tax preferences.

The inherent international tax regime and its constraints on Australia's sovereignty

On 1 November 2011 the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, the Honourable Bill Shorten MP, announced that Australia would be undertaking a reform of the ‘transfer pricing rules in the income tax law and Australia’s future tax treaties to bring them into line with international best practice, improving the integrity and efficiency of the tax system.’ Mr Shorten stated that the reason for the reform was that ‘recent court decisions suggest our existing transfer pricing rules may be interpreted in a way that is out-of-kilter with international norms.’ Further, he stated that ‘the Government has asked the Treasury to review how the transfer pricing rules can be improved, including but not limited to how to be more in line with international best practice.’ He urged all interested parties to participate in this consultation process. On 16 March 2012, an Exposure Draft and accompanying Explanatory Memorandum outlining the proposed amendments to implement the first stage of the transfer pricing reforms were released. Within the proposed changes is the explicit embedding of the use of the OECD’s Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital and Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations to help determine the arm’s length price. Does this mean that Australia engages in an international tax regime?

Powering innovation through tax concessions: The changing research & development tax incentives

The changes to the R&D tax concession in 2011 were touted as the biggest reform to business innovation policy in over a decade. Three years later, as part of the 2014 Federal Budget, a reduction in the concession rates was announced. While the most recent of the pro-posed changes are designed to align with the reduction in company tax rate, the Australian Federal Government also indicated that the gain to revenue from the reduction in the incentive scheme will be redirected by the Government to repair the Budget and fund policy priori-ties. The consequence is that the R&D concessions, while designed to encourage innovation, are clearly linked with the tax system. As such, the first part of this article considers whether the R&D concession is a changing tax for changing times. Leading on from part one, this article also addresses a second question of ‘what’s tax got to do with it’? To answer this question, the article argues that, rather than ever being substantive tax reform, the constantly changing measures simply alter the criteria and means by which companies become eligible for a Federal Government subsidy for qualifying R&D activity, whatever that amount is. It further argues that when considered as part of the broader innovation agenda, all R&D tax concessions should be evaluated as a government spending program in the same way as any direct spending on innovation. When this is done, the tax regime is arguably merely the administrative policy instrument by which the subsidy is delivered. However, this may not be best practice to distribute those funds fairly, efficiently, and without distortion, while at the same time maintaining adequate government control and accountability. Finally, in answering the question of ‘what’s tax got to do with it?’ the article concludes that the answer is: very little.

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.

More than naming and shaming needed to stop corporate tax avoidance

The report of the Senate Economics References Committee inquiry into corporate tax avoidance comes with the subtitle – “You cannot tax what you cannot see”, with a strong focus on increased transparency. The majority of the 17 recommendations in the interim report relate to improved transparency of the tax affairs of corporate taxpayers. This is a significant step in the right direction. Recent experiences in the war on corporate tax avoidance both in Australia and overseas confirm that “information is power”. Most notably, we have seen increased transparency changing the behaviour of multinational enterprises as well as inducing governments to act.