Income and Expenses for an Individual †Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss about the Income and Expenses for an Individual? Answer: Introducation In this case, Danny is a resident of Australia he was engaged in the technician work in the company Robin Pty Ltd. He resigned from the company for undertaking study at Charles Strut University. The company offered Danny that he could return to the office after completing the study. Danny has participated in the student exchange program and has incurred substantial costs. Danny was in a study trip and worked as a casual tutor in the university where he was paid $4000. The issue here is to determine whether the expenses incurred by Danny are allowable as deduction. Law The laws that have been applied are: Section 8-1 of the Income tax Assessment Act 1997; Taxation Ruling 98/9; FCT v Hatchett 71 ATC 4184 Anstis v FCT 2009 ATC Section 82A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936; The allowable income and expenses for an individual is governed by the application of the Income Tax Assessment Act, case laws and taxation ruling. The Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 in section 995-1 provides that deduction means any amount that can be deducted. This definition is not useful in determining the deduction allowable so the common laws and cases studies should be considered before ascertaining the expenses. It should be noted that the allowable deduction should be determined after considering the nature of expenses (Gale Samwick, 2014). The expenses that are of capital nature are not allowed as deduction. The expenses that are of revenue nature are not allowed as deduction. It should be noted that the expenses that have been incurred for earning exempted income is not allowed as deduction. The section 8-1(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 provides that the expense incurred for producing or earning assessable income is allowed as deduction. It is further provided that the expenses can be deducted as allowable deduction if it is incurred for producing the assessable income. The law provides that outgoing or loss is allowed as deduction if it is incurred for producing the assessable income (Snape De Souza, 2016). In case the tax payer is business then the expenses incurred for producing or generating income for business is allowed as deduction. In section 8-1 (2) of the Income tax Assessment Act 1997 it is provided that the expenses is not allowed as deduction if the loss or outgoing is in the nature of capital, private expenses, expenses incurred for producing assessable income. It should be noted that there must be necessary relationship between the assessable income and loss or outgoing expenses. In the case of Charles Moore V FCT (1956) that the taxpayer can c laim deductions for the receipts that have been stolen from the store at the gun points that are not insured. It should be noted that the expenditure for producing the assessable income is allowed as deduction (Ciconte et al., 2016). The expenditure that a tax payer incurs for reducing the future expenses is not allowed as deduction. The nature of expenses that are allowed as deduction has been explained above. In this case, the discussions have been made for expenses that have been incurred for studying abroad. The discussion is made after considering the Taxation Ruling 98/9. The Taxation Ruling 98/9 deals with the self education expenses that are allowed as deduction under section 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. This expenditure that are allowed as deduction under the taxable income is provided in the Taxable Ruling. In the Para 12 of the Taxation Ruling expenses related to self education is allowed as deduction under section 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 if there is relevant connection between the income tax payer of the current years. In Para 13 it is stated that if the income earning activity of the taxpayer is based on the skills and specific knowledge of the self-education helps in improving the skills then the expenses related to self-education is allowed as deduction (Berry Hay, 2016). It is provided in Para 14 that if the subject of study increases the taxpayers income from the current level of income then the expenses related to the self-education is allowed as deduction. The argumen ts that after self-education the taxpayer will get employment will not be allowed as deduction for the expenses that have been incurred for the self-education. That means if a taxpayer has incurred expenses for self-education in which the taxpayer is not in the profession is not allowed as deduction as per Para 15 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. It should be noted that the principles for allowing expenditure should not be applied on a mutually exclusive basis but should be considered in conjunction with the section 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. The Para 17 provides that expenses is allowed as deduction under section 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 if the essential character of the expenses is that of income producing. The essential character of the expenses is determined after analysing the all he objective circumstances (Bulman Hoxby, 2015). There can be circumstances that the expenses that are allowed as deduction is apportioned under section 8-1 of the Income tax Assessment Act 1997. That means if during the study tour the expenses have been incurred for working related purposes or private purpose then the expenses should be apportioned between the purposes. In case the expenses that have been incurred for private purpose is incidental for producing income earning activity then expenses that are only allowed for producing the assessable income is allowed as deduction (Robinson et al., 2015). It should be noted that if the expenditure related to the private purpose is only incidental for producing the main income earning activity then the expenditure is not allowed as deduction. In Para 22 the Taxation Ruling states that deduction is allowed for the amount of decline in the value of the depreciating assets under section 4025 of Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 that was held during the income years and is used for taxable purpose. In case of self-education if the depreciable assets are used then the expenses of depreciation can be allowed as deduction (Fitzsimons Carr, 2014). The depreciation amount should be reduced to the extent the assets has been used for purpose that is not related for producing income. The Para 23 of the Taxation Ruling provide that the expenses that are allowed as deduction are provided below: Tuition or course fees that are paid for attending the institution for education, work related expenses and student union fees; The cost of professional journal, stationery