LAW5230 Assignment Semester 3, 2016 Page | 1 LAW5230 Assignment Taxation Law Assignment Due date: 6 January 2017 Value: 40% Word Limit: 4,000 words (excluding calculations) This assignment consists of two (2) parts. Part A consists of a problem solving scenario (1,000 words) and Part B is a research assignment (3,000 words). You must complete both Part A and Part B. Pay careful attention to the marking criteria at the end of each Part. Part A Julie is 22 years old and was born in Vancouver, Canada. On 2 September 2015, she arrived in Brisbane on a 12-month working holiday visa. Prior to arriving in Brisbane Julie had always lived with her parents in Canada. Julie had worked in Vancouver prior to leaving for Australia and had been saving for her travel. She did not own any significant assets in Canada, only personal possessions such as clothes and a few electronic items. She left most of this with her parents while she was in Australia. Julie stayed in a hostel in Brisbane for 2 weeks after arriving, visiting the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast and other tourist attractions. She then travelled to Bundaberg in Queensland to work as a fruit picker on a farm for three months. She lived with other backpackers in a hostel. With her savings she then travelled around North Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia for three months staying in hostels. When her savings started to run out Julie found work in a Perth coffee shop. Julie shared rented accommodation with friends she had met while backpacking. She was in Perth for three months. On 16 June 2016 Julie decided to return to Vancouver and moved back into her parents' house. She wanted apply for a working holiday in the United Kingdom so started working and saving for her next adventure. After six months she started travelling again. Required: Discuss with reference to legislation, case law and/or rulings whether Julie would be considered a resident of Australia for tax purposes for the income year ended 30 June 2016. You do not need to consider the temporary residency rules.LAW5230 Assignment Semester 3, 2016 Page | 2 During the year-ended 30 June 2016 Julie had the following transactions:  Salary from employment in Canada prior to 31 August 2015 equivalent to AUD$5,500.  Salary paid by a fruit grower in Bundaberg AUD$6,000.  A $250 prize for winning the annual watermelon eating contest in Bundaberg.  Interest on her Australian bank account of $180.  Interest on her Canadian bank account equivalent to AUD$200, from which $20 withholding tax had been deducted by the Canadian bank prior to crediting her account on 1 March 2016.  $220 from the sale of excess clothing, sleeping bag and other personal items on ebay prior to Julie leaving Australia. Required: Based on your conclusion on Julie's residency, and discussing the source and derivation of income principles, state which amounts would be included in her assessable income for the year. You do not need to consider the consequences of any Double Tax Agreements.LAW5230 Assignment Semester 3, 2016 Page | 3 LAW5230 – Taxation Law Semester 3, 2016 Assignment Marking Criteria Sheet PART A – Problem Solving Little attemp t F C B A HD Identification of legal issues, legislation and case law Overall the student has identified the relevant assessable income issues, legislation and where appropriate case law and rulings. 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Application Demonstrated level of understanding of the specific residency issues in relation to Julie through the application of the identified law. 1 2 5 6 7.5 9 Demonstrated level of understanding of the specific derivation and source of income issues in relation to Julie through the application of the identified law. 1 2 4 5 6.5 8 Conclusions Overall, the student has drawn appropriate and valid conclusions after applying the law. 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Total out of 25 Description of Performance Standards; HD – the student has shown a very high level of demonstrated ability in relation to the stated criteria by covering all valid points in a clear and succinct manner. The student may have also demonstrated an ability to think beyond the facts and recognise the broader implications of the facts, missing facts or alternate arguments. A – The student has show a high level of demonstrated ability in relation to the stated criteria by either covering all valid points or by covering the majority of valid points in a clear and succinct manner. The student may have very briefly or occasionally shown ability at the HD level. B - The student has show a good level of demonstrated ability in relation to the stated criteria by covering most of the valid points. The student may have made some minor incorrect statements or missed some minor points. C - The student has show a satisfactory level of demonstrated ability in relation to the stated criteria by covering the main valid points. The student may have made a number of minor incorrect statements but did make incorrect statements in relation to major points. F - The student has not shown a satisfactory level of demonstrated ability in relation to the stated criteria by missing some main points or by making incorrect statements in relation to major points. Little Attempt – The student has not addressed or attempted to address this criterion.LAW5230 Assignment Semester 3, 2016 Page | 4 Part B – 75 Marks (3,000 words) You are required to prepare a written research assignment that addresses one of the provided topics below. The purpose of the task is for you to demonstrate high level critical reflection and analytical reasoning skills in the context of the application of Australian taxation law and taxation law policy. You must undertake academic research which demonstrates the following:  An in-depth your understanding of how the specific tax law applies,  The policy context of the law and if relevant how other jurisdictions deal with similar issues,  Critical reflection as to whether the law achieves its stated purpose, aligns with principles of good tax policy or could be improved/amended. These critical reflections should be supported by the research you have undertaken as well as your own independent thought. Topic Choices 1. Self-Assessment system – discuss and critically evaluate the extent to which Australia's self-assessment encourages individuals to comply with the taxation legislation. You should include a discussion on the components of the self-assessment regime and how each component contributes to taxpayer compliance. 2. Work-related allowable deductions – discuss and critically evaluate the extent to which Australia's deduction regime for individual taxpayers satisfies the principles of a good tax system (specifically simplicity and fairness). You may like to compare and contrast this with the deduction system in New Zealand. 3. Negative Gearing – discuss and critically evaluate the extent to which tax deductible negative gearing impacts upon savings and investment decisions. Your paper should clearly outline what is meant by negative gearing from a tax perspective and how the Australian tax system treats negatively geared investments. You should include an evaluation of whether negative gearing from a tax perspective should be removed. 