Effectiveness of Liechtenstein entities to prevent the application of Australian income tax attribution regimes

Analyses the most common structures of Liechtenstein. The Anstalt, Stiftung, Trust, Business Trust and Company are described and the taxation consequences for an Australian investor considered. The analysis covers the CFC, FIF, transferor trust, deemed entitlement and anti-avoidance rules in Australian income tax law.

Income tax treatment of financial instruments : theory and practice

Examines the theoretical and practical aspects of the treatment of financial instruments under a realisation-based income tax. Argues that, within such a context, a system of expected-return taxation in preferable. The argument is developed through a review of the academic literature and selected legislative regimes.

Improving compliance of income tax in developing countries: Bangladesh perspective

The thesis examines tax compliance issues in developing countries in the field of income tax with special emphasis on Bangladesh. The thesis explores the state and taxpayers relationship as a fiduciary one. The effectiveness of specific legal tools in Bangladesh are discussed critically. Policy suggestions are made to improve compliance

Tax evasion and dynamic inefficiency

I show within a two-period overlapping generations model with income tax evasion that when the penalty rate set by the government is su¢ ciently small, it is theoretically possible for the capital stock to exceed the golden-rule level on the balanced-growth path. However, such a dynamic inefficiency cannot be guaranteed when the probability of evasion detection is nil.

The tax treatment of employee stock options : generous to a fault

In the 2000 budgets, both the federal and Ontario governments introduced changes to the tax treatment of employee stock options for the explicit purpose of making their tax treatment in Canada similar to or more favourable than that in the United States. The federal budget added a deferral, similar to that currently applicable to options granted by Canadian-controlled private corporations, for up to $100,000 per year of public company stock options. The Ontario budget introduced an exemption from tax for employees involved in research and development on the first $100,000 per year of employee benefits arising on the exercise of qualified stock options or on eligible capital gains arising from the sale of shares acquired by the exercise of eligible stock options. These proposals reflect the apparent acceptance by the two governments that there is a “brain drain” from Canada to the United States of knowledge workers in the “new” economy and that reductions in Canadian taxes should stem this drain. In the author’s view, the tax treatment of employee stock options, even without these changes, is overly generous. Both the federal and provincial proposals ignore the fact that most employee stock options are taxed more favourably in Canada than in the United States in any event. In particular, most employee stock option benefits in Canada are taxed at capital gains tax rates, whereas in the United States most are taxed at full rates. While the US Internal Revenue Code does provide capital gains tax treatment for certain employee stock option benefits, a number of preconditions must be met. Most important, the shares acquired pursuant to the options must be held for a minimum of one year after the option is exercised. In addition, there are monetary limits on the amount of options that qualify for capital gains treatment. In Canada, there are generally no holding period requirements or monetary limits that apply in order for the option holder to benefit from capital gains tax rates. Empirical evidence indicates that the vast majority of employees in the United States exercise their options and immediately sell the shares acquired. These “cashless exercises” do not benefit from capital gains treatment in the United States, whereas similar cashless exercises in Canada generally do. This empirical evidence suggests not only that the 2000 budget proposals are unwarranted, but also that the existing treatment of employee stock options in Canada is already more generous than that in the United States. This article begins with a theoretical “benchmark” for the taxation of employee stock options. The author suggests that employee stock options should be treated in the same manner as other income from employment. In theory, the value of the benefit should be included in income when the option is granted or vests. However, owing to the practical difficulty of valuing employee stock options, the theoretical benchmark proposed is that the value of the benefit (the difference between the fair market value of the shares acquired and the strike price under the option) be taxed when the shares are acquired, and the employer be entitled to a corresponding deduction. The employee stock option rules in Canada and the United States are then compared and contrasted with each other and the benchmark treatment. The article then examines the arguments that have been made for favourable treatment of employee stock options. Included in this critique is a review of the recent empirical work on the Canadian brain drain. Empirical studies suggest that the brain drain—if it exists at all—is small and that, despite what many newspapers and right-wing think-tanks would have us believe, lower taxes in the United States are not the cause. One study, concluding that taxes do have an effect on migration, suggests that even if Canada adopted a tax system identical to that in the United States, the brain drain would be reduced by a mere 10 percent. Indeed, even if Canada eliminated income tax altogether, it would not stop the brain drain. If governments here want to spend money in order to stem the brain drain, they should focus on other areas. For example, Canada produces fewer university graduates in the fields of mathematics, sciences, and engineering than any other G7 country except Italy. The short supply of university graduates in these fields, the apparent loss of top-calibre academics to US
universities, and the consequent lower levels of university research in these areas (an important spawning ground for new ideas in the “new” knowledge-based economy) suggest that Canada may be better served by devoting more resources to its university institutions, particularly in post-graduate programs, rather than continuing the current trend of budget cuts that universities have endured and may further endure if taxes are reduced.
As far as employee stock options are concerned, if Canada does want to look to the United States for guidance on tax reform (which it seems to do with increasing frequency of late), it should adopt the US rules applicable to nonstatutory options, which are close to the proposed benchmark treatment. In the absence of preferential tax treatment, employee stock options would still be included in compensation packages provided that there were sound business reasons for their use. No persuasive evidence has been put forward that the use of stock options, in the absence of tax incentives, is suboptimal. Indeed, the US experience suggests quite the opposite.