and textbooks; The expenses for airfares including the expenses related to the study tour overseas, on conference related seminars or for attending the institution for education. This are the part of the cost that are necessary for participating in the tour; If the taxpayer is away from home then the expenses related to accommodation and meals that have been incurred on the study tour abroad for the work related conference and attending the institution; The interest expenses related to borrowing that are used for self education for improving the knowledge and skills of the taxpayers are allowed as deduction. The Para 24 of the ruling provided that following expenses related to the self education are not allowed as deduction: The student contribution amount or the amount of debt is not allowed as deduction; The expenditure that have been incurred for meals for attending the self education expenses, conference related to work and seminars; The expenditure related to accommodation and meals if the taxpayers has incurred for the expenses for the self education purpose; In the case of FCT v Hatchett 71 ATC 4184 it was held that the expenses that have been incurred by a primary school teacher to gain the certificate of the secondary school teacher is allowed as deduction. The main reason for allowing the deduction is that it will increase the professional qualification and help in further increase in income. In the case of Anstis v FCT 2009 ATC it was held that the expenses that have been incurred for travelling between the home and educational institution or place of work is not allowed as deduction. The section 82A of the Income Tax Assessment Act of 1936 provides that maximum amount of $250 is allowed as deduction in an income year for the self-education expenses. Application On analyzing the case, Danny is engaged is an electrical technician. The study will further improve the qualification of Danny in the same profession that means this will help him to increase the income of Danny (Taylor Richardson, 2013). Therefore based on the FCT v Hatchett 71 ATC 4184 it can be said that the expenses should be allowed as deduction. The expenses that have been incurred for air ticket is allowed as deduction as provided in Para 23 of the ruling. The expenses that are incurred for the accommodation is not allowed as deduction as provided in Para 24 of Taxation ruling. The expenses incurred for meal is not allowed as deduction as per Para 24 of the ruling (Gutman, 2016). The expenses incurred for the book and study material is allowed as deduction. The amount paid for the purchase of the laptop is not allowed as deduction.. In this case, the motor vehicle expenses that have been used for 5 months is not allowed as deduction as it used for going to education instituti on as per the case Anstis v FCT 2009 ATC. Statement showing deduction under section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997 Particulars Amount Air ticket $ 1,500.00 Books and study material $ 800.00 Purchase of laptop $ 1,800.00 Allowable deduction $ 4,100.00 Table 1: Allowable deduction (Source: Created by Authority) The table has provided that the total expenses that can be claimed as deduction under section 8-1 of the Income tax Assessment Act 1997 based on the cases and taxation ruling discussed above. The section 82A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 provides that the expenses for self-education will be allowed as deduction under section 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 in the income year to the extent of net amount of $250. Conclusion Based on the above discussion it can be said that Danny is allowed to take deduction of $250 under section 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 during the current income year. Reference Adebisi, J. F., Gbegi, D. O. (2013). Effect of tax avoidance and tax evasion on personal income tax administration in Nigeria.American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences,1(3), 125-134. Bargain, O., Dolls, M., Immervoll, H., Neumann, D., Peichl, A., Pestel, N., Siegloch, S. (2015). Tax Policy and Income Inequality in the United States, 19792007.Economic Inquiry,53(2), 1061-1085. Berry, C., Hay, C. (2016). The great British rebalancingact: The construction and implementation of an economic imperative for exceptional times.The British Journal of Politics and International Relations,18(1), 3-25. Bradley, S. (2017). Inattention to Deferred Increases in Tax Bases: How Michigan Home Buyers Are Paying for Assessment Limits.Review of Economics and Statistics,99(1), 53-66. Bulman, G. B., Hoxby, C. M. (2015). The returns to the federal tax credits for higher education.Tax Policy and Economy,29(1), 13-88. Cazier, R., Rego, S., Tian, X., Wilson, R. (2015). The impact of increased disclosure requirements and the standardization of accounting practices on earnings management through the reserve for income taxes.Review of Accounting Studies,20(1), 436-469. Ciconte, W., Donohoe, M. P., Lisowsky, P., Mayberry, M. A. (2016). Predictable uncertainty: The relation between unrecognized tax benefits and future income tax cash outflows. Davis, A. K., Guenther, D. A., Krull, L. K., Williams, B. M. (2015). Do socially responsible firms pay more taxes?.The Accounting Review,91(1), 47-68. Fitzsimons, J. A., Carr, C. B. (2014). Conservation covenants on private land: issues with measuring and achieving biodiversity outcomes in Australia.Environmental management,54(3), 606-616. Gale, W. G., Samwick, A. A. (2014). Effects of income tax changes on economic growth. Gennari, E., Messina, G. (2014). How sticky are local expenditures in Italy? Assessing the relevance of the flypaper effect through municipal data.International tax and public finance,21(2), 324-344. Gutman, H. L. (2016). The Saga of Unfulfilled Business Income Tax Reform.Temp. L. Rev.,89, 267. Hoffman, W. H., Smith, J. E. (2014).South-Western Federal Taxation 2015: Individual Income Taxes. Cengage Learning. Richardson, G., Taylor, G., Lanis, R. (2013). The impact of board of director oversight characteristics on corporate tax aggressiveness: An empirical analysis.Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,32(3), 68-88. Robinson, L. A., Stomberg, B., Towery, E. M. (2015). One size does not fit all: How the uniform rules of FIN 48 affect the relevance of income tax accounting.The Accounting Review,91(4), 1195-1217. Snape, J., De Souza, J. (2016).Environmental taxation law: policy, contexts and practice. Routledge. Sutherland, H., Figari, F. (2013). EUROMOD: the European Union tax-benefit microsimulation model.International Journal of Microsimulation,6(1), 4-26. Taylor, G., Richardson, G. (2013). The determinants of thinly capitalized tax avoidance structures: Evidence from Australian firms.Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation,22(1), 12-25.