Incentivising private health insurance through the income tax regime : Capitalising on behavioural models

The Australian income tax regime is generally regarded as a mechanism by which the Federal Government raises revenue, with much of the revenue raised used to support public spending programs. A prime example of this type of spending program is health care. However, a government may also decide that the private sector should provide a greater share of the nation's health care. To achieve such a policy it can bring about change through positive regulation, or it can use the taxation regime, via tax expenditures, not to raise revenue but to steer or influence individuals in its desired direction. When used for this purpose, tax expenditures steer taxpayers towards or away from certain behaviour by either imposing costs on, or providing benefits to them. Within the context of the health sector, the Australian Federal Government deploys social steering via the tax system, with the Medicare Levy Surcharge and the 30 percent Private Health Insurance Rebate intended to steer taxpayer behaviour towards the Government’s policy goal of increasing the amount of health provision through the private sector. These steering mechanisms are complemented by the ‘Lifetime Health Cover Initiative’. This article, through the lens of behavioural economics, considers the ways in which these assorted mechanisms might have been expected to operate and whether they encourage individuals to purchase private health insurance.

The implementation of social and economic policy through the tax regime : a review of Australia's tax expenditures program

Each year the Australian Federal Treasury releases its Tax Expenditures Statement providing details of concessions, benefits, and incentives delivered through the tax regime to Australian taxpayers. The current Tax Expenditures Statement, released on 25 January 2008, lists approximately 300 tax expenditures and reports on the estimated pecuniary value in terms of revenue foregone, estimated to be a total of $50.12 billion for the 2006-07 financial year. Apart from the annual Tax Expenditures Statement, and despite the recurring fiscal impact, there is very little other scrutiny of Australia’s Federal tax expenditures program. This is despite tax expenditures often being seen as an alternative to direct expenditures with similar impact on the Federal budget. The object of tax expenditures is to provide government assistance and meet government objectives, and, as such, tax expenditures are departures from the revenue raising aspect of the tax regime. Within this context, this article examines the fundamental concept of tax expenditures as contrasted with direct expenditures and considers the role they play in the current tax regime.

The taxation of multinational banks : alternative apportionment through a unitary taxation regime aligning with economic reality

The taxation of multinational banks currently is governed by the general principles of international tax. However, it is arguable that there are characteristics exclusive to multinational banks that may warrant the consideration of a separate taxing regime. This article argues that because of the unique nature of multinational banks, the traditional international tax rules governing jurisdiction to tax and allocation of income do not produce a result which is optimal, as it does not reflect economic reality. That is, the current system does not produce a result that accurately reflects the economic source of the income or the location of the economic activity. The suggested alternative is unitary taxation using global formulary apportionment. Formulary apportionment is considered as an alternative that reflects economic reality by recognising the unique nature of multinational banks and allocating the income to the location of the economic activity. The unique nature of multinational banking is recognised in the fact that formulary apportionment does not attempt to undertake a transactional division of a highly integrated multinational entity. Rather, it allocates income to the jurisdictions based on an economically justifiable formula. Starting from this recognition, the purpose of this article is to demonstrate that formulary apportionment is a theoretically superior (or optimal) model for the taxation of multinational banks. An optimal regime, for the purposes of this article, is considered to be one that distributes the taxing rights in an equitable manner between the relevant jurisdictions, while, simultaneously allowing decisions of the international banks to be tax neutral. In this sense, neutrality is viewed as an economic concept and equity is regarded as a legal concept. A neutral tax system is one in which tax rules do not affect economic choices about commercial activities. Neutrality will ideally be across jurisdictions as well as across traditional and non-traditional industries. The primary focus of this article is jurisdictional neutrality. A system that distributes taxing rights in an equitable manner between the relevant jurisdictions ensures that each country receives its fair share of tax revenue. Given the increase in multinational banking, jurisdictions should be concerned that they are receiving their fair share. Inter-nation equity is concerned with re-determining the proper division of the tax base among countries. Richard and Peggy Musgrave argue that sharing of the tax base by countries of source should be seen as a matter of inter-nation equity requiring international cooperation. The rights of the jurisdiction of residency will also be at issue. To this extent, while it is agreed that inter-nation equity is an essential attribute to an international tax regime, there is no universal agreement as to how to achieve it. The current system attempts to achieve such equity through a combined residency and source regime, with the transfer pricing rules used to apportion income between the relevant jurisdictions. However, this article suggests, that as an alternative to the current regime, equity would be achieved through formulary apportionment. Opposition to formulary apportionment is generally based on the argument that it is not a theoretically superior (or optimal) model because of the implementation difficulties. Yet these are two separate issues. As such, this article is divided into two core parts. The first part examines the theoretical soundness of the formulary apportionment model concluding that it is theoretically superior to the arm’s length pricing requirement of the traditional transfer pricing regime. The second part examines the practical implications of accepting formulary apportionment as an optimal model with a view to disclosing the issues that arise when a formulary apportionment regime is adopted. Prior to an analysis of the theoretical and practical application of formulary apportionment to multinational banks, the unique nature of these banks is considered. The article concludes that, while there are significant implementation, compliance, and enforcement issues to overcome, the unitary taxation model may be theoretically superior to the current arm’s length model which applies to multinational banks. This conclusion is based on the unitary taxation model providing greater alignment with the unique features of these banks.

