101 Ways to save money on your tax -- legally!

In 101 Ways to Save Money on Your Tax – Legally! Adrian Raftery, aka Mr Taxman, gives you proven tips to help you minimise your tax debt and maximise your tax return.

101 ways to save money on your tax - legally! : 2016-2017 edition

101 Ways to Save Money on Your Tax – Legally! is the Australian taxpayer's essential guide to maximising returns. Comprehensively updated for 2016-2017, this indispensable resource explains all of the changes to the May 2016 budget to help you pay what you owe and not a penny more. You'll find answers to common questions, tax traps to avoid and plenty of tips from Mr. Taxman himself that can save you hundreds or even thousands of dollars! Leverage your business, education, family, property, medical expenses, levies, shares and superannuation to get the tax return you deserve – and are fully entitled to under Australian law. You'll also find expert advice for tax-effective investments, tax planning and how to find a great accountant, so you can position yourself for an even bigger return next year!

101 ways to save money on your tax legally! : updated for 2015-2016

101 Ways to Save Money on Your Tax–Legally! 2015–2016 sheds light on how you can increase your tax return by maximising your deductions. This practical guide explores how individual, family, property, education, employment, small business, investment property, shares, superannuation, medical expenses, levies, and other deductions can be leveraged to ensure that you receive the tax return you deserve—and that you do not overpay the government. You'll also get advice regarding tax-effective investments, tax planning, and the best way to go about finding a great accountant.Every year, you give a portion of your income to the government. While this money funds essentials like infrastructure, you certainly do not want to give more than you need to. This insightful guide provides you with the information necessary to ensure that you receive as much money back as possible on your tax return.Discover how you can maximise your deductions to increase your tax return—and get what you are entitled to back from the government each yearUnderstand the tax law changes from the May 2015 budgetAccess tips that assist you in planning and filing your taxes with your best interests in mindIdentify tax traps, and get answers to frequently asked questions101 Ways to Save Money on Your Tax–Legally! 2015–2016 is an essential resource for every Australian who pays taxes.

Self-education expenses: some thoughts for taxpayers and their advisers

With the advent of another tax year, the nature and form of self-education expenses come to mind. The income tax return for individuals makes a perceived distinction between forms of education for tax purposes but it may not be that clear for taxpayers and their advisers. Item D4 of the individual tax return allows for taxpayers to make a claim for work related self education expenses that relate to formal qualifications from a school, college or university. The individual tax return implies that there is a distmction between formal self-education and informal self-education. However when one looks at the relevant Australian Tax Office (ATO) material, this distinction could easily be over-looked.

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.

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.

Capital and Consumption Tax Reforms in a Small Open Economy

The effects of a reform in capital and consumption taxes on private welfare and government tax revenue are examined for a small open, capital-importing economy. A trade-off between private welfare and tax revenue is encountered in maximizing social welfare. Nonetheless, lowering capital taxes and raising consumption taxes can increase both private welfare and tax revenue if the initial tax rates are not optimal. In addition, a tax reform by this fashion is a likely response to a rise in the foreign rate of return on capital.

101 Ways to Save Money on Your Tax - Legally! 2012 - 2013

Do you ever wonder if you're getting everything you're entitled to when tax time rolls around—but perhaps you don't know where to start to find out if that's the case? With 101 Ways to Save Money on Your Tax, you can start here. Financial expert and award-winning accountant Adrian Raftery shares proven tips and advice for minimizing your debt and maximizing your return. With this invaluable guide, you'll learn safe ways to spend your refund, what to do if you are audited, things to look for when purchasing a property, what to remember when buying shares, and how to avoid common mistakes in business. Reveals tax tips and bonus resources to help manage your tax affairs all year round so you can get the best possible return Features fully updated advice for the 2012-2013 tax year, including the latest changes from the May 2012 budget Delves into key areas such as handling taxes for investment properties and share portfolios Covers tax topics that involve superannuation, business, employment, education, and much more