4. Company tax rate – discuss and critically evaluate the Federal Government's policy of lowering the company tax rate to 25%. You should discuss potential advantages and disadvantages and any alternatives. 5. Small Business Concessions – discuss and critically evaluate the Small Business CGT Concessions in Australia. You should include a discussion of the overall policy objectives and your evaluation of whether regime currently meets these objectives or whether further amendments are necessary.LAW5230 Assignment Semester 3, 2016 Page | 5 LAW5230 Part B – Research Assignment Criteria Little attempt F C B A HD Demonstrated technical understanding of the chosen tax law topic. No/little attempt made in relation to this criterion 1 Very little technical understanding of the legal topic demonstrate and/or many instances of incorrect understanding. 4 Sound technical understanding of the legal topic demonstrated with some instances of incorrect understanding. 7.5 Good technical understanding of the legal topic demonstrated, with few instances of incorrect understanding. 10 High level technical understanding of the legal topic demonstrated, with no/very few instances of incorrect understanding. 12 Very High level technical understanding of the legal topic demonstrated, no instances of incorrect understanding. 15 Ability to analyse and present practical applications of the law in the context of the overall paper, rather than simply describe the law. No attempt made in relation to this criterion. 0 Did not demonstrated an ability to explain tax law concepts in the context of how it is relevant to practical applications. 3 Demonstrated sound ability to explain tax law concepts in the context of how it is relevant to practical applications in some instances. Some insightful and relevant applications made. 6 Demonstrated a good ability to explain tax law concepts in the context of how it is relevant to practical applications in some instances. Practical applications were mostly insightful and relevant. 7.5 Demonstrated a very good ability to explain tax law concepts in the context of how it is relevant to practical applications in many instances. Practical applications were mostly insightful and relevant. 9 Demonstrated an excellent ability to explain tax law concepts in the context of how it is relevant to practical applications in all instances. Practical applications were insightful and relevant. 12 Ability to demonstrate critical reflection on the topic researched incorporating independent thought and ability to critically analyse research presented. No/little attempt made in relation to this criterion 1 Insufficient evidence of effective analysis, balanced evaluation, personal perspectives made. 4 Few instances of careful analysis of the research. Limited ability to balance and evaluate competing arguments in the literature and/or limited articulation of personal perspectives throughout paper. 7.5 Some evidence of careful analysis of the research. Some instances of an ability to balance and evaluate competing arguments in the literature as well as some personal perspectives throughout paper. 10 Evidence and multiple instances of careful analysis of the research. Evidence of an ability to balance and evaluate competing arguments in the literature as well as clearly articulated personal perspectives throughout paper. 12 Strong evidence and multiple instances of careful analysis of the research. Strong evidence of an ability to balance and evaluate competing arguments in the literature as well as clearly articulated personal perspectives throughout paper. 15 Ability to demonstrate independent, high quality research. No/little attempt made in relation to this criterion 1 Little evidence of quality and independent research. Many major sources overlooked. Very few sources from outside course materials. 4 Some evidence of careful, relevant, quality and independent research undertaken. Many major research sources/authors overlooked. A few sources from outside course materials. 7.5 Evidence of careful, relevant, quality and independent research undertaken. Few major research sources/authors overlooked. Some sources from outside course materials. 10 Evidence of careful, relevant, high quality and independent research undertaken. No major research sources/authors overlooked. Many sources from outside course materials. 12 Evidence of careful, relevant, high quality and independent research undertaken. No research sources/authors overlooked. Many sources from outside course materials and all high quality. 15LAW5230 Assignment Semester 3, 2016 Page | 6 Overall clarity of expression, use of grammar and appropriateness of the language and terminology for an academic research paper. No/little attempt made in relation to this criterion 1 No instances of sophisticated and academic language used. Many instances of incoherent. Lacks readability. 2 Few instances of sophisticated and academic language used. Somewhat clear and readable expression used throughout. Many instances of unclear expression. 3 Mostly sophisticated, clear and readable expression used throughout. Moderately academic language used throughout. Few instances of unclear expression. 4 Some sophisticated language, but otherwise, very clear and highly readable expression used throughout. Appropriate academic language used throughout. 5 Sophisticated, clear and highly readable expression used throughout. Very appropriate academic language used throughout. 6 Clear and logical structure, development of clear arguments, supported conclusions reached. No/little attempt made in relation to this criterion 1 Very little persuasive argument used in paper. Little structure or flow. Many inconsistent / unsupported conclusions reached. 2 Somewhat persuasive argument built throughout paper. Some structure presented, though paper may have some flow problems, or inconsistent / not well supported conclusions presented. May have some inconsistencies. 3 Moderately persuasive argument built throughout paper. Clear structure resulting in some supported conclusions/ recommendations with few inconsistencies. 4 Persuasive argument built throughout paper. Clear and logical structure resulting in some well supported conclusions/ recommendations. 5 Highly persuasive argument built throughout paper. Very clear and logical structure resulting in well supported conclusions/ recommendations. 6 Ability to use chosen referencing method appropriately and correctly No/little attempt made in relation to this criterion 1 Inability to use chosen referencing method appropriately and correctly. Inconsistent and fundamental errors. 2 Acceptable standard of referencing, citations and bibliography. Some fundamental errors. 3 High standard of referencing, citations and bibliography. Some minor errors. 4 Very high standard of referencing, citations and bibliography. Very few errors. 5 Very high standard of referencing, citations and bibliography. Almost no errors. 6 Total out of 75 TOTAL (out of 100) General Comments END OF ASSIGNMENT