Impact of the new business tax system (alienation of personal services income) Act 2000

The implications of categorising income as "personal services income" and the actual meaning of this term have been marked with uncertainty. The Commissioner of Taxation has long asserted that "personal services income" inherently may not be derived by an entity other than the person whose exertions produce the income. In Liedig v FCT (1994) 28 ATR 141, however, Hill J held that in the absence of a specific legislative provision, there was no basis for the Commissioner's doctrine. The specific legislative measures Hill J required were put in place through the New Business Tax System (Alienation of Personal Services Income) Act 2000. In certain circumstances this Act prevents interposed entities from deriving personal services income. Such payments are attributed instead to the individual who performs the services.

It will also be seen, however, that these provisions do not apply to entities that are conducting a "personal services business". It is submitted that the combined effect of, inter alia, the Act's definition of "personal services income" and "personal services business" is to give the Act a narrower scope than the Commissioner's personal services doctrine. Moreover, it will be submitted that the statutory definition of personal services income also suffers from the same flaws that Hill J identified as relevant to the Commissioner's personal services doctrine.

Response : A defensible and workable approach to the income tax treatment of financial instruments

It is a privilege to have the opportunity to respond to the comments on my monograph1 provided by Mark Gergen, Glenn May, and Gordon Longhouse. Their comments, which are inevitably coloured by their very different perspectives, reflect the considerable expertise that each one of them has in the area of the income taxation of financial instruments. Indeed, it is with some hesitation that I offer a response in defence of various portions of the analysis presented in my monograph in support of some pretty modest proposals in this extremely difficult area of income tax law. Although I spent considerable time exploring some necessary first principles and their implications for the design of a system for the income taxation of financial instruments, I made several concessions to certain practical constraints that led me to support, in some measure, the status quo reflected in certain of the existing literature, as well as the legislation in a select group of countries. On the assumption that many readers may be unfamiliar with the monograph, I propose to respond by outlining much of my analysis in the monograph and the proposals that are the logical outcome. Throughout the outline, I will highlight and respond to what I see as the important points of difference emphasized by Gergen, May, and Longhouse.

Global profit split: An evolutionary approach to international income allocation

International taxation is concerned mainly with the equitable allocation of cross-border income between countries in which income-earning activities take place. Such allocation has traditionally been governed by the arm’s-length principle, which has been interpreted as requiring a comparable transactional pricing approach. This approach assumes that each member of a multinational enterprise (MNE) group is a separate entity and that the transactions between related parties can be separated and compared with arm’s-length transactions. It has, however, proved difficult to apply comparable transactional pricing to internationally integrated businesses, especially those involving intangibles and services, and formulary apportionment has been suggested as an alternative. Essentially, formulary apportionment treats the MNE group as a single economic entity. The group’s profit is allocated to members according to a formula that reflects the particular member’s contribution to the production of that profit. A rich academic literature exists which either defends or attacks this alternative approach. The OECD and national governments have rejected formulary apportionment mainly on the ground that it violates the arm’s-length principle. This article proposes a global profit split (GPS) method for allocating international income. The GPS would allocate the global profit of an integrated business to each country in accordance with the economic contributions made by components of the business located in that country. The allocation would be based on a formula that would reflect the economic factors that contribute to profit making. While the GPS draws on elements of the traditional formulary apportionment and profit split methods, it also differs from them. The author discusses in detail the key issues involved in designing the GPS. She also presents and evaluates the main policy and pragmatic justifications for the adoption of this innovative approach. The author argues that the GPS is not only theoretically and practically superior to traditional income allocation methods, but also consistent with the arm’s-length principle. On the basis of historical developments, interpretation of article 9 of the OECD model tax convention, and international tax policy considerations, the author establishes that the GPS is not a radical departure from the arm’s-length principle, but rather a natural development in its evolution. She concludes that the law of evolution ison the side of reform because the GPS would provide for a fair and effective allocation of income derived from globally integrated business activities.

Taming Complexity in Australian Income Tax

Taxpayers and tax authorities recognise that complex Australian income tax law is in need of simplification - during the past decade there have been two ineffective attempts at simplification of the tax law - first by redrafting the law in plain English without addressing structural issues - second by the proposed wholesale replacement of the legislation with a new foundation, incorporating most of the causes of the complexity in the current law - with tax law growing in size and complexity, new paths to simplification must be considered.

