An examination of tax-deductible donations made by individual Australian taxpayers in 2008-09, ACPNS Working Paper 54

Each year, The Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies (CPNS) at Queensland University of Technology (QUT) collects and analyses statistics on the amount and extent of tax-deductible donations made and claimed by Australians in their individual income tax returns to deductible gift recipients (DGRs). The information presented below is based on the amount and type of tax-deductible donations made and claimed by Australian individual taxpayers to DGRs for the period 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009. This information has been extracted mainly from the Australian Taxation Office's (ATO) publication Taxation Statistics 2008-09. The 2008-09 report is the latest report that has been made publicly available. It represents information in tax returns for the 2008-09 year processed by the ATO as at 31 October 2010.

An analysis of tax expenditure versus direct expenditure

Each financial year concessions, benefits and incentives are delivered to taxpayers via the tax system. These concessions, benefits and incentives, referred to as tax expenditure, differ from direct expenditure because of the recurring fiscal impact without regular scrutiny through the federal budget process. There are approximately 270 different tax expenditures existing within the current tax regime with total measured tax expenditures in the 2005-06 financial year estimated to be around $42.1 billion, increasing to $52.7 billion by 2009-10. Each year, new tax expenditures are introduced, while existing tax expenditures are modified and deleted. In recognition of some of the problems associated with tax expenditure, a Tax Expenditure Statement, as required by the Charter of Budget Honesty Act 1988, is produced annually by the Australian Federal Treasury. The Statement details the various expenditures and measures in the form of concessions, benefits and incentives provided to taxpayers by the Australian Government and calculates the tax expenditure in terms of revenue forgone. A similar approach to reporting tax expenditure, with such a report being a legal requirement, is followed by most OECD countries. The current Tax Expenditure Statement lists 270 tax expenditures and where it is able to, reports on the estimated pecuniary value of those expenditures. Apart from the annual Tax Expenditure Statement, there is very little other scrutiny of Australia’s Federal tax expenditure program. While there has been various academic analysis of tax expenditure in Australia, when compared to the North American literature, it is suggested that the Australian literature is still in its infancy. In fact, one academic author who has contributed to tax expenditure analysis recently noted that there is ‘remarkably little secondary literature which deals at any length with tax expenditures in the Australian context.’ Given this perceived gap in the secondary literature, this paper examines fundamental concept of tax expenditure and considers the role it plays in to the current tax regime as a whole, along with the effects of the introduction of new tax expenditures. In doing so, tax expenditure is contrasted with direct expenditure. An analysis of tax expenditure versus direct expenditure is already a sophisticated and comprehensive body of work stemming from the US over the last three decades. As such, the title of this paper is rather misleading. However, given the lack of analysis in Australia, it is appropriate that this paper undertakes a consideration of tax expenditure versus direct expenditure in an Australian context. Given this proposition, rather than purport to undertake a comprehensive analysis of tax expenditure which has already been done, this paper discusses the substantive considerations of any such analysis to enable further investigation into the tax expenditure regime both as a whole and into individual tax expenditure initiatives. While none of the propositions in this paper are new in a ‘tax expenditure analysis’ sense, this debate is a relatively new contribution to the Australian literature on the tax policy. Before the issues relating to tax expenditure can be determined, it is necessary to consider what is meant by ‘tax expenditure’. As such, part two if this paper defines ‘tax expenditure’. Part three determines the framework in which tax expenditure can be analysed. It is suggested that an analysis of tax expenditure must be evaluated within the framework of the design criteria of an income tax system with the key features of equity, efficiency, and simplicity. Tax expenditure analysis can then be applied to deviations from the ideal tax base. Once it is established what is meant by tax expenditure and the framework for evaluation is determined, it is possible to establish the substantive issues to be evaluated. This paper suggests that there are four broad areas worthy of investigation; economic efficiency, administrative efficiency, whether tax expenditure initiatives achieve their policy intent, and the impact on stakeholders. Given these areas of investigation, part four of this paper considers the issues relating to the economic efficiency of the tax expenditure regime, in particular, the effect on resource allocation, incentives for taxpayer behaviour and distortions created by tax expenditures. Part five examines the notion of administrative efficiency in light of the fact that most tax expenditures could simply be delivered as direct expenditures. Part six explores the notion of policy intent and considers the two questions that need to be asked; whether any tax expenditure initiative reaches its target group and whether the financial incentives are appropriate. Part seven examines the impact on stakeholders. Finally, part eight considers the future of tax expenditure analysis in Australia.

Advance pricing arrangements : an Australian Tax Office success or a legislative failure?

