Taxation Rulings And Fringe Benefit Tax †Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Taxation Rulings And Fringe Benefit Tax Assessment? Answer: Introducation As determined under taxation rulings of MT 2027 under sub section 136 (1), the use of the assessable income will be considered based on the private usage. Despite of this, as per sub-section 136 (1), has stated on the various types of the operating cost as per the valuation method has been used in the business and the same has been stated with the private use made by the associate or the employees. As per the paragraph 3, the different types of the Miscellaneous Taxation Ruling is required for the business in terms of recording in the logbook and the same has been seen as an identical form of the document for the use in the private use of a car and the same has been applied as per the operating cost methodology. It has been further determined that the different types of the consideration made in the taxation has been based on the travelling distance of Charlie with more than 50,000 km relating to work. The operational cost model is applicable for the determination of the fringe benef it of the car and the same has been complied with the sub-section 136 (1) of the Miscellaneous Taxation Rulings of 2027 (Australian Trade Commission, 2015). The main question has been seen in terms of the determination of taxation arise out of the business and personal use. Henceforth, the car used by the employee was taken exclusively in course in generating the assessable income of the employee. The various considerations has been taken with various factors in assessing of the income which needs to be produced as per the assessable income and done as per sub section 136 (1). The study has further followed the course of employment that has been able to provide the various types of the business activity carried with the employment activity of the employee constituted with the use of FBT. In addition to this, the car made by the associate has been taken into consideration with the business which is carried out in a similar fashion and considered for the purpose of business use. As per the given in the case, Charlie has made use of the vehicle at the time of his employment and this has been carried out with the business activities. Charlie has been further seen to use the car in the production of the assessable income of the employee and the same has been able to attract Fringe benefit Tax. The various types of the test has been further seen to be based on the as per both private and business for FBT and the same has been seen to be applicable with assessing the deductibility rationale under section 51 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. Different types of the evidences has been inferred from use of car by the use of employment and the same needs to be considered as per the deductions of income tax. The determination of the various types the difference among the business use and private use has been seen with the use of present case Charlie and the same needs to be evaluated as per the deductions allowable for the income tax (Australian Government, 2015). The various types of the consideration has been further seen to be consistent with the guidelines derived from the Miscellaneous Taxation Rulings of 2027 and the different types of the principles has been further seen to be applied based on the income tax. The various types of the rulings of the taxation has been further seen to be assessed on the different types of the rulings stated under Sub-division F of Division 3 of the income tax in terms of car expenses incurred and the aspect which needs to be considered for the income tax determination. The tax ruling has been seen to be based on the determination as per taxation rulings of IT 112 and the decision needs to be held as per the given case of Lunney and Hayley v FCT (1958). The circumstance related to the same has been considered as per the various consideration of ordinary private travel. The different types of the consideration relating to travel to work is considered as a mandatory requirement for the assessment of the income and this aspect cannot be considered in the course income and earnings. Hence, the distance travelled by Charlie needs to be considered as private and the aspect that he has made use of during his employment. It further needs to be considered that the various types of the other aspects related itinerant nature of the employment. The main reference of the case has been further seen to be taken based on the Newsom v Robertson (1952) 2 All ER 728; (1952), the cost consideration has been considered with Charlie in travelling from home to the place o f work and the cost involved in the same. It has been further discerned that the court has been able to acknowledge the travel expense which has been considered in travelling from home to the chambers or to various courts in course of the day has not amounted to the expenses (Hosking, 2016). Employment duties of an Itinerant Nature: It has been discerned that for a long time, travel of employee from home may be constituted as a business travel on such a situation where the individual is seen to be unemployed and is inherently itinerant. As per the case of Simon in Taylor v Provan (1975) AC 194, the travel of Charlie has been considered as employment travel as the travel has been considered as the fundamental part of his work. Moreover, the employment terms of Charlie is required to discharge the various types of the employment duties considered more than once based on the place of employment (Australian Taxation Office, 2015). It has been further seen that as per the FBT Act 1986, Charlie was seen to be using the car of the employer partly used for employment purpose and partly used for private usage. Charlie has been further seen to incur the costs such as cost of repairs, registration, insurance and maintenance. Henceforth, for the purpose of FBT deductions Charlie will be able to claim the various types of the work related portion of the cost as it was utilised for producing the assessable income (Taylor et al.,, 2015). Car parking fringe benefit: The car parking fringe benefit has been seen to be considered as per