Retirement income policy and the taxation of superannuation in Australia

Superannuation is a form of savings for retirement. The savings are invested and earn income, but the proceeds are generally not available until the beneficiary reaches retirement age} The federal government's retirement income policy has three components, two of which relate to superannuation: the age pension, which provides income support to men aged 65 and over and to women aged 62 and over.2 The pension is means tested and does not depend on previous labour force participation or individual contributions; a compulsory superannuation scheme (under the Superannuation Guarantee Charge (Administration) Act 1992 (SGA Act)), which requires contributions to be made by employers on behalf of all employees, whether full-time, part-time or casual;3 and encouragement, through the taxation system, of voluntary contributions to approved superannuation funds.4 In May 2002, the government released a report, the "Intergenerational Report", 5 which identifies issues associated with Australia's ageing population and considers the fiscal implications of those changes. The Report noted that a steadily ageing population is likely to place significant pressure on government finances. It also noted that one of the key priorities for ensuring fiscal sustainability should be "maintaining a retirement income policy that encourages private saving for retirement and reduces the future demand for the Age Pension". 6 The main way the government has sought to encourage that private saving is through the tax system, primarily by the use of tax concessions. Over the past 20 years, however, the taxation of superannuation has grown in an extremely ad hoc manner and is now inequitable, inefficient and overly complex. This article suggests that the taxation of superannuation in Australia is in urgent need of a complete review. The article further asserts that, if an appropriate framework can be devised, changes could be introduced as budgetary pressures allow.

Income differences in food consumption in the 1995 Australian national nutrition survey

Objective: To assess the relationships between an index of per capita income and the intake of a variety of individual foods as well as groups of food for men and women in different age groups. Design: Cross-sectional national survey of free-living men and women. Subjects: A sample of 5053 males and 5701 females aged 18 y and over who completed the Australian National Nutrition Survey 1995. Methods: Information about the frequency of consumption of 88 food items was obtained. On the basis of scores on the Food Frequency Questionnaire, regular and irregular consumers of single foods were identified. The relationships between regularity of consumption of individual foods and per capita income were analysed via contingency tables. Food variety scores were derived by assigning individual foods to conventional food group taxonomies, and then summing up the dichotomised intake scores for individual foods within each food group. Two-way ANOVA (income age group) were performed on the food variety scores for males and females, respectively. Results: Per capita income was extensively related to the reported consumption of individual foods and to total and food group variety indices. Generally, both men and women in low income households had less varied diets than those in higher-income households. However, several traditional foods were consumed less often by young high-income respondents, especially young women. Conclusions: Major income differentials in food variety occur in Australia but they are moderated by age and gender. Younger high-income women, in particular, appear to have rejected a number of traditional foods, possibly on the basis of health beliefs. The findings also suggest that data aggregation has marked effects on income and food consumption relationships.

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.

Isolated transactions: current income tax implications

Profits from isolated transactions will often be potentially caught by the capital gains tax provisions of the income tax legislation. Because the provisions usually tax gains at concessional rates but only apply to gains that are not otherwise taxable, it is important to determine when gains from isolated transactions constitute ordinary income. This article discusses when isolated transactions generate ordinary income, as well as briefly mentioning what statutory provisions they might be assessable under. Isolated transactions will generate ordinary income when the transaction has the sufficient indicia of a business, or when it comes under one of the strands of Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v Myer Emporium Ltd (1987) 163 CLR 199. However, the law in this area is complex and unclear in parts. The relevant tax ruling, TR 92/3, is incomplete and at times inaccurate and so is of very limited assistance.

The relationship between national income and health : a new measure applied to Bangkok

The importance of good health of a population is crucial when determining social welfare. A new health-adjusted national income indicator that explores the relationships between economic growth, health and social welfare in Bangkok, Thailand from 1975 to 1999 is applied. This new approach to social welfare analysis is based on normative social choice theory, cost–benefit and systems analysis and is called (new)3 welfare economics. This paper argues that traditional measures of welfare, such as national income, fail to reflect accurately the impact of health on social welfare.

Cigarette smoking is negatively associated with family average income among urban and rural men in regional Mainland China

Socio-economic status (SES) has a strong influence on cigarette smoking behaviour. However, as a more sensitive and realistic index of SES, family average income (FAI) has little studied regarding its association with smoking. With a response rate of 90.1%, a cross-sectional study was conducted among randomly selected urban-rural participants (n  = 29,353) between October of 2000 and March of 2001 in Nanjing, China. The proportion of male participants who were current smokers was 54.7%; for females it was 2.2%. After adjustment for possible confounding variables (area of residence, age, education, occupation) males in the middle (OR 0.76; 95% CI 0.69–0.84) and higher (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.57–0.71) FAI tertiles had lower odds of being smokers than did males in the lower FAI tertile. There were no differences by FAI category in the odds of being an ex-smoker. Therefore, current smoking among adult males is inversely associated with family average income in a regional Chinese population. FAI may inform the targeting of campaigns or other initiatives, particularly in populations where material prosperity is low in some social groups.