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.

Economic recovery tax act : selected provisions of interest to women.

Mode of access: Internet.

Tax reform proposals. hearing before the Committee on Finance, United States Senate, Ninety-ninth Congress, first session, June 25, 1985.

Shipping list no. 86-321-P.

Elimination of double tax benefits for military homeowners.

Item 1005-C

The Australian nonprofit sector legal and accounting almanac 2012

This is the fifth year that The Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies has published an Almanac summarising annual developments in the law relevant to Australia's nonprofit sector. The Almanac provides comprehensive summaries of legal cases in Australia and overseas, and changes to relevant legislation in all Australian jurisdictions, during 2012. It also includes articles outlining developments in taxation and charity law, and the regulation of nonprofit organisations. This edition naturally includes extensive discussion of the new national regulator, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC), and the legal arrangements surrounding its establishment. There are also articles on matters of interest arising in New Zealand, the UK, and Canada.

Industrial Policy in Asia

This paper examines three types of industrialization that have occurred in East Asia: the Japanese, Chinese and generic Asian models. Industrial policies in Japan and the Republic of Korea (ROK) initially protected local companies from foreign investors by imposing high tariffs on foreign investors. But Japan began introducing liberalization policies to attract foreign direct investment (FDI) in the 1960s, and the ROK began to welcome foreign technology in the 1970s. Meanwhile, the governments of the ASEAN countries and Taiwan established export-processing zones (EPZ) to invite FDI by offering preferential treatment, such as tax deductions and exemptions. China adopted similar industrial policies and also established EPZs, attracting the capital and know-how of multinationals and thereby strengthening the international competitiveness of local enterprises. This paper reaches the following three conclusions. First, it would have been difficult for East Asian countries to grow without FDI. Second, central governments were a crucial factor in these countries' growth strategies. Third, EPZs offering preferential treatment can effectively enhance aggregate growth in developing countries, and the Asian experience shows that this strategy can be applied to other countries that satisfy certain preconditions.

Cumulative list of organizations, contributions to which are deductable under section 23 (o) and section 23 (q) of the Internal revenue code and the corresponding sections of prior revenue acts.

Mode of access: Internet.

Research papers /

v. 1. History, trends, and current magnitudes.--v. 2. Philanthropic fields of interest. pt. 1. Areas of activity. pt. 2. Additional perspectives.--v. 3. Special behavioral studies, foundations, and corporations.--v. 4. Taxes.--v. 5. Regulation.

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.

Tax and equality in 1972: The case of Lodge v FCT

This paper is part of a larger project described at http://www.law.uq.edu.au/australian-feminist-judgments-project as follows: This project draws its inspiration from two significant recent developments in law and feminist scholarship. The first has been the emergence in Canada and the UK of feminist judgment-writing projects, in which feminist academics, lawyers and activists have written alternative judgments in a series of legal cases, imagining the different decision that might have been made by a feminist judge hearing the case. The second has been the incremental shift in recent years in the number of women judges and Magistrates presiding in courts and tribunals throughout Australia. As part of this project, a group of scholars will write alternative feminist judgments. This paper is one of the alternative feminist judgements. The case used for this discussion is Lodge v Federal Commissioner of Tax [1972] HCA 49. In that case, a woman, earning income by way of commission in her occupation as a law costs clerk, which she carried out at her home, claimed to deduct from her assessable income child care fees that enabled her to devote time and attention to her work. The High Court held that no right to a deduction had arisen. It found that, although the purpose of the expenditure was for gaining assessable income, it did not take place in, or in the course of, preparing bills of cost. Further, the expenditure was of a ‘private or domestic’ nature. This seminal taxation decision, which prevents deductions for childcare, has broad financial ramifications for workers in the home and those with childcare responsibilities. It designates childcare duties as ‘private’, notwithstanding the need for these in order, particularly for women, to work in the public sphere.

An examination of tax deductible donations made by individual Australian taxpayers in 2011–12

This study uses information based on published ATO material and represents the extent of tax-deductible donations made and claimed by Australian individual taxpayers (i.e. not including corporate entities or trusts) to DGRs, at Item D9 Gifts or Donations, in their income tax returns for the 2011-12 income year. The total amount claimed as tax-deductible donations in 2011-12 was $2.24 billion (compared to $2.21 billion in 2010-11), representing 6.85% of all personal taxpayer deductions. Since 1978-79, the actual total tax-deductible donations claimed by Australian individual taxpayers has outpaced inflation-adjusted total tax-deductible donations, measured against the Consumer Price Index. The average tax-deductible donation claimed in 2011-12 increased to $494.25, but the absolute number and percentage of taxpayers claiming donations dropped (to 4.54 million or 35.62%). Analysis is given of individual taxpayers' donation claiming by Gender, State of Residence, Postcode, Income Band, Industry of employment, and Occupation.