employers parking based on the following conditions: The car has been parked in the premise and the same was seen to be owned or leased under the control of provider The car had been seen to be parked exceeding four hours The vehicle has been leased or owned as per the control of employee The vehicle was given in respect to the employment of the employee The car has been further seen to be used as per the travel between work and home for minimum of one day The same has been further seen to be evident with the aforementioned conditions. It has been discerned that Charlie has parked his car at a secure area of parking which has been considered from the employer and for the same Shine Homes has made a payment of $ 200 every week. The main consideration has been further able to show that the car was parked in the garage of Charlie and the same was under the control of the provider. The vehicle was further provided to Charlie as per the terms of his employment. In addition to this, Charlie was able to use the car for travelling from home to work every day. Henceforth, the fringe will arise as per the deductions claimed with Charlie and Homes with parking fees paid on behalf of the employee (Devos, 2014). FBT on accommodation: As per the Fringe Benefit Tax Act 1986, the main form of the provision has been represented with the entertainment in form of accommodation, drink or recreation which is in connection to the entertainment. As evident from the case stud, Charlie has encountered with a minor accident was not able to use the vehicle for a total period of 2 weeks. This has been further seen to be taken based on the wedding of Charlie and Shine Holmes, who under took the decision for hiring of the car for that particular period and allow Charlie to attend his honeymoon (Grantley Taylor Richardson, 2013). The present circumstance has been further seen to be considered as per the fringe benefit provision for tax, which has been able to attract the tax liability for the entertainment of the employees and the non employees for a weekend, thereby offering them a holiday. As per the given situation it has been further seen that the different types of the rulings and the timing of the fringe benefit and the ins talment of fringe benefit has been taken into consideration based on subsection 51 (1). As per the rulings of taxation TR 94/25, the fringe benefit instalments is generally considered as per generating assessable income seen to take place in conducting the business activities and the amount of the same are seen to be deductible as per subsection 51 (1) of the ITAA (Meng, 2014). The liability associated to the Fringe Benefit Tax for Shine Homes have taken place with the various types of the common wealth legislations. As per section 5 of the Fringe Benefit Tax Act 1986, tax is seen to be generally imposed based on the various considerations made as per the FBT of an employer outstanding in a particular year. As per the reference Tubemakers of Australia Ltd v. FC of T93the fringe benefit sum needs to be composed with the total amount incurred with the numerous FBT provided to Charlie by Shine Homes (DAscenzo, 2015). As per the given scenario, it has been further seen to be evident that the consideration various types of the expenses such as honeymoon accommodation, parking fees, hiring cost and the expenses incurred in producing or gaining of the taxable income. The main consideration of this has been seen with the compliance with subsection 51 (1) of the ITAA 1997 and the expenses which has taken place in gaining or produced with the assessable income for carrying of a business and this needs to be considered with the deductible expenses (ATO, 2016). Conclusion The important considerations of the study have been able to highlight on the different types of the benefits based on fringe benefit and the same is seen to be taxable as per FBT Act 1986. The study has been further able to show the relevant case laws and sections which is related to the car fringe benefit. The use of the vehicle by Charlie has been constituted on accordance to the production of the assessable income from the employee and the same is seen to attract high amount of Fringe Benefit Tax. Reference List: ATO. (2016). Luxury car tax. Australian Tax Office, 5. Retrieved from https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Luxury-car-tax/ Australian Government. (2015). Australian Taxation Office. Registerting for GST. Retrieved from https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/GST/Registering-for-GST/ Australian Taxation Office. (2015). Yearly reports and returns | Australian Taxation Office. Retrieved from https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Yearly-reports-and-returns/ Australian Trade Commission. (2015). Australian Business Taxes. Retrieved from https://www.austrade.gov.au/International/Invest/Guide-to-investing/Running-a-business/Understanding-Australian-taxes/Australian-business-taxes DAscenzo, M. (2015). Modernising the Australian Taxation Office: Vision, people, systems and values. eJournal of Tax Research, 13(1), 361377. Devos, K. (2014). Do penalties and enforcement measures make taxpayers more compliant?- The view of Australian tax evaders. Journal of Business Economics, 5(2), 265284. Retrieved from https://www.academicstar.us Hosking, A. (2016). Australian Taxation Office adds voice authentication to its app. Biometric Technology Today. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-4765(16)30038-8 Meng, S. (2014). How may a carbon tax transform Australian electricity industry? A CGE analysis. Applied Economics, 46(8), 796812. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2013.854302 Rootes, C. (2014). A referendum on the carbon tax? The 2013 Australian election, the Greens, and the environment. Environmental Politics, 23(1), 166173. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2014.878088 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), 1225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2013.02.005 Taylor, G., Richardson, G., Taplin, R. (2015). Determinants of tax haven utilization: Evidence from Australian firms. Accounting and Finance, 55(2), 545574. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12064