Equity for taxpayers within Australia’s retirement savings regime : a dissenting opinion

This article asks the question whether Australia’s retirement savings regime, specifically the superannuation component and the attached taxation concessions, is a regime which is equitable to all taxpayers. In a dissenting opinion, it is argued that the current regime, along with the changes proposed by the Federal Government in its response to the Henry Review, does not result in a retirement savings regime which benefits all taxpayers equally. As such, it is suggested that the only way to ensure an equitable regime is to incorporate a gender perspective into public finance analysis to determine how the retirement savings policies affect women and men differently. In doing so, a specific tax policy which provides for additional, fiscally significant concessions for taxpayers who do not fit the criteria of a ‘normal’ taxpayer, that is a taxpayer working as an employee in a full time position for an uninterrupted 35 years, should be incorporated into Australia’s current fiscal policy.

The Attack on Political Correctness: Islamophobia and the Erosion of Multiculturalism In Australia Under the Howard Regime

This article reports on civil society in Australia between 1996 and 2007 related to former Prime Minister John Howard. The article discusses Howard's neo-conservative ideology and Liberal-National coalition, noting his views on political correctness. Howard's administration is also discussed in terms of immigration, multiculturalism, indigenous land rights, othering, and Islamaphobia. Information on the effect of Islamaphobia on Australian perceptions and the treatment of Muslims is also provided

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?

Australia's adoption of an international tax regime : to engage or not to engage?

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.

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

Neither an international tax, nor an international taxing body exists. Rather, there are domestic taxing rules adopted by jurisdictions which, coupled with double tax treaties, apply to cross-border transactions and international taxation issues. International bodies such as the OECD and UN, which provide guidance on tax issues, often steer and supplement these domestic adoptions but have no binding international taxing powers. These pragmatic realities, together with the specific use of the word ‘regime’ within the tax community, lead many to argue that an international tax regime does not exist. However, an international tax regime should be defined no differently to any other area of international law and when we step outside the confines of tax law to consider the definition of a ‘regime’ within international relations it is possible to demonstrate that such a regime is very real. The first part of this article, by defining an international tax regime in a broader and more traditional context, also outlining both the tax policy and principles which frame that regime, reveals its existence. Once it is accepted that an international tax regime exists, it is possible to consider its adoption by jurisdictions and subsequent constraints it places on them. Using the proposed changes to transfer pricing laws as the impetus for assessing Australia’s adoption of the international tax regime, the constraints on sovereignty are assessed through a taxonomy of the level adoption. This reveals the subsequent constraints which flow from the broad acceptance of an international tax regime through to the specific adoption of technical detail. By undertaking this analysis, the second part of this article demonstrates that Australia has inherently adopted an international tax regime, with a move towards explicit adoption and a clear embedding of its principles within the domestic tax legislation.