Australia’s domestic income tax legislation and double tax agreements contain transfer pricing rules which are designed to counter the underpayment of tax by businesses engaged in international dealings between related parties. The current legislation and agreements require that related party transactions take place at a value which reflects an arm’s length price, that is, a price which would be charged between unrelated parties. For a host of reasons, it is increasingly difficult for multinational entities to demonstrate that they are transferring goods and services at a price which is reflective of the behaviour of independent parties, thereby making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the relevant legislation. Further, where an Australian business undertakes cross-border related party transactions there is the risk of an audit by the Australian Tax Office (ATO). If a business wishes to avoid the risk of an audit, and any ensuing penalties, there is one option: an advance pricing arrangement (APA). An APA is an agreement whereby the future transfer pricing methodology to be used to determine the arm’s length price is agreed to by the taxpayer and the relevant tax authority or authorities. The ATO views the APA process as an important part of its international tax strategy and believes that there are complementary benefits provided to both the taxpayer and the ATO. The ATO promotes the APA process on the basis of creating greater certainty for all parties while reducing compliance costs and the risk of audit and penalty. While the ATO regards the APA system as a success, it may be argued that the implementation of such a system is simply a practical solution to an ongoing problem of an inherent failure in both the legislation and ATO interpretation and application of this legislation to provide certainty to the taxpayer. This paper investigates the use of APAs as a solution to the problem of transfer pricing and considers whether they are the success the ATO claims. It is argued that there is no doubt that APAs provide a valuable practical tool for multinational entities facing the challenges of the taxation of global trading under the current transfer pricing regime. It does not, however, provide a long term solution. Rather, the long term solution may be in the form of legislative amendment.

An examination of tax-deductible donations made by individual taxpayers in Australia for 1997/98

This paper analyses the amount and type of tax-deductible donations made by Australian taxpayers to charities for the period 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1998. The information has been extracted from the Australian Taxation Office's publication Taxation Statistics 1997-98 which provides an overview and profile of the income and taxation status of Australian taxpayers using information extracted from their income tax returns for the period 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1998. This report is the latest publicly available summary. At the time of writing.

Does charity begin and end at home for tax exemptions?

Charitable organisations have remained exempt from income tax in Australia since the first comprehensive state income tax legislation in 18841 through to the current Income Tax Assessment Act 1977. The charitable exemption was also part of the English income tax legislation from its inception in 1799. The Federal Treasurer has released exposure draft legislation which seeks to remove taxation exemptions from some tax exempt organisations that perform any of their activities outside Australia or make trust distributions overseas. The proposed legislation is in response to alleged tax avoidance arrangements which involve tax exempt organisations and charitable trusts. The paper begins by describing the current charity tax exemption provisions under the Income Tax Assessment Act (ITAA). It then turns to tracing the background policy history of the amendments which appear to be at odds with the form and intent of the proposed provisions. The proposed amendments and their practical consequences are then closely scrutinised and found wanting in a number of respects. Alternative strategies are suggested to arrive at an equitable solution to the avoidance mischief.

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?

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.

Who claims gifts as a tax deduction? An examination of tax deductible gift statistics

Many donors, particularly those contemplating a substantial donation, consider whether their donation will be deductible from their taxable income. This motivation is not lost on fundraisers who conduct appeals before the end of the taxation year to capitalise on such desires. The motivation is also not lost on Treasury analysts who perceive the tax deduction as “lost” revenue and wonder if the loss is “efficient” in economic terms. Would it be more efficient for the government to give grants to deserving organisations, rather than permitting donor directed gifts? Better still, what about contracts that lock in the use of the money for a government priority? What place does tax deduction play in influencing a donor to give? Does the size of the gift bear any relationship to the size of the tax deduction? Could an increased level of donations take up an increasing shortfall in government welfare and community infrastructure spending? Despite these questions being asked regularly, little has been rigorously established about the effect of taxation deductions on a donor’s gifts.

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.

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

Australia’s small business sector has pursued often-competing imperatives of simplicity, equity and efficiency in the income tax regime (particularly focusing on the notion of simplicity) over the last decade. In 2001, there was an attempt to provide such simplification and reduce the compliance burden faced by Australian small businesses through the ‘simplified tax system’ (‘STS’). However, despite amendments over the years, the regime is much criticised. This article explores how the STS (now known as the ‘small business entity’ regime or ‘SBE’) is utilised from the perspective of tax practitioners, by analysing their recommendations to small business clients in respect of the regime. The results indicate that practitioners believe the regime did nothing to simplify the tax system for small businesses or reduce tax compliance costs. Indeed, the practitioners believed that the introduction of small business concessions had actually achieved the opposite result — it had increased tax compliance costs for their small business clients. However, tax practitioners still recommend the regime highly because it minimises their client’s tax liability.