The trouble with income trusts

This paper sketches broadly the efficiency and equity effects of income trusts that make their use as a substitute for the direct holding of shares of a corporation problematic for tax policy purposes. The paper also considers the potential effectiveness of an equity recharacterization rule applicable to the high-yield junk debt that is the common feature of the basic income trust structure. The author suggests that this type of narrowly focused rule would be more target-efficient than other possible responses to income trusts, such as fundamental reform of the corporate income tax or the restrictions on the holding of trust units proposed in the 2004 budget. However, a principal difficulty in designing an equity recharacterization rule is ensuring that it applies equally to structures that realize the same effect as the basic income trust structure but do not use high-yield junk debt.
The author argues that income trusts are examples of tax-driven financial innovation in the sense that they replicate an existing set of securities and therefore have no nontax rationale. These securities are essentially redundant, and the innovative process of which they are a product does not constitute “genuine” financial innovation. This essential characteristic of income trusts distinguishes them from real estate investment trusts, which arguably do not present a tax policy problem (or at least not the same one). More particularly, income trust transactions are redundant in the sense that they do not complete capital markets by providing investors with a risk and return payoff profile that is otherwise unavailable. In the absence of any efficiency gains or desirable distributional effects associated with income trusts, the available tax benefit is the subject of a defensible government response intended to eliminate it. But without any clear evidence that income trusts are substituted generally for the corporate form, any response can defensibly be limited to a narrowly targeted one that introduces a “taxlaw friction” by shifting the debt-equity boundary that is the focus of the basic income trust structure. Because the precise dividing points along this boundary lack any obvious normative content, the suggested policy focus should be the development of a legislative response that redraws the debt-equity boundary in a manner that minimizes perceived efficiency losses otherwise associated with the use of income trusts.

Capital gains tax in South Africa : lessons from Australia?

In the budget review of23 February 2000, the South African Minister of Finance announced that a capital gains tax ('CGT') would be introduced into South Africa, the anticipated start date at that point being 1 April 2001. Pursuant to Taxation Laws Amendment Act 5 of 2001, a CGT of general operation was introduced into the South African Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 (the 'ITA 1962') through the insertion of the Eighth Schedule¹, read together with s 26A of the Act. Section 26A is the charging provision that states that a person's taxable income included their 'taxable capital gain'. As discussed below, the start date was revised to 1 October 2001.

"To GAAR or not to GAAR-that is the question:" Canadian and Australian attempts to combat tax avoidance

In both Canada and Australia the relevant governments found their initial legislative attempts to combat tax avoidance to be ineffective. In time in each country it was concluded that the respective general avoidance provisions were of limited application and avoidance provisions were of limited application and ineffective to combat the sophisticated tax avoidance schemes promoted by tax advisers. In Canada it was determined that Income Tax Act, R.S.C 1985, s. 245(1) would be repealed and replaced with a general anti-avoidance rule ('GAAR') contained in a new s. 245 ITA. The Australian government similarly decided to replace Income Tax Assessment Act, Cth. 1936, s. 260 with a new general anti-avoidance measure, Part IVA ITAA. This article compares and contrasts the Canadian and Australian GAARs. Through the evaluation of each regime the article seeks to identify which model is most effective. It will be sen which model is most effective. It will be seen that both regimes have some features that are preferable to the other and thus both GAARs might be improved by incorporating aspects of the other anti-avoidance model.

Income taxation commentary and materials

The formula of this established text remains the same in this new edition. The last section (entities and international) has been expanded along the lines of the first and second editions with discrete chapters to replace the amalgamated chapters for 'international' and 'entities'.