Opportunities for forest finance under the International climate change regime

The international climate change regime has the potential to increase revenue available for forest restoration projects in Commonwealth nations. There are three mechanisms which could be used to fund forest projects aimed at forest conservation, forest restoration and sustainable forest management. The first forest funding opportunity arises under the clean development mechanism, a flexibility mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol. The clean development mechanism allows Annex I parties (industrialised nations) to invest in emission reduction activities in non-Annex 1 (developing countries) and the establishment of forest sinks is an eligible clean development mechanism activity. Secondly, parties to the Kyoto Protocol are able to include sustainable forest management activities in their national carbon accounting. The international rules concerning this are called the Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry Guidelines. Thirdly, it is anticipated that at the upcoming Copenhagen negotiations that a Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) instrument will be created. This will provide a direct funding mechanism for those developing countries with tropical forests. Payments made under a REDD arrangement will be based upon the developing country with tropical forest cover agreeing to protect and conserve a designated forest estate. These three funding options available under the international climate change regime demonstrate that there is potential for forest finance within the regime. These opportunities are however hindered by a number of technical and policy barriers which prevent the ability of the regime to significantly increase funding for forest projects. There are two types of carbon markets, compliance carbon markets (Kyoto based) and voluntary carbon markets. Voluntary carbon markets are more flexible then compliance markets and as such offer potential to increase revenue available for sustainable forest projects.

Statutory-backed continuous disclosure regime and corporate disclosure behaviour : does corporate governance matter?

Since 1 December 2002, the New Zealand Exchange’s (NZX) continuous disclosure listing rules have operated with statutory backing. To test the effectiveness of the new corporate disclosure regime, we compare the change in quantity of market announcements (overall, non-routine, non-procedural and external) released to the NZX before and after the introduction of statutory backing. We also extend our study in investigating whether the effectiveness of the new corporate disclosure regime is diminished or augmented by corporate governance mechanisms including board size, providing separate roles for CEO and Chairman, board independence, board gender diversity and audit committee independence. Our findings provide a qualified support for the effectiveness of the new corporate disclosure regime regarding the quantity of market disclosures. There is strong evidence that the effectiveness of the new corporate disclosure regime was augmented by providing separate roles for CEO and Chairman, board gender diversity and audit committee independence, and diminished by board size. In addition, there is significant evidence that share price queries do impact corporate disclosure behaviour and this impact is significantly influenced by corporate governance mechanisms. Our findings provide important implications for corporate regulators in their quest for...

Statutory-backed continuous disclosure regime and corporate disclosure behaviour : does corporate governance matter?

Since 1 December 2002, the New Zealand Exchange’s (NZX) continuous disclosure listing rules have operated with statutory backing. To test the effectiveness of the new corporate disclosure regime, we compare the change in quantity of market announcements (overall, non-routine, non-procedural and external) released to the NZX before and after the introduction of statutory backing. We also extend our study in investigating whether the effectiveness of the new corporate disclosure regime is diminished or augmented by corporate governance mechanisms including board size, providing separate roles for CEO and Chairman, board independence, board gender diversity and audit committee independence. Our findings provide a qualified support for the effectiveness of the new corporate disclosure regime regarding the quantity of market disclosures. There is strong evidence that the effectiveness of the new corporate disclosure regime was augmented by providing separate roles for CEO and Chairman, board gender diversity and audit committee independence, and diminished by board size. In addition, there is significant evidence that share price queries do impact corporate disclosure behaviour and this impact is significantly influenced by corporate governance mechanisms. Our findings provide important implications for corporate regulators in their quest for a superior disclosure regime.