An examination of tax-deductible donations made by individual Australian taxpayers in 2010-11

Each year, The Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies (CPNS) at Queensland University of Technology (QUT) collects and analyses statistics on the amount and extent of tax-deductible donations made and claimed by Australians in their individual income tax returns to deductible gift recipients (DGRs). The information presented below is based on the amount and type of tax-deductible donations made and claimed by Australian individual taxpayers to DGRs for the period 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011. This information has been extracted mainly from the Australian Taxation Office's (ATO) publication Taxation Statistics 2010-11. The 2010-11 report is the latest report that has been made publicly available. It represents information in tax returns for the 2010-11 year processed by the ATO as at 31 October 2012.

Tax Deductible Giving in 2010 - 2011:ACPNS Current Issues Information Sheet 2013/1

Each year The Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies (ACPNS) at QUT analyses statistics on tax-deductible donations made by Australians in their individual income tax returns to Deductible Gift Recipients (DGRs). The information presented below is based on the amount and type of tax-deductible donations made by Australian taxpayers to DGRs for the period 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 extracted from the Australian Taxation Office's publication Taxation Statistics 2010-2011.1

The CGT small business concessions : recent evidence from the perspective of the tax practitioner

On 21 September 1999 Division 152 was inserted into the Income Tax Assessment Act (1997) (ITAA 1997). It was subsequently subject to amendments in 2006. Division 152 contains the small business CGT concessions, which enables eligible small business taxpayers to reduce the amount of tax payable on capital gains arising from certain CGT events (including the sale of the small business itself) that occur after 11:45 am on 21 September 1999. One of the stated principal objectives of the legislation was to provide a concessionary regime for small business owners who did not have the same ability to access the concessionary superannuation regime (particularly the superannuation guarantee charge) generally available to employees. The then Federal Treasurer, Mr Peter Costello, when announcing the introduction of the concessions, specifically stated that the object of Div 152 was to provide “small business people with access to funds for retirement or expansion”. The purpose of this project is to: one, assess the extent to which small business taxpayers understand the CGT small business concessions, particularly when considering sale of their business; two, determine which of the four small business CGT concessions are being adopted and/or recommended by tax advisors to clients; and three, determine whether the recent superannuation changes announced by the Federal Government in relation to the capping of the concessional superannuation thresholds have had an impact on the use of the small business retirement concession. It is anticipated that the results of this study will reveal that that small business owners are reliant on their tax advisors to explain the operation of Division 152. It is plausible that give the complexity of the CGT concessions, most small business owners are completely unaware of the four small business CGT concessions contained in Division 152 and do not understand how these concessions apply. Our study will also reveal the extent to which each CGT small business concession has been adopted (and reasons why). In particular, emphasis will be placed on the adoption of the small business retirement concession contained in Subdivision 152-D (and specific reasons for its adoption). This study also seeks to understand whether the recent (and impending) changes to the concessional superannuation cap has resulted in the retirement concession being more widely adopted (or recommended) by tax advisors. We would expect that the results of our study to confirm this to be the case, particularly coupled with the recent economic downturn, which has led to lower superannuation fund balances. By providing accounting firms with this information, small business owners will benefit from the information, becoming better placed to be long-term self funded retirees, providing not only financial benefits to the individuals and the country, but a significant increase in social self-assurance by these members of the community.

Symone Anstis : the tax advocate for higher education students

Many who have taken a tax course in the last few years will be aware of the plight of Ms Symone Anstis. Her story is a simple one. The year is 2006 and Ms Anstis, an undergraduate student is undertaking a teaching degree at the Australian Catholic University. To support herself she works at Katies earning $14,946, and receives Youth Allowance of $3,622. In her tax return for that year Ms Anstis claims $920 for ‘self-education expenses’ comprising travel, supplies, student administration fees, depreciation on her computer, textbooks and stationery. These expenses totalling $1,170 are correctly reduced by the non-deductible first $250, per s 82A of the Income Tax Assessment Act (1997) (Cth) (ITAA97). Ms Anstis claims a deduction for ‘self-education expenses’ on the basis that a condition of receiving Youth Allowance is the enrolment and satisfactory progress in an acceptable course of study. Generally, a deduction is allowed where a loss or outgoing is incurred in gaining or producing assessable income and that loss or outgoing is not of a private or domestic nature. Ms Anstis claims the expenses are incurred to meet the requirements of maintaining Youth Allowance so the nexus is satisfied. On assessment, the Commissioner of Taxation disallows the deduction claimed on the basis that ‘self-education expenses’ are only deductible if they have a relevant connection to the taxpayer’s current income-earning activities or they are likely to lead to an increase in a taxpayer’s income from his or her current income-earning activities in the future.