101 Ways to save money on your tax - legally! 2014-2015

Stop giving your money away!You work hard for your money, and you work even harder to set and keep a budget that makes the most of it. But when tax time arrives, do you feel shorted on your return? Nearly everyone has to pay taxes, but the government is only entitled to so much of your money. You might be letting them keep hundreds or even thousands of dollars that rightfully belong to you. No matter what your accounting habits have been so far, you can still claim what's yours.101 Ways to Save Money on Your Tax—Legally! 2014 – 2015 is your ultimate guide to maximising your return. Author Adrian Raftery, a.k.a. Mr. Taxman, is Australia's leading personal taxation expert. In the book, Raftery provides the information you need to get back every single dollar you're entitled to, plus tips and tricks that help you get the most out of deductions related to:•You, your family, and your property•Education, employment, and small business•Investment property, shares, and superannuation•Special circumstances, including medical expenses and leviesThe book also contains advice on related matters, including tax-effective investments, tax planning, and how to find a great accountant. All information has been updated to reflect tax law changes wrought by the May 2014 budget. If you're tired of paying too much tax and seeing too little return, 101 Ways to Save Money on Your Tax—Legally! 2014 – 2015 is your comprehensive guide to putting things right, starting now.

Optimal tax mix with merit goods

This paper deals with optimal taxation in a two‐class economy with two private commodities and labour. We derive optimal non‐linear income and linear commodity taxes in the presence of merit goods. We formulate merit good arguments via a pathology of individual choice. We assume weak separability between consumption and leisure and show how the standard optimal tax results are modified due to merit good considerations.

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.

Tax incentives for foreign direct investment part II : Design considerations

Part I of this article concluded that tax incentives for foreign direct investment (FDI) have become increasingly common over the past 10 years or so, especially among developing countries, and that there is substantial evidence to support the proposition that tax considerations now play an important role in many investment decisions. Countries seeking to attract FDI often feel compelled to offer tax inducements that are at least as attractive as those offered by their neighbours or competitors. Countries do so at a cost, however, and that cost may be substantial. Governments are thus placed in a dilemma - can they afford to cut taxes in order to attract investment, and can they afford not to? The second part of this article assumes that countries, and especially most developing countries, will continue to feel obliged to provide tax incentives. The aim of this part therefore is to examine ways in which those incentives can be made more effective and more efficient, thereby reducing their cost to the host country.

Tax incentives for foreign direct investment part I : Recent trends and countertrends

According to the conventional wisdom, tax incentives for investment - in particular for foreign direct investment (FDI) - are not recommended. That is the view held almost universally by theorists and by the international bodies that advise on tax matters.' Tax incentives are bad in theory and bad in practice. They are bad in theory principally because they cause distortions: investment decisions are made that would not have been made without the inducement of special tax concessions. They are bad in practice, being both ineffective and inefficient. They are ineffective in that tax considerations are only rarely a major determinant in FDI decisions; they are inefficient because their cost, in terms of tax revenue foregone, often far exceeds any benefits they may produce. Other criticisms are also frequently levelled against tax incentives for FDI - they are inequitable (since they benefit some investors but not others), they are difficult to administer and open to abuse, and they lack transparency. Thus, it is not surprising that ''the standard advice given by institutions like the World Bank and the lMF to developing countries is to refrain from offering tax incentives to foreign investors".2 The purpose of this article is not to question that advice or to challenge the conventional wisdom - except in one respect. Recent evidence does suggest that tax considerations are an increasingly important factor in investment decisions and that special tax incentives have become substantially more effective as instruments for attracting FDI than they were 10 or 20 years ago.3 The first part of this article, published here, examines some of that evidence, reviews some recent trends in national policies towards FDI, attempts to suggest why investment incentives have become more important and more effective, and looks at the pressures that are exerted on governments, especially in developing countries, to compete for FDI by offering special incentives. The second part of the article, to be published in the Bulletin next month, assumes that many countries will continue to offer tax incentives to investors regardless of the best advice, and considers how incentives might be designed in order to increase their effectiveness and efficiency.