Hunting the unobservables for optimal social security a general equilibrium approach

We study the optimal size of a pay-as-you-go social security program for an economy composed of both permanent-income and hand-to-mouth consumers. While previous work on this topic is framed within a two-period partial equilibrium setup, we study this issue in a life-cycle general equilibrium model. Because this type of welfare analysis depends critically on unobservable preference parameters, we methodically consider all parameterizations of the unobservables that are both feasible and reasonable—all parameterizations that can mimic key features of macro data (feasible) while still being consistent with micro evidence and convention (reasonable). The baseline model predicts that the optimal tax rate is between 6 percent and 15 percent of wage income.

A study of job satisfaction and tax complexity

The introduction of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Australia) was an attempt to decrease the complexity of the tax system, but the issue of complexity is still evident. Accounting practitioners are becoming overwhelmed with the amount of tax legislation and researchers have suggested that they are less satisfied in their jobs as a result. This study examines whether tax complexity affects accounting practitioners' job satisfaction. Demographic and personality factors are considered. The issues that were investigated further include practitioner perceptions of the most complex area(s) of tax law and the primary causes of a complex tax system. It was found that although tax complexity is causing job dissatisfaction, demographic factors and personality characteristics do not appear to be significant factors. Instead, the large volume of tax law was identified as having the most significant impact on complexity (resulting in widespread dissatisfaction) and income tax was regarded as the most complex area.

Optimal redistribution when educational background matters

Higher education plays an important role in determining individuals lifetime
earnings. In turn, the decision to become educated depends to a large extent on innate ability and on family characteristics, including both family
wealth and educational background. In this paper, we abstract from family
income differences to concentrate on the effects of fiscal policies on the
decision to undertake higher education when the educational background
matters. In a dynamic framework, where successive generations are linked by educational background, we consider a government that uses both linear income taxation and a lump-sum subsidy to education. Conditions for
optimality of each policy are derived. The factors that determine the sign
and magnitude of the tax rate and the subsidy are identified and include
concerns for redistribution, efficiency and the educational externality on
future generations

Black fella land – white fella tax : changing the CGT implications of aboriginal/native title

The taxation of aboriginal/native title payments gives rise to a number of complex and difficult legal and policy issues. Reform measures announced on 13 February 1998 by the then Federal Treasurer and Attorney-General did not address the possible capital gains tax (‘CGT’) implications and even those relating to ordinary income under s 6-5 Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) remain unimplemented. The much anticipated Report of the Native Title Payments Working group (6 February 2009), while primarily focusing on non-taxation issues, also recognises the need for taxation reform and makes some recommendations in regard to such. Most recently, on 18 May the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Nick Sherry, the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, and the Attorney General, Robert McClelland, announced the commencement of a national consultation on the tax treatment of native title, including the interaction of native title, Indigenous economic development and the tax system. The Assistant Treasurer recognised the need for “greater clarity and increased certainty for native title holders on how the tax system and native title interact.” At the same time, they released a paper entitled Native Title, Indigenous Economic Development and Tax to guide the national consultation. The proposed measures considered in the paper, including exempting Native title payments and/or creating a new tax exempt Indigenous Community Fund, provide a welcome step towards reform in this area. This article is part of a broader research project that explores the CGT implications of aboriginal/native title. While these provisions impact on both Indigenous traditional owners and relevant payers, such as mining companies, the focus in the project is particularly on the CGT implications for the traditional owners. This first part of the project examines the status of aboriginal/native title and incidental/ ancillary rights as CGT assets. The broader research project will then build on this analysis in the context of relevant CGT events. As the preliminary findings in this article evidence the CGT implications of aboriginal/native title are far from certain. The application of CGT to aboriginal/native title raises more issues than it answers. The key reason is that the current law is entirely unsuitable to communally held inalienable aboriginal/native title. Nevertheless, it will be seen that it is arguable that aboriginal/native title and/or incidental rights are post-CGT assets and acts in relation to such could trigger a CGT event with tax implications for the traditional owners. It will be suggested that these current tax provisions provide a very pertinent example where the law operates as a blunt tool that does not appropriately promote justice and reconciliation. To tax Indigenous communities as a result of acts that extinguish or impair their traditional ownership is incongruous. A specific provision(s) should be included in the capital gains provisions to ensure any such payments are exempt from taxation. This is not only fair given the history of uncompensated extinguishment of aboriginal title Australia, but also promotes the ability of Indigenous communities to optimise the financial benefits stemming from aboriginal/